Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in
Europe and Central Asia Countries
Europe and Central Asia
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department
May 2002
Website: www.worldbank.org/eca/environment
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the view of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the
governments they represent.
Printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Preface
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................i
Chapter 1. General information ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 The World Bank's EA performance.................................................................................... 2
1.4 Objectives and audience...................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Sources of information and methodology........................................................................... 4
Chapter 2. The influence of World Bank OP 4.01
and EU Directive 97/11/EC on EIA development ................................................................ 6
2.1 World Bank EIA procedures.............................................................................................. 6
2.2 The EIA policies of the European Union........................................................................... 9
Chapter 3. EIA systems in ECA countries............................................................................. 12
3.1 EIA development and types of EA within ECA countries................................................ 12
3.2 ECA countries grouped by EIA development................................................................... 14
3.3 EA legislation currently in force....................................................................................... 14
3.4 Sector-specific EA guidelines........................................................................................... 15
3.5 EIA administration and interagency coordination ............................................................ 16
3.6 Strategic environmental assessment.................................................................................. 17
Chapter 4. EIA elements.......................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Screening........................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Scoping.............................................................................................................................. 21
4.3 EIA content ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.1 Environmental management plans ............................................................................... 23
4.3.2 Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 23
4.3.3 Transboundary and global impacts .............................................................................. 24
4.3.4 Monitoring.................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.5 Public participation and consultation........................................................................... 25
4.3.6 EIA documentation ...................................................................................................... 26
4.3.7 Review and decision-making ....................................................................................... 28
4.3.8 Ratification of international conventions..................................................................... 28
Chapter 5. Compatibility with World Bank OP 4.01............................................................ 30
5.1 Criteria for compatibility evaluation................................................................................ 30
5.2 Results of compatibility assessment................................................................................. 31
Chapter 6. Conclusions and recommendations..................................................................... 34
6.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 34
6.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 34
References ................................................................................................................................. 37
Figures
1. The EA process in the World Bank......................................................................................... 7
2. The EA process for the European Union .............................................................................. 10
3. Map of ECA countries: compatibility scores........................................................................ 33
Tables
1. Features of EA systems in selected development banks and aid agencies.............................. 8
2. EIA legislation in ECA countries.......................................................................................... 15
3. Legal provisions for SEA in ECA countries......................................................................... 18
4. Usage of screening methods by country groups.................................................................... 21
5. Usage of scoping methods by country groups ...................................................................... 22
6. Legal requirements for including certain information in an EIS
(OVOS volumes in the NIS) ................................................................................................ 27
7. Ratification status of ECA countries for the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions...................... 29
8. Compatibility of the EIA systems of ECA countries with World Bank OP 4.01 ................. 31
Annexes
1. Websites ............................................................................................................................... 40
2. The structure of EIA systems analysis................................................................................. 42
3. EIA laws in ECA countries.................................................................................................. 49
4. EIA-responsible institutions in ECA countries.................................................................... 53
5. Compatibility of ECA countries' EA legal frameworks with that of the World Bank........ 54
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
EA Environmental assessment
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC European Commission
ECA Europe and Central Asia (World Bank region)
ECSSD Europe and Central Asia Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development
Department (World Bank)
EIA Environmental impact assessment
EIS Environmental impact statement
EMP Environmental management plan
ENV Environment Department (World Bank)
EU European Union
FI Financial intermediary
FSU Former Soviet Union
IDF Institutional Development Facility
LEG Legal Department (World Bank)
METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (U.S.)
NGO Nongovernmental organization
NIS Newly independent states (of the former Soviet Union)
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OED Operations Evaluation Department (World Bank)
OP Operational policy (World Bank)
OVOS Otsenka vozdeistvia na okrujaiusciu sredu (environmental impact assessment)
PEE Public ecological expertise (review)
PHARE Poland and Hungary Assistance Rural and Environment Program
PIC Public Information Center (World Bank)
RESU Regional Environmental Sector Unit (World Bank)
SEA Strategic environmental assessment
SEE State ecological expertise (review)
UNECE United National Economic Commission for Europe
WBI World Bank Institute
Preface
This study is comprised of two parts. Part I is a summary and synthesis of EIA systems in ECA
and is the subject of this report. Part II, a compilation of 28 individual EIA country reports, is
available as a separate report. The individual country reports can be found on the World Bank's
external web-site at www.worldbank.org/eca/environment under "Environmental Impact
Assessment Country Reports". The study was prepared by a team of World Bank staff,
consultants and interns working under the overall leadership of Rita Klees, task manager (Senior
Environmental Specialist - ECSSD). Part I was written by Rita Klees, Arcadie Capcelea (Lead
Specialist - ECSSD), and Andre Barannik (consultant). Most of Part II - the 28 individual
country EIA system reports - was prepared by Arcadie Capcelea and Andre Barannik. Ms.
Meglena Kouneva prepared the Bulgaria and Ukraine EIA country reports as part of an
internship at George Washington University. Ms. Natalie Magradze prepared the Georgia EIA
country report as part of a summer internship at the World Bank. The Mediterranean Technical
Assistance Program (METAP) prepared the EIA reports for Albania, Croatia and Turkey in
1999. The Bank team updated these METAP reports for purposes of this study. Diane
Bendahmane (consultant) edited Parts I and II of the study. Valencia Copeland (program
assistant - ECSSD) provided production assistance. Peter Whitford (consultant) was the peer
reviewer. The work was conducted under the supervision of Ms. Marjory-Anne Bromhead
(Sector Manager � ECSSD) in 2000, and later by Jane Holt (Sector Manager � ECSSD) in 2001-
2002. Laura Tuck is the Sector Director, ECSSD.
Executive Summary
A team from ECSSD examined the environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems of the 28
countries in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region and analyzed their findings in this
report. The purpose of the effort is to improve the ability of ECSSD to ensure that lending
projects are in compliance with World Bank Operational Policy 4.01, "Environmental
Assessment," which "requires environmental assessment of projects proposed for Bank financing
to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable."
For each country, the team evaluated the country's EIA system in relation to international norms,
as represented by the Bank's OP 4.01; identified the deviations; and, made recommendations for
making the EIA system compatible with OP 4.01. Eight topic categories were used as a guide for
the review: 1) legislation and procedures, 2) administration, 3) screening, 4) scoping, 5) content,
6) review and public participation processes, 7) monitoring, and 8) national capacity for
conducting EIAs. The study involved no field visits but relied solely on examination of
documents and published information. Individual, detailed reports of the EIA systems for each
of the 28 countries were prepared and can be found on the World Bank's web-site:
www.worldbank.org/eca/environment.
Since 1989, when the first directive on environmental assessment (EA) was adopted by the
World Bank, the Bank has made systematic use of EA as a standard procedure and as the
principal means to ensure the environmental quality of its project portfolio. OP 4.01 requires
borrowing countries to prepare an EIA to evaluate a project's potential risks, identify its area of
influence, examine alternatives, and develop prevention or mitigation measures. Well over 1,200
projects have been thus assessed.
EIA is also a key instrument of environmental policy in the European Union (EU). It first issued
a directive on environment in 1985 (revised in 1997) that requires all member states to carry out
an EA of the effects of projects likely to impact on the environment. The World Bank and EU
systems differ in some respects but share key elements: screening, scoping, clear review
procedures, public participation, and post-project monitoring.
For purposes of the analysis, the ECA countries were divided into three groups, as follows:
� Central and East Europe and Turkey. EU-accession candidate countries: 10 on the way to
EU accession: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Turkey is in the negotiating process with the European
Commission (EC). These countries should harmonize their environmental legislation with
EU directives; only Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey have not yet started negotiations on
harmonization.
� The newly independent states (NIS). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Their
EIA systems are similar because they are based on the state ecological "expertise"
(review) system (SEE) developed under the former Soviet Union.
� South East Europe. Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, and Macedonia. With the exception of Croatia (which has a Stabilization
i
and Association Agreement with the EU), the EIA systems of these countries are
relatively undeveloped with weak institutional and human capacity (resulting from
economic difficulties, political instability, and military conflicts). They have all
announced their desire to become members of the EU and have started to harmonize their
legislation.
Legislative Framework. Practically all countries have EA legislation; most have developed
specific regulations or guidelines for conducting EIA or SEE, although countries in the South
East Europe group are at the initial stage of developing such documents. In most ECA countries
the authority responsible for EIAs is on the ministerial level; all countries have a ministry of
environment (usually within a multisectoral ministry and associated with another sector). While
the laws of most ECA countries stipulate the need for interagency coordination in the EIA
process, coordination is referred to in generally with no stipulations on procedures and timing.
Strategic Environmental Assessment. EA is increasingly being applied, not just to projects, but
to plans, policies, and programs, e.g., sector plans for transport, national development strategies
and agreements, etc. In ECA, as in all other regions, this type of "strategic" environmental
assessment (SEA) has developed at a much slower pace than EIA. No country in the study has
passed legislation on SEA per se, but many have requirements for review of national programs,
policies, and plans.
Screening. The screening process, i.e., determining the appropriate extent and type of EA, is
widely used in ECA countries, usually by means of lists of types of projects subject to different
levels of EIA. However, in the NIS group, screening is not generally used, except that a more in-
depth assessment may be required for major projects. The absence of a screening process means
that all projects require EAs. The sheer volume of EAs results in inefficiency and wasted
resources, compromises the rigor of EIAs for projects that have significant environmental
impacts, and encourages corruption.
Scoping aims to identify key environmental issues and decide how they will be appraised before
the assessment is begun � in this manner assessments are more focused, relevant, and useful. A
variety of scoping methods is used in ECA countries; the most common is for the responsible
authority to draw up a program for the EA study to be implemented by the developer. However,
several countries have no scoping procedures (Albania, Belarus, Bosnia Herzegovina, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), and in most NIS countries, scoping is not formally required.
Public Consultation and Disclosure. Regarding the content of an EIA, the study found the
greatest deficiency to be the lack of public consultation and disclosure. Consultation with
affected communities is recognized by the World Bank as key to identifying environmental
impacts and designing mitigation measures. Among ECA countries, formal provisions for public
participation are highly variable. While public participation is stipulated, the tools and
mechanisms necessary to implement it often are not.
Environmental Management Plan. The second most important deficiency is lack of a required
environmental management plan (EMP) as part of an EIA. An EMP outlines mitigation,
monitoring, and institutional measures for avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental
ii
impacts during project implementation and operation. An EMP should be legally binding on the
project developer but generally is not. This deficiency has led the Bank to include environmental
conditionality in project loan agreements; ECSSD routinely requires such conditionality in all
loan and grant agreements of projects with EMPs. Lack of experience among borrowers in
carrying out EMPs suggests that project supervision be particularly diligent regarding EMP
implementation.
Ratification of International EIA Conventions. Two international conventions relate to EIA: the
Espoo Convention for EIA in a Transboundary Context and the Aarhus Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters. With few exceptions, ECA countries have ratified or signed these conventions.
Compatibility with OP 4.01. The study devised a scoring system to rank the country systems
according to their "compatibility" with World Bank OP 4.01. (The score is not meant to hold up
OP 4.01 as a standard of perfection, but rather to highlight areas that may need attention.) Three
clusters emerged.
� The first cluster has comprehensive EA systems and processes that include all
internationally practiced elements: (in descending order, as to score) Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, and Slovak Republic.
These countries only need to fine-tune their systems.
� The second cluster has made visible process in adopting new legislation but issues of
compliance and enforcement and the role of affected people and local civil society
organizations will undoubtedly arise as the legislation is implemented. The countries
(again, in descending order) are: Bulgaria, Moldova, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Kyrgyzstan, Slovenia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. These countries will
require more substantive interaction with and assistance from the World Bank to
strengthen local EA capacity.
� The third cluster consists of Armenia, Turkey, Tajikistan, Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Albania. These will require significant
medium-term assistance to develop their EA legal frameworks, organizations systems,
and technical and human capabilities.
Six recommendations are put forward by the ECSSD team. The Bank should:
1. Provide technical assistance to strengthen the EIA legal framework in ECA countries,
ranging from minor improvement for the best systems, to the need to develop EIA
legislation where it is lacking completely.
2. Strengthen oversight of OP 4.01 implementation, using information in the report about
countries' EIA systems and concentrating on areas of deficiency and countries with
medium or low compatibility with OP 4.01.
3. Improve EIA knowledge management and information sharing of new environmental and
EA legal developments in client countries and of relevant legal information from the
field, possibly through development of an environmental-legal data base.
4. Improve dissemination of EA information to borrowing countries; many publications are
available but they are underused and dissemination channels need to be developed.
iii
5. Conduct training for improved EIA preparation and implementation for ECA countries �
especially in areas identified in the study as deficient � and for Bank staff on EA
requirements and procedures of member countries.
6. Develop knowledge on how EA processes are actually applied through a follow-up study
of implementation on the ground.
iv
Chapter 1. General information
1.1 Overview
The purpose of this study of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems of the countries
of the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region is to improve the ability of the Environmentally
and Socially Sustainable Development Department of ECA (ECSSD) to ensure compliance with
World Bank Operational Policy 4.01 (OP 4.01) "Environmental Assessment" (adopted in
January 1999). ECSSD is responsible for ensuring the applicability and compliance of the
World Bank's ten safeguard policies for all projects in the ECA Region, several of which fall
into the environmental area, e.g., natural habitats, forestry, environmental assessment, etc.1 OP
4.01, which provides an "umbrella" over the environmental safeguard policies, "requires
environmental assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing to help ensure that they
are environmentally sound and sustainable."
The study draws conclusions about the EIA systems of the 28 ECA countries � highlighting their
strengths and deficiencies � and it recommends actions for the World Bank, not only to improve
its internal processes vis a vis preparation and supervision of projects that have environmental
impacts, but also to assist member countries to improve their own EIA systems.
The remainder of this chapter describes the objectives, sources of information, and methodology
of the study. Chapter 2 presents the main features of the World Bank and European Union (EU)
EIA systems and how they have influenced EIA development. The next three chapters � the
heart of the study � analyze the findings of the country studies. The chapters discuss the
characteristics of the national systems and the elements they include in their EIAs and compares
their procedures with those of the World Bank. The implications of these findings for the World
Bank is an important part of the discussion. Chapter 6 � the final chapter � presents the overall
conclusions and specific recommendations.2 The individual, detailed reports of the EIA systems
for each of the 28 countries can be found on the World Bank's web-site:
www.worldbank.org/eca/environment.
1.2 Background
EA is a widely used policy tool for reducing the negative environmental consequence of
development activities and for promoting sustainable development. It covers both the
assessment of individual development projects and the appraisal of policies plans, and programs,
called "strategic environmental assessment" (SEA). EIA is defined by the Bank as a procedure
that evaluates a project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence;
examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning,
design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse
environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating
1The ten safeguard policies are environmental assessment, natural habitats, forestry, pest management, safety of
dams, disputed areas, international waterways, cultural property, involuntary resettlement, and indigenous people.
The first seven fall into the environment category. The safeguard polices, including OP 4.01, can be found on the
World Bank's external web-site: www.worldbank.org/environment/op_policies
2The country studies are available from the World Bank's external web-site: www.worldbank.org/eca/environment
1
and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation.3 Depending
on the project, the World Bank determines which EA instrument should be used to satisfy the
Bank's EA requirement: EIA, regional or sectoral EA, environmental audit, hazard or risk
assessment, and/or environmental management plan (EMP). This report focuses on EIA.
According to World Bank OP 4.01, it is the "borrowing" country's responsibility to conduct and
implement an EIA for any World Bank-financed project. The Bank's role is: (i) to advise the
borrower through the EIA process and ensure that the quality of the EIA reports and related
outputs is consistent with the requirements of OP 4.01 and (ii) to ensure that the EIA effectively
feeds into project preparation and implementation. The region coordinates the Bank's review of
EAs through consultation with its Regional Environmental Sector Unit (RESU), and, as
necessary, with the support of the Environment Department (ENV).
To date, Bank staff in the ECA Region have provided considerable guidance to borrowers
throughout preparation of EIAs for individual projects. This was appropriate because many ECA
borrowers were new and because the EA process that had evolved in countries formerly under
command economies was often quite different from that practiced in market economies.
In the future, the borrower may be assuming more responsibility for the EIA function in Bank-
financed projects. There are several reasons for this shift. First, the number of projects that
utilize a financial intermediary (FI) for implementation is growing, and these rely upon the
intermediary's capacity to comply with the local EIA regulations as well as the Bank's
requirements. Second, lending instruments, such as programmatic lending4 as well as Social
Funds and Rural Development projects, which have unidentified activities at the time of
appraisal, require the borrower to assume responsibility for the EIA process throughout the life
of the project.
1.3 The World Bank's EA performance
The World Bank's performance on environmental safeguard polices, including implementation
of OP 4.01, has been mixed. The Bank's Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and ECSSD
have conducted reviews of the EA process and found that the policies and objectives are
generally sound, although there is room for improvement (World Bank, ENV, 1993, World
Bank, 1997). These reviews have consistently found that because EAs are often not completed
early enough in the project cycle, they have less impact on project design and consequently more
on mitigation of adverse impacts.
The World Bank's mandate to improve environmental management and protection includes
providing assistance to build borrower capacity to conduct, review, implement, and supervise
EAs. By focusing assistance on individual projects rather than the bigger picture, the Bank may
be hindering progress in capacity building � and that has further implications beyond mere
3See Article 2 of WB OP 4.01:
http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/9367A2A9D9DAEED38525672C007D
0972?OpenDocument.
4Programmatic loans are provided in the context of a multiyear framework of phased support for a medium-term
government program of policy reforms and institution building.
2
compliance with OP 4.01. For instance, lack of EIA capacity, or poor EIAs, may negatively
impact the business and investment climate of a country. Environmental disasters related to
investments in some sectors (e.g., oil and gas) stemming from projects not funded by the Bank
could undermine achievements in environmental and natural resource management that are
supported by the Bank and, more generally, could threaten human health and ecosystems.
Furthermore, when key elements of a sound EIA system (e.g., a transparent review and approval
process) are routinely missing from the borrower's EIA system, as applied to Bank projects,
broader initiatives supported by the Bank (such as public sector reform and anti-corruption) may
be compromised.
When requested to do so by the borrower, the Bank has invested in environmental capacity-
building measures and has also provided non-lending mechanisms that build capacity, such as
preparation of national environmental action plans. In ECA, Institutional Development Facility
(IDF) grants have been mobilized to strengthen EIA capacity. Other donor programs have
funded activities to strengthen EIA capacity in ECA as well (e.g., the Poland and Hungary
Assistance Rural and Environment Program � PHARE and the Mediterranean Environmental
Technical Assistance Program � METAP). Yet capacity remains weak and varies within the
region.
1.4 Objectives and audience
While information about a country's EIA system might be found in a task manager's files, in a
piece of sector work, or as anecdotal information, ECA has not conducted any systematic
compilation or analysis of the EIA systems by country, and such information is not routinely
available anywhere in the Bank. The Bank's legal department does not systematically collect
copies of borrowers' legislation for any sector, including environment. In situations where EIA
legislation is available to the Bank, no work has been done to determine the compatibility of an
individual country's EIA system with that of World Bank OP 4.01. Without this information in a
systematic form, it is difficult, if not impossible, for ECSSD to determine the degree to which the
Bank could assume that a given country's EIA legal review system is sufficiently robust for the
country to take full responsibility for the EIA function, as could be the case under programmatic
lending.
This study was conducted to increase World Bank/ECSSD knowledge of the legal basis of the
EIA systems in ECA's member countries. The audience for the paper includes ECA/ECSSD
management responsible for safeguard compliance; the ECA safeguard team; task managers and
team members; ECSSD environment reviewers; the country teams; and borrowers. Others will
be interested including the World Bank Institute (WBI), the Legal Department (LEG), and ENV.
Outside the Bank, in addition to the borrowers, the private sector, investors, consultants, and
other donors may find the information useful.
The study focuses on the legal EIA framework, as that is the basis of any effective EIA system.
It has four main objectives: to (i) identify and describe EIA legislation in all ECA countries; (ii)
compare EIA systems of ECA countries with those of the World Bank (OP 4.01); (iii) identify
areas of discrepancy between a borrower EIA and OP 4.01; and (iv) recommend steps to improve
the borrower's legal framework. The study does not assess the quality of the EIA work, the
3
technical capacity for carrying out EIAs, or their actual implementation. Consideration of these
and other aspects is beyond the scope of the study. As such, it is only a first step toward
assessing a country's EA capacity.
EA procedures in member countries were compared to those of the World Bank for several
reasons: (i) compatibility with World Bank procedures facilitates the preparation of EIA reports
and is helpful in moving towards programmatic lending; and (ii) the EIA procedures of other
international banks and donor agencies are generally similar to those of the World Bank, which
thus can serve as a proxy for other systems. It is important to note that "compatibility" with OP
4.01 does not mean imposition of OP 4.01 on the borrower as a replacement for its own EIA
procedures. A borrowing country's EIA system may differ from the Bank's in ways appropriate
for the country and may also be more stringent than the Bank's. Nevertheless, the
"compatibility" assessment will highlight areas of difference for which special attention may be
needed within the context of sector or programmatic loans.
1.5 Sources of information and methodology
The study was completed by a team from ECSSD. Team members collected and analyzed
readily available primary legal sources, i.e., environmental framework and assessment laws as
provided in English and local languages at national official web sites maintained by parliaments,
governments, and respective environmental agencies of all 28 ECA borrowing countries. A
number of official publications with environmental legal texts were also used. Environmental
provisions of selected national constitutions were reviewed both through official local sources
and the World Constitutional Database of the Bayerische Julius Maximilians University at
Wurzburg, Germany.
Secondary environmental sources were used exclusively for better understanding and double-
checking of identified institutional EA constraints and proposed development. They included
National Environmental Action Plans and selected, most recent EAs for World Bank-financed
projects as deposited with the Bank's Public Information Center (PIC) and publicly available
through the Internet. For the EU-accession countries, environmental, EIA, and related policies,
instruments, and publications, as provided at the official web sites of the European Commission
(EC) and Parliament, were reviewed and analyzed.
Finally, to better understand the evolution of EA legislation in the World Bank's member-
countries, the ECSSD team reviewed and quoted a number of earlier publications, prepared for
various purposes, that analyzed the state of environmental legislation in the late 1980s to the
mid-1990s, i.e., prior and immediately after the collapse of communism in the region.
Additional information came from (i) Environmental Performance Reviews of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD); (ii) METAP EIA reviews conducted with the University
of Manchester (1999).5; (iii) Investors' Environmental Guidelines: Bulgaria, Czech Republic and
5The METAP project conducted a detailed assessment of the EIA systems in five METAP countries for
approximately $100,000 each. Three of the countries are in ECA -- Albania, Croatia, and Turkey. Material in this
report on these three countries comes from the METAP results.
4
Slovak Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and (iv) from several other publications, in
particular, Environmental Assessment in Countries in Transition, edited by Ed Bellinger, N. Lee,
C. George, and A. Paduret (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2000); O. Cherp and
Norman Lee, "Evolution of SER and OVOS in the Soviet Union and Russia (1985-1996),"
Environment Impact Assessment Review (1997): 177-204.
The ECSSD team also reviewed and analyzed legislation, information, and data available at a
number of EU and UNECE or other web sites. A list of these may be found in Annex 1. Key
resource materials are provided at the end of this report in the References section, and additional
sources of specific legal and organizational information are provided in the country studies.
The methodology used in this report is based in part on the METAP study, Institutional
Strengthening of the EIA System in METAP Countries: Pilot Project (final report, January 2000)
by Clive George and Balsam Ahmad, EIA Center of the University of Manchester, Manchester,
UK. The ECSSD team generally followed the METAP format which consisted of (i) evaluating
each country's EIA system in relation to international norms as represented by the Bank's OP
4.01, (ii) identifying significant deviations between the current EIA system and OP 4.01, and (iii)
proposing recommendations for making EIA systems compatible with OP 4.01. The METAP
format was followed because (i) a great deal of effort had gone into determining the key areas of
focus for the METAP analysis and (ii) this type of study is being replicated in other regions, and
use of the same analytical tool facilitates Bank-wide analysis.
The METAP framework of analysis divides EIA systems into eight categories of information:
legislation and procedures, administration, screening, scoping, content, the review and public
participation process, monitoring, and capacity for EIAs. Each category is further sub-divided,
for a total of 32 study elements, as shown in Annex 2. For each country, the above information
was assessed and then compared with the corresponding features of World Bank OP 4.01. It
should be noted that the country studies were prepared at different times: Albania, Croatia, and
Turkey in 1999; Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
and Kyrgyzstan in 2001, and the remaining countries in 2002.
Two factors should be kept in mind when reading this study. The METAP study made extended
field visits and held local level workshops and training programs in connection with producing
its report. That type of analysis was beyond the scope of this study, which is essentially a "desk
study," relying solely on the review of various documents, as pointed out above. The second
factor is that the study is more descriptive than analytical and should be used for operational
work.
5
Chapter 2. The influence of World Bank OP 4.01 and EU Directive 97/11/EC
on EIA Development
2.1 World Bank EIA Procedures
EIA, as a formalized appraisal requirement, dates from the enactment of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States in 1969. The NEPA required a detailed
environmental impact statement for every federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. Although much of the initial phase of EIA development took place in a
small number of high-income countries, some developing countries adopted EIA procedures
relatively early, e.g., Colombia in 1974 and the Philippines in 1978.
Since 1989, when the World Bank adopted Operational Directive (OD) 4.01 � Annex A:
"Environmental Assessment," it has made systematic use of EA as a standard procedure for
Bank-financed projects and as the principal means to ensure the environmental quality of its
project portfolio. The directive was amended in 1991 and was converted into OP 4.01 in January
1999. As mentioned above, OP 4.01 requires environmental assessment of projects proposed for
Bank financing to help ensure that they are environmentally sound and sustainable.
To date, well over 1,200 projects have been screened for their potential environmental impacts,
and the Bank's experience spans most sectors, virtually all borrowing member countries, and a
wide array of project types. The Bank's Environmental Assessment Sourcebook (World Bank,
1991) provides comprehensive support for the application of EA to all major sectors. The first
volume deals with policies, procedures, and cross-sectoral issues, while the second and third
volumes address critical sectoral issues � including agriculture, transportation, urban
infrastructure, and industry. At this stage, 27 EA Sourcebook Updates have been published,
including "Sectoral Environmental Assessment" and "Regional Environmental Assessment." 6
Figure 1 is a graphic depiction of the World Bank's EA system.
6See :
http://wbln0023/ENV/EAWeb.nsf/0a9e22456f385a0e852566260066c5cd/29a27fe8f473450c852566260062c379?O
penDocument
6
7
Table 1 shows features of EA systems in selected development banks and donor agencies. As
can be seen, the Bank's EA system is among the most comprehensive.
Table 1: Features of EA systems in selected development banks and aid agencies
Agency Procedural Application Screening of Scoping Requirements Requirements
guidelines to policies projects for public for
and plans participation monitoring
World Bank Operational Guidance for Guidance lists EA Environmental Monitoring plan
policy, sectoral and for category A sourcebook assessment required;
procedure and regional (full EIA), and updates reports publicly provisions for
good practice programs category B available supervision and
1999 (environmental (categories A post-auditing
appraisal), and and B) visits
category C
(none)
African EA guidelines Categories I, II Sectoral No provisions Monitoring,
Development 1992 and III guidelines supervision and
Bank post-project
evaluation by
country and
bank staff
Asian EA procedures Guidance lists Sectoral Environmental Monitoring plan
Development 1993 for categories A, guidance impact required
Bank B, and C (full statement
EIA, initial publicly
environmental available if not
examination, confidential
none)
European Bank Environmental List for full EIA, Not defined Guidance, Monitoring plan
for procedures 1996 broad guidance environmental required
Reconstruction for impact
and environmental statement
Development analysis publicly
available, if not
confidential
Inter-American Procedures 1990 Categories I, II,
Development III and IV
Bank
Australia Guidelines 1996 Categories 1 to Joint Reports Provisions for
AUSAID 5 screening available to the monitoring and
and scoping public ex-project
exercise evaluation
Canada Procedural List for Public access to
CIDA guide 1995 comprehensive EIA report
study
Denmark Procedures 1994 Procedures Categories A Sector No provisions Broad
DANIDA for sector and B for full checklists monitoring by
program and partial EA agency staff
support
Source: Bellinger, et al., 2000.
8
2.2 The EIA policies of the European Union
Harmonization of a country's EIA legislation with the EU's Directive on EIAs (Directive
97/11/EC) will be required for the EU accession countries in ECA � Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
and Turkey (Croatia entered preliminary discussions for EU accession in 2000). The EIA is a
key instrument of EU environmental policy. The EU directive on environment first came out in
1985 (Directive 85/337/EEC) and was subsequently revised in 1997.7 Article 2 of the directive
states, "Member states shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given,
projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature,
size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment
with regard to their effects." Article 8 states further, "The results of consultations and
information gathered pursuant to the [EIA procedure] must be taken into consideration in the
development consent procedure." These requirements are elaborated further in the EIA systems
introduced in each member state. In addition to the directives, the EC has published three
documents reflecting current EU legislation and the current state of good practice.8 These cover
screening, scoping, and review of environmental impact statements. The EU has also developed
guidelines and handbooks to assist accession countries in all aspects of the EIA process.9
The full text EU Directive 97/11/EC is available on the Internet.10 Figure 2 outlines the EA
process for the EU.
7See: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1985/en_1985L0337_do_001.pdf
8They may be found on the Internet at www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia-support.htm.
9See: www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs.
10See: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1985/en_1985L0337_do_001.pdf
9
Figure 2. The EA process for the European Union
KEY STAGES NOTES
Project Preparation The developer prepares the proposals for the project
Notification to In some member states (MS) the developer is required to notify the
Responsible Authority CA in advance of the application for development consent. The
developer may also do this voluntarily and informally.
Screening The responsible authority (CA) makes a decision on whether EIA is
required. This may happen when the CA receives notification of the
intention to make a development consent application, or the developer
may make an application for a screening opinion. The screening
decision must be recorded and made public. (See the guidance on
screening, in EIA) (Article 4).
Scoping The directive provides that developers may request a scoping opinion
from the CA. The scoping opinion will identify the matters to be
covered in the environmental information. It may also cover other
aspects of the EIA process (see the guidance on scoping-EIA). In
preparing the opinion the CA must consult the environmental
authorities (Article 5(2)). In some MS, scoping is mandatory.
Environmental Studies The developer carries out studies to collect and prepare the
environmental information required by Article 5 of the directive (see
Appendix A).
Submission of The developer submits the environmental information to the CA
Environmental together with the application for development consent. If an
Information to application for an Annex I or II project is made without
Responsible Authority environmental information, the CA must screen the project to
determine whether EIA is required (see above) (Articles 5(1) and
5(3)). In most MS, the environmental information is presented in the
form of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Review of Adequacy of In some MS, there is a formal requirement for independent review of
the Environmental the adequacy of the environmental information before it is considered
Information by the CA. In other MS, the CA is responsible for determining
whether the information is adequate. The guidance is designed to
assist at this stage. The developer may be required to provide further
information if the submitted information is deemed to be inadequate.
Consultation with The environmental information must be made available to authorities
Statutory Environmental with environmental responsibilities and to other interested
Authorities, Other organizations and the general public for review. They must be given
Interested Parties and the an opportunity to comment on the project and its environmental
Public effects before a decision is made on development consent. If
transboundary effects are likely to be significant, other affected MS
must be consulted (Articles 6 and 7).
Consideration of the The environmental information and the results of consultations must
Environmental be considered by the CA in reaching its decision on the application
Information by the for development consent (Article 8).
Responsible Authority
before making
Development Consent
Decision
10
KEY STAGES NOTES
Announcement of The decision must be made available to the public including the
Decision reasons for it and a description of the measures that will be required
to mitigate adverse environmental effects (Article 9).
Post-Decision Monitoring There may be a requirement to monitor the effects of the project once
of Project consent for it is granted.
The highlighted steps must be followed in all member states under EU Directives 85/337/EC and
97/11/EC. Scoping is not mandatory under the directives, but member states must establish a
voluntary procedure by which developers can request a scoping opinion from the CA if they wish.
The steps that are not highlighted form part of good practice in EIA and have been formalized in
some member states but not in all. Consultations with environmental authorities and other
interested parties may be required during some of these additional steps in some member states.
Provisions of the EU EIA Directive are compatible with those under the World Bank's OP 4.01
and in some aspects, e.g. EA related requirements, actually exceed the requirements of OP 4.01.
EU Directives and Regulations have binding and mandatory power. The EU accession countries
located in ECA have already begun transposing EU EIA requirements (as well as other
environmental information and reporting directives) into their respective bodies of national
legislation.
11
Chapter 3. EIA systems in ECA countries
3.1 EIA development and types of environmental assessment within ECA
Two distinct types of EIA systems exist in ECA � the "classical" system and that of the former
Soviet Union (FSU). As mentioned, the classical system had its roots in development of EIA in
the United States with passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Efforts that
laid the groundwork for EIA in Europe began in 1962 with creation of the Council of Europe.
Subsequently, in the 1968-1972 period, several basic texts proclaiming environmental protection
principles were adopted in Europe. Many believe that these initiatives in the United States and
Europe were enacted because of the pressure of public opinion. Especially after publication of
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962, governments were increasingly pressed to adopt
legislation to combat pollution.
The development of EIA procedures in Europe accelerated following the adoption in 1985of EU
Directive 85/337/EEC. Between 1985 and the mid-1990s, there was a major expansion of
formalized EA in many developed countries. By 1995, all 24 member countries of the OECD
had acquired their own EA legislation and most international and regional development banks
and bilateral aid agencies had established their own EA procedures. In some countries,
governmental agencies and officials were allowed considerable discretion as to whether an EA
was to be prepared for a given project. In others, EAs were prepared in an ad hoc manner, often
solely because they were required by international funding bodies, such as the World Bank.
Even when the regulatory framework was standardized, as for example with the EU EIA
Directive, there was scope for considerable variation in interpretation and implementation.
However, despite these variations, common principles were adhered to.
EA is an environmental protection activity that ascertains in advance the environmental impact
of a planned activity and its compliance with legal acts, norms and standards. There are several
definitions of EA, but there is a common understanding that EA should (i) be carried out at the
earliest stage of the design process, (ii) be based on a scientific approach in forecasting potential
impacts, (iii) take into consideration social and economic aspects, (iv) provide the necessary
informational basis (from an environmental and social perspective) for final decision making on
the approval of planned activities, (v) be conducted in a fully transparent way, with the public
and all interested stakeholders involved in reviewing the EA study and in decision making, and
(vi) be applied mainly for activities and projects that will have a significant impact on
environment and health -- not for all activities that might have a minor impact.
The EIA system that developed in the FSU and Central and Eastern European countries took off
in a different direction. These countries began in the early 1980s to establish their own EA
systems in various forms, including mandatory regulations and non-binding guidelines. EIA in
FSU countries is based on a procedure developed in the 1980s called state environmental expert
review (literally, state ecological "expertise" � SEE). In a SEE, expert committees review or
appraise projects or plans. The process is mandatory not only for concrete development projects,
but also for strategic developments, e.g., virtually all land-use and sector plans, federal and
regional programs and polices, and new products and technologies. In order to facilitate the SEE
process, project documentation to be submitted to the expert committee included a report called
12
OVOS (for Otsenka vozdeistvia na okrujaiusciu sredu, which means "assessment of
environmental impacts"). The OVOS described the environmental effects of the proposed
project or plan and the anticipated mitigation measures. The two processes combined are
referred to as SEE/OVOS (Cherp, 2000); they are the FSU analogue to the classical EIA. In
1985, the government of the Soviet Union issued an instruction citing the need for the mandatory
analysis of the environmental impacts of proposed economic activities, and, in 1989, the
government issued a directive instructing its executive bodies to conduct SEE for all such
activities. These decisions mark the point at which all FSU republics began to develop their own
SEE institutions and systems.
There are three significant differences between the classical and FSU systems. First, SEE/OVOS
uses a much broader screening criteria � which, for all intents and purposes, is not screening at
all. Consequently, virtually all proposed activities require a SEE. This either lowers the
standard of the procedures or introduces problems of compliance, cost, and delay. Second,
SEE/OVOS is dominated by the state � particularly environmental authorities � in reviewing and
decision-making. Finally, SEE/OVOS has a relative lack of transparency and public
participation. No information generated during the SEE/OVOS process is published or available
to the public, and the public's right to participate in SEE is limited. The process of consultation,
which is associated with obtaining necessary consents, starts at a late stage in the planning
process when no significant modifications to the project are likely to be made.
Another major but less tangible difference in the two systems is in their conceptual approaches.
The SEE/OVOS system is based on the supposition that its goal would be achieved if
environmentally unsound projects were not permitted to proceed. In contrast, the classical
system aims to use EIA to incorporate environmental considerations in project design and
facilitate selection among alternatives � in an atmosphere of full accountability to the public.
Thus, when compared with the classical-type EIA, SEE can be viewed as a tool of post-EIA
quality control and decision-making. It serves only one part of the EA procedure � i.e., its final
stage in a process that includes, inter alia, identifying, analyzing, and documenting
environmental impacts and organizing consultation and public participation.
It is important to note that, because World Bank OP 4.01 is based on the classical EIA approach,
it was the FSU countries that most often diverged from the requirements of the OP. However, as
discussed in the study, differences in the SEE/OVOS approach among the FSU countries began
to emerge in the mid-1990s, when they began passing their own national laws on environmental
assessment. All of the FSU countries still embrace the SEE/OVOS approach and have preserved
the SEE as the central element of their EIA systems. But changes have been introduced. Some
of the new national systems have been oriented to further strengthen the SEE system (Russia),
while others (Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia) have attempted to add some elements of the classical
approach. Some countries (Russia) have had enough resources to establish numerous legal acts
regulating EIA and to publish guidelines on their application. Most other FSU countries have
only managed to pass a single law or executive order to provide minor adjustments to the
SEE/OVOS system. In countries with strong environmental nongovernmental organizations
(NGO) movements, NGOs have been a major influence for change.
13
3.2 ECA countries grouped by level of EIA development
For purposes of the current analysis, all ECA countries were divided into three different groups,
based on the stage of development of their EIA systems and their EA procedures.
� Central and East Europe and Turkey
� Newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union
� South East Europe.
Central and East Europe plus Turkey group consists of EU-accession candidate countries. At
this stage, 10 of the countries in this group are already on the way to EU accession: Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Similarly, Turkey also wishes to become a member of the EU and is in the negotiation process
with the EC. According to existing procedures, all of these countries should harmonize their
environmental legislation (including EIA legislation) with EU directives. Most of these
countries have already completed this work.11 Among them only Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey
have not yet started negotiations on harmonization of Chapter 22 (Environment). They should
begin to do so in the near future.
The NIS group comprises Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. All of them have similar
EIA systems, based on SEE/OVOS (and, in some cases, new elements of the EIA approach).
South East Europe group � Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and Macedonia make up this group. Except for Croatia,
which has a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU, the South East Europe
countries are far behind in developing their EIA systems, for different reasons, including
economic difficulties, political instability, and military conflicts. Their existing EIA systems are
underdeveloped with weak institutional and human capacity. All these countries recently have
announced their desire to become members of the EU and have started to harmonize their
legislation with the EU directives. It is expected that the EU will provide them with relevant
technical assistance in this area.
3.3 EA legislation currently in force
All ECA countries have provisions for EA in their environmental protection laws. Nineteen
ECA countries have specific EA legislation. Other countries have special legal acts (approved at
the parliamentary or governmental level or, in very few cases, at the ministerial level) on EIA or
SEE/OVOS (see Annex 3 for a list of EA legislation in the 28 countries reviewed). Table 2
presents information about EIA legislation in different country groups.
In the Central and East Europe group of countries, EA legislation consists mostly of laws
approved by the parliament of the countries. There are a few exceptions: in Bulgaria, the EA
regulation was approved by the government, and in Turkey and Romania, the EIA regulation was
11See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index.htm
14
approved by ministerial order. Furthermore, in most countries in this group, additional
regulations, specifying how the laws are to be implemented, were developed. Initially, most of
the EIA documents and regulations in these countries were approved in the beginning of 1990s
in the form of various governmental regulations. By the end of the 1990s several Central and
East European countries (Lithuania, Estonia, Poland) had prepared and approved completely new
EIA laws, bringing them into full compliance, not only with the EU directives, but also with the
Espoo and Aarhus Conventions. (See Section 4.3.8 below for information about the provisions of
these conventions.)
In most NIS countries, laws on SEE were approved during the mid-1990s (Belarus, Ukraine,
Russia, Moldova, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan � in 2000)),
or relevant governmental regulations were passed (Tajikistan). At this stage, only in Azerbaijan
is there an EIA regulation approved at the lowest level (by the Chairman of the State Committee
for Nature Protection, in 1996) (SEE provisions are stipulated in the Environmental Protection
law, of 1991). In some of these countries, the laws on SEE also include EIA articles (Armenia,
Kazakhstan) or regulations (as in the case of Moldova). In most other NIS countries,
environmental authorities have developed separate regulations on EIA studies for economic
activities and projects that are most harmful for the environment.
Countries in the South East Europe group have less-developed legislation on EIA. Only in the
case of Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) are there well-
developed EIA rules and procedures approved at the parliamentary or governmental level. The
other countries in the group are in the process of developing the needed legislation.
Table 2. EIA legislation in ECA countries
Group of Environmental protection EIA/SEE laws EIA EIA
countries laws with EIA articles, governmental ministerial
chapters regulations regulations
Central & Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey, Romania
Eastern Republic, Slovenia, Slovak Poland, Czech Bulgaria
Europe Republic, Hungary, Poland, Republic, Hungary,
Turkey, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovak
Lithuania Republic, Estonia
Newly Moldova, Georgia, Russia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan Azerbaijan
Independent Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, Russia,
States Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Turkmenistan,
Tajikstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia,
Belarus, Ukraine Belarus, Uzbekistan,
Ukraine
Southeastern Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia Bosnia
Europe Federal Republic of Herzegovina,
Yugoslavia, Albania, Federal Republic
Macedonia, Croatia of Yugoslavia
3.4 Sector-specific EA guidelines
Most of the ECA countries have developed special regulations (guidelines for conducting EIA
studies and/or SEE). However, most of them do not have specific guidelines for conducting
15
EIAs in various specific sectoral areas or areas within certain sectors, e.g., industry. Available
documents show that there are only a few exceptions. For example, Bulgaria adopted guidelines
on EIAs for land-use plans in 1997. In Russia, more than a dozen EIA sector-specific guidelines
(e.g., for ferrous and non-ferrous industry, mining) were approved in the beginning of 1990s and
are often used in other NIS countries.
In most countries in the NIS group, special regulations on conducting SEE were developed (in
Belarus, Russia, Moldova, and Georgia), as well as special regulations on EIA (Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan). Furthermore, several countries have prepared national
standards on EIA (Ukraine) or "construction norms " (Russia).
South East European countries are at the initial stage of developing such documents. Only
Croatia has a regulation and a Rule Book (2000) on EIA. EIA regulations in Serbia and
Montenegro were approved in the mid-1990s.
In informal discussions with some of the countries, ECSSD staff members were often asked if
they could make available examples of best practices and guidelines for sector EIAs. To meet
this need, the World Bank should be ready to offer its EIA documents, such as the Pollution
Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1999), which was specifically designed to be used in the
context of World Bank OP 4.01 and which contains detailed guidelines for EIA for most types of
projects and activities.
3.5 EIA administration and interagency coordination
The study found that the authority responsible for EIAs, i.e., the national environmental
authority, operates on a ministerial level in most ECA countries. A list of all countries in the
study and the institution responsible for EIAs may be found in Annex 4.
All ECA countries have a ministry of environment (usually within a multisectoral ministry and
associated with another sector � e.g., water, natural resources, physical planning) except for
Uzbekistan where the State Committee for Nature Protection handles EIA activities. In many
countries, environmental protection is combined with several other responsibilities � in most
cases with regional (physical) planning and/or natural-resources management. In Serbia,
environmental protection is combined with health and in Kyrgyzstan, with emergency situations.
In Russia the responsible authority in this area is the Department for Environmental Protection
within the Ministry of Natural Resources.
In many countries, autonomous or semi-autonomous EIA institutions were created within
environmental ministries. In some, EIA units are part of those ministries, without formal
autonomy. In large ECA countries, EIA responsibilities are decentralized. Thus, in Russia,
Poland, Ukraine, and other countries, most EIA activities are carried out at the regional or local
level. In some instances, defined by the law, they are conducted at the national level � when
there are transboundary implications, for large projects, or for areas in which local capacity to
conduct EIAs is lacking. In most of the smaller ECA countries, central authorities are
responsible for SEE/OVOS or EIA. In Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Montenegro, and Serbia,
EIA or SEE is conducted mainly at the national level.
16
In most ECA countries, independent experts hired by investors conduct EIAs. In some cases
(Georgia, Moldova) those experts have to be licensed by the ministry of the environment. EIA
reports are usually reviewed by state employees from EIA units. In several countries (Belarus,
Azerbaijan, Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro), for difficult projects, ad hoc commissions, made up
of experts from other state institutions and from research and design institutes conduct the
review. In Russia and Ukraine, temporary ad hoc commissions, created on a case-by-case basis,
review EIA reports.
The EIA laws of most ECA countries stipulate the need for interagency coordination in the EIA
process. However, with few exceptions, coordination is referred to in very general terms,
without any stipulations regarding procedures and timing. Detailed stipulations appear mostly in
other sectoral or procedural laws and regulations. In almost all countries, EIA legislation
stipulates the need for coordinating preliminary project documents and EIA studies. However, in
most there are no clear requirements as to which institutions should be involved in coordination
and what the mechanisms and timing for coordination should be. As a result, effective
coordination is lacking among relevant state institutions in the EIA process.
In all ECA countries, except the Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Poland, the
ministry of environment or its regional offices decides on the review process and the outcomes
of the EA. In Croatia, the decision is made by the same EIA Commission that reviews EA
reports. In Estonia and Poland, it is made by local, regional, or national governments. In the
Czech Republic, the principal decision based on the EIA findings is a land-use permit issued by a
local authority. In Slovakia, the EA findings and the results of the EA review are required to be
taken into account by various "permitting authorities" depending upon the nature of the proposed
activity.
3.6 Strategic environmental assessment
SEA is a form of EA applied, not to projects, but to plans, policies, and programs. The following
definition of SEA is widely used: "SEA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental
consequences of proposed policy, planning or programme initiatives in order to ensure they are
fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision-making on
a par with social and economic considerations," (Sadler and Verheem, 1996).
Initiatives to which SEAs are applied include sector plans for transport, water, forests; land-use
plans; and national or international development strategies and agreements, including structural
adjustment programs. Most practitioners of SEA and EIA regard the two as distinct instruments
with the most significant difference being that EIA is a regulatory instrument with clearly
defined procedural steps to be followed, while SEA is by nature a more open-ended,
consultative, and iterative process.
Over the past five years, SEA has emerged internationally. While the rapid development of SEA
has been driven in part by the OECD countries (especially those in Europe), there are clear signs
that developing countries are interested as well.
17
SEA regulations and guidelines are currently being proposed by several international institutions.
A protocol on EIAs of plans and programs with transboundary implications is currently under
preparation for the Espoo Convention. Most of its provisions are similar to the newly adopted
EU SEA Directive. It is expected that the protocol will be officially open for signing at the next
European Environmental Conference (Kiev, May 2003). The EU began working on its SEA
directive in 1996 when the EU adopted a proposal for developing a "directive on EA of certain
plans and programs." On 5 June 2001, SEA Directive 2001/42/EC was adopted by the EU. Its
purpose is to ensure that the environmental consequences of certain plans and programs are
identified and assessed during their preparation and before their adoption. EU accession
countries will be required to follow the SEA Directive, just as they must follow Directive
97/11/EC1997. Also, there is currently an initiative underway to develop a United Nations
protocol on SEA.
The World Bank has been using SEA on an ad hoc basis over the past ten years in part through
the instruments of sectoral and regional EAs � which have some similarities to SEAs. From
1997 to 2001, there were about 20 Bank lending operations subject to sectoral or regional EA (or
some kind of "strategic" environmental analysis). Two were in ECA � the Russia Coal Sector
Adjustment Loan II (FY98) and the Poland Hard Coal Sector Adjustment Loan in 1999. (No
information is available to indicate the value-added of these SEAs.) A broader and more
systematic use of SEA would seem to be relevant to the Bank, particularly in its policy-based
and programmatic lending operation. A traditional EIA is not suitable for such activities, even
though their environmental consequences may be significant. A recent study on SEAs in the
Bank concludes that SEA should be introduced to a wide range of Bank activities through a
testing and learning program (World Bank, QAG, 2002, draft); this is now under consideration.
ECA countries have developed SEA regulations and practices but at a much slower pace than
EIA requirements. Although no country in the study has passed legislation on SEA, many have
requirements for environment assessments of national programs, polices, and plans, specifically
land-use plans; in other words, their SEA regulations are informal (see Table 3).
Table 3. Legal provisions for SEA in ECA countries
Region Development plans National policies Laws, regulations
Central and Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Bulgaria, Czech
Eastern Europe Republic, Poland, Romania, Republic, Slovak
Slovenia, Macedonia, Hungary, Republic, Slovenia
Estonia
Newly Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova Armenia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kazakhstan,
Independent Moldova Moldova
States/OVOS
Newly Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Georgia, Belarus, Georgia,
Independent Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
States/SEE Turkmenistan, Ukraine Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Moldova, Russia,
Russia, Turkmenistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine
Ukraine
Southeastern Croatia
Europe
18
Among the Central and Eastern European countries, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Bulgaria,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, and Romania have provisions for SEA. These relate only to
development plans and programs, except in Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Republics,
Lithuania, and Slovenia, where they extend to national policies. In this group, there are no
provisions for SEA of national laws and regulations. At this stage, there are no provisions
regarding SEA in Latvian and Lithuanian EIA systems.
Most countries in the NIS group require SEA for all of the above mentioned non-project
activities. For example, in Russia the following activities are subject to mandatory SEA:
� Drafts of legal acts, the implementation of which may lead to a negative environmental
impact
� Materials subject to approval by state authorities on which development forecasts are
based
� Documents supporting production agreements and concession treaties and drafts of
international treaties
� Drafts of technical documents for new equipment, technologies, materials, substances,
certified products, and services
� Other types of documents describing economic and other activities that might produce
direct or indirect environmental impacts within two or more territories of the Russian
Federation.
Similar provisions may be found in practically all other NIS. However, only in a few cases
(Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Moldova) does national legislation stipulate that OVOS procedures
should be applied to plans, programs, and policies. But even in these cases, relevant legislation
does not include provisions for conducting these activities.
In the South East European group there are no clear stipulations on SEA. Only in Croatia is it
clearly indicated that urban planning documents are subject to a mandatory EIA procedure. In
other countries in that group there are no relevant requirements.
19
Chapter 4. EIA elements
4.1 Screening
According to Article 8 of World Bank OP 4.01, the Bank screens each proposed project to
determine the appropriate extent and type of EA. It classifies the proposed project into one of
four categories, depending on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the
nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts.
� Category A projects are those likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts,
sometimes affecting an area broader than the project site. The EA for such projects
examines the project's negative and positive environmental impacts, compares them with
feasible alternatives (including a "zero," or "no-project," alternative), and recommends
prevention or mitigation measures and ways to compensate for adverse impacts and to
improve environmental performance. The borrowing country is responsible for preparing
the EIA report or a reasonable facsimile.
� Category B projects are those whose potential impacts are less adverse than Category A.
Unlike category A project impacts, category B impacts are site-specific, usually
reversible, and readily mitigated. The scope of EA for these projects is narrower than
that for category A: it covers potential negative and positive environmental impacts and
recommends prevention, mitigation, and compensation measures.
� Category C projects are likely to have only minimal or no adverse environmental
impacts. No EA is required.
� Category FI projects involve investment of Bank funds through a FI for subprojects that
may result in adverse environmental impacts.
The screening process varies widely in the EIA systems of ECA countries (see Table 4). In
most of the countries in the Central and East Europe group, screening is accomplished by means
of lists of types of projects or activities subject to different levels of EIA. These lists are similar
to one included in the relevant EU directive. At the same time, many countries in this group
initiate EA for activities not on the screening lists but on the discretion of the authorities. This
method is used in all countries in this group. In Hungary, Slovakia, and Lithuania, the decision
of responsible authorities to initiate EA procedures is based on a preliminary (initial) assessment
for certain categories of projects.
In the former Soviet system, SEE applies to any development activity requiring planning
approval. For example, in Moldova, SEE is required for very broadly defined categories of
activities (such as "construction of land communications"), as well as for activities that can
potentially have "negative impacts on the environment." Thus, for the thousands of proposed
projects and economic activities, even those that may have an insignificant impact, there is no
screening process. However, since the responsible authority itself carries out a major part of the
assessment, it is in a position to decide on a case-by-case basis how extensive the assessment
needs to be.
For major projects, or any likely to have particularly significant impacts, an in-depth analysis
may be conducted, and an OVOS submission may be required according to a screening list.
20
Many NIS countries have developed such lists, taking into consideration the existing
international practices. Thus, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Moldova were inspired
by the list of activities requiring full EIA contained in the Espoo Convention, and Kazakhstan,
applied recommendations stipulated in the Espoo Convention and in World Bank procedures.
Very detailed and much broader screening lists of different categories of projects requiring
different levels of SEE are included in the Georgian Law on Environmental Permits. Some NIS
countries (e.g., Moldova) specify in their legislation how decisions are made on how extensive
an OVOS should be for projects not included on the screening lists. The breadth and level of
specificity of these screening lists vary from country to country, with some lists being very
broad.
South East European countries also use the screening-list method. In Serbia, for example, a very
broad list of activities � 58 types � requires a full EIA.
Table 4. Usage of screening methods by country groups
Countries Preliminary Screening lists + Screening lists No screening
assessment + discretion of only
other methods authorities
Central and Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia
East Europe Hungary, Macedonia, Estonia, Hungary,
Lithuania Romania Slovenia, Poland,
Latvia, Turkey
NIS Russia, Belarus Moldova Belarus, Georgia,
Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Turkmenistan,
Ukraine
South East Croatia, Bosnia Federal Republic Albania
Europe Herzegovina of Yugoslavia,
Macedonia
The most significant issue regarding screening in the ECA countries is the absence, for all
practical purposes, of any screening process in some countries, including Russia. Without
screening, all projects require EAs. Given the number of projects, e.g., 100,000 in Russia in
2000, this results in inefficiency and wasted resources, compromises the rigor of the EIAs for
projects that have significant environmental impacts, and encourages corruption.
4.2 Scoping
The aim of scoping is to identify key environmental issues that will influence decision-making
and to decide how they should and will be appraised. Its purpose is to ensure that assessments
are more focused and EIA reports are more relevant and useful. Scoping is essential for
identifying in advance the likely environmental impacts a project may cause and for defining the
project's area of influence. Studies show that deficiencies in scoping are a key reason for poor
EIA reports � ones that present a great deal of data but miss or underplay discussion of the
critical issues.
21
A variety of scoping methods are used in ECA countries, including general and specific
checklists, preliminary assessment, and approval by the responsible authority. Several countries
in the study have no scoping procedures: Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania, Belarus, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Table 5 summarizes the findings of the study on the use of
scoping.
Several countries in the Central and East Europe group (Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
and the Slovak Republic) legally require a scoping procedure involving actors other than the
developer (Cherp, 1999). In Latvia and Romania, the responsible authority draws up the
"program" or "guidelines" on EA studies to be implemented by the developer. In Hungary and
the Slovak Republic, the scope of EA is also decided upon by the responsible authorities, but it is
based on a preliminary EIA study and may incorporate the comments of affected parties. In
Lithuania, the authority "ratifies" the program submitted by the developer, based on the
preliminary study.
In most NIS countries, scoping is not formally required for either the SEE or OVOS procedure.
However, informal instructions and guidelines require the organizers of both procedures to
define the scope of impacts to be studied, depending on the nature of the activity. The detailed
guidance on the OVOS procedure contained in Russian "construction norms," in Moldovan and
Georgian EIA regulations, or in Ukrainian EIA standards describes the development of the terms
of reference for carrying out the OVOS. This can be considered an "internal" scoping stage.
Similarly, in Belarus, the 1990 OVOS Instruction Goskompriroda recommends scoping to be
conducted internally by the developer. Thus, even if the scoping procedure is not a mandatory
rule, the content of the EIA studies in NIS is typically uniformly prescribed by the existing
legislation, as discussed in Section 4.3 below.
Stipulations regarding scoping in the South East European countries exist only in Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Table 5. Usage of scoping methods by country groups
Countries General and/or Preliminary Approval by the Decided
specific assessment responsible authority internally by
checklists developer
Central & Czech Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia,
East Europe Republic Bulgaria Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia,
Turkey
NIS Georgia Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Azerbaijan, Armenia Moldova
South East Croatia Federal Republic of
Europe Yugoslavia
22
4.3 EIA Content
4.3.1 Environmental management plans
Next to inadequate public consultation and disclosure, this study found that the greatest
discrepancy between the practices of most ECA countries and World Bank procedures on the
content of an EIA, is lack of a requirement for an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The
study found that all ECA countries require the preparation of mitigation measures; some require
monitoring plans; but only a very few have specific regulations on EMPs similar to those in OP
4.01 (Georgia, Czech Republic). This finding raises two issues; the first relates to environmental
conditionality in World Bank loans; and the second to supervision of World Bank projects.
An EMP outlines mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures for avoiding or minimizing
adverse environmental impacts during project implementation and operation, and it specifies
what actions are needed to implement such measures. An EMP also covers the arrangements for
funding, management and training, and monitoring and provides a crucial link between
alternative mitigation measures evaluated and described in the EA report and actual
implementation of such measures. The borrower's decision to proceed with a project and the
Bank's decision to support it, are predicated in part on the expectation that the EMP will be
executed effectively. The study found that, in most ECA countries, no specific domestic laws or
regulations legally bind the client to the actions and recommendations derived from the EA and
expressed in the EMP. Given that deficiency, unless the EMP is referenced in loan and credit
agreements, there is no way for the Bank to enforce its implementation. This reasoning is the
basis for the recommendations that environmental conditionality be included in a project loan
agreement (World Bank, ENV, 1999, Rees, 2000). The statement of conditionality indicates that
the borrower will ensure that all measures necessary for carrying out the EMP are taken in a
timely manner. ECSSD now routinely requires such conditionality in all loan and grant
agreements of projects with EMPs.
The second issue is that lack of experience among borrowers in carrying out EMPs per OP 4.01
suggests that project supervision be particularly diligent regarding EMP implementation. A
recent World Bank Quality Assurance Program report (World Bank, QAG, 2002, draft)
highlights the need for "significant improvement" in the Bank's oversight of EMPs.
4.3.2 Alternatives
The World Bank's OP 4.01 calls for, inter alia, a systematic comparison, in terms of potential
environmental impact, between the proposed investment design, site, and technology and
operational alternatives � including the zero alternative. The study found that analysis of
alternatives is often inadequately addressed in the EIA legislation of ECA countries.
Generally, the EIA systems of ECA countries require the presentation of issues or alternatives.
Nonetheless, in some countries, only one or two kinds of alternatives are considered, such as
location or technology, and, in others, there is no consideration of the zero alternative. This is a
significant gap in the content of EIAs. While the issue of alternatives, in general terms, is
addressed in all countries in the Central and East Europe group, in some cases, there is no
23
indication what kinds of alternatives are to be considered (e.g., in Latvia, the zero option is not
mentioned).
Several NIS countries stipulate the whole range of alternatives (Georgia, Moldova, Russia,
Ukraine), while others (Belarus, Azerbaijan) do not mention all types (e.g., in Belarus, only
technology and location; in Azerbaijan, no "zero" option). In several other NIS countries, the
issue of alternatives is not addressed at all (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), and South East European
countries have not included this issue in EIA legislation, except for Croatia.
4.3.3 Transboundary and global impacts
The World Bank's EIA procedure stipulates the need to evaluate the transboundary and global
impacts of proposed projects and economic activities. With few exceptions, there are no
stipulations in country EIA systems regarding transboundary or global impacts. Only in some
particular cases (e.g., Latvia, Georgia) does the national legislation indicate that attention should
be paid to transboundary and global impacts. In most ECA countries, there are only general
statements stipulating that such cases should be addressed in accordance with the provisions of
the Espoo Convention, and other international agreements to which the country is party.
Of the eight countries which have not signed or ratified the Espoo convention on EIA in a
Transboundary Context (see Section 4.3.8, below), only one, Georgia, has legislation in place to
ensure attention to transboundary impacts. The others � Turkey, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Bosnia Herzegovina, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) � should be closely supervised regarding their compliance with OP 4.01
requirements for considering transboundary and global impacts
4.3.4 Monitoring
World Bank OP 4.01 stipulates that performance monitoring of project implementation is
necessary to enhance the overall quality of a project. Monitoring should be directed towards
measuring and evaluating changes brought about by a project and assessing the effectiveness of
agreed-upon mitigation measures.
Requirements for monitoring are generally weak in ECA countries, ranging from adequate in
Central and East Europe and Croatia to inadequate in the NIS. Some have no concrete
requirements for monitoring; others have just general stipulations regarding the need for
monitoring, with no specifics.
In countries in the Central and East Europe group, monitoring is mentioned in all existing EIA
systems. Latvia, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania indicate that monitoring plans should be
included in EIA reports; other countries have general requirements for monitoring all potential
environmental impacts during project implementation.
NIS countries generally require that environmental authorities monitor implementation of SEE
and/or compliance with OVOS requirements. This issue is stipulated explicitly in only a few
EIA/SEE laws and regulations (Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Russia), while in other
24
cases, it is treated in more general terms in environmental protection laws, under articles
dedicated to obligations of the state ecological inspection. Similarly, countries in the South East
Europe group (excluding Croatia) have no special provisions on monitoring EIA requirements.
These stipulations are presented in general terms in other environmental protection laws.
The weak monitoring requirements of ECA countries may be related to the deficiencies in
monitoring noted in evaluations of World Bank project management. Improved oversight of
monitoring is a frequent recommendation of such evaluations. Viewed in the context of these
recommendations, the study's finding that monitoring is weak in ECA countries suggests that, in
the absence of required monitoring procedures internal to the country, i.e., incentives for
monitoring, the Bank requirements are likely to be unmet.
4.3.5 Public participation and consultation
Consultation with affected communities is recognized by the World Bank as key to identifying
environmental impacts and designing mitigation measures. OP 4.01 requires, for category A
projects, consultation with affected groups and local NGOs during at least two stages of the EA
process: (i) at the scoping stage, shortly after environmental screening, and before the terms of
reference for the EIA are finalized; and (ii) after a draft EIA report is prepared. Consultation
throughout EA preparation is required, particularly for projects that affect people's livelihood
and for community-based projects. In terms of disclosure of information, consultation between
the borrower and the project-affected groups and local NGOs is required for all category A and B
projects. The borrower provides a description of a proposed project and summarizes its
objectives and potential impacts. For consultation after the draft EIA report is prepared, the
borrower provides a summary of the EIA findings, or conclusions. In addition, for category A
projects, the borrower makes the EA report available at a public place accessible to project-
affected groups and local NGOs.
The most significant difference between ECA country EIA systems and World Bank OP 4.01
regards public consultation and disclosure. Formal provisions for public participation are highly
variable in ECA, although some opportunities exist for public participation in practically all
countries. EIA statements and/or SEE conclusions are publicly available to some extent in
practically all ECA countries, at least formally, according to national legislation. Actual practice
is still evolving, however, despite the existence of relevant legislation, and, in some cases, public
access to EIA reports is not easily obtained. In most ECA countries, public participation is
stipulated, while the tools and mechanisms necessary to implement it are not. Public
participation requirements range from none (in the case of Albania) to specific requirements
(e.g., Moldova's Regulation on Public Participation in Environment Decision-Making, January
2000, or Poland's Law on Access to Information on Environmental Audit and EIAs, 2000).
Lack of public participation and access to information goes hand in hand with the lack of
transparency noted in many World Bank borrowing countries.
In many Central and East European countries that have developed new EIA legislation, broad
public participation requirements have been introduced. These are in full compliance with EU
directives and the Aarhus Convention (see Section 4.3.8, below). The EIA legislation of the
most advanced countries in this area (Latvia, Poland, Lithuania, the Czech Republic) stipulates
25
the need for public participation at all stages of EIA and describes the tools, mechanisms, and
procedures for public hearings, as well as the public's rights and opportunities to take part at
each step in the EIA process.
In recent years, NIS countries have made significant progress in promoting the principle of
public participation in EIA. While recognizing this progress, it is worth mentioning several
deficiencies in the SEE/OVOS systems: not requiring opportunities for public participation in the
screening and scoping processes; unclear stipulations as to public examination of project
documents. Only in the case of Moldova, and to some extent in Georgia and Ukraine, have these
deficiencies been addressed in the most recent EIA documents and in other regulations on public
participation.
In most NIS countries, there are provisions for the public to organize a public ecological review,
or "expertise," (PEE) independent of the SEE. But there are usually no stipulations regarding
procedures for organizing a PEE and no clarity about how it should be handled administratively,
particularly when projects are to be sited on two or more territorial-administrative units �
examples of such projects are roads or natural-gas pipelines. Finally, there is usually no clear
description of how the PEE conclusions are to be taken into consideration by the SEE.
In countries in the South East Europe group (except Croatia) there are no clear mechanisms for
public participation in the EIA process. However, there are public participation provisions in
environmental protection and EIA regulations in all the countries in this group, except Albania,
but the provisions lack details about mechanisms for their implementation.
Public access to environmental information in general and to EIA documents in particular is a
shortcoming of many countries. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and all South East
European countries (except Croatia) make no concrete provisions for public access to EIAs. And
among other NIS countries � those that do have such stipulations � there is a lack of information
about their practical application. For example, the Environment Performance Review for the
Ukraine (2000) points to the "overall need to improve public access to environment information
in accordance with the Aarhus Convention" and recommends that Ukraine "seek more contact
with the entire NGO community" and "put in place speedily" procedures for public participation
in environmental decision-making. As this example suggests, EIA systems could be the catalyst
for improved public participation more broadly in environmental decision-making. However, as
things stand, the lack of public consultation and public access to information is one of the most
significant deficiencies in ECA country EIA systems.
4.3.6 EIA documentation
EIA content requirements are usually the same in all ECA countries and are similar to those of
World Bank OP 4.01. The main elements of these reports and relevant requirements in ECA
EIA systems are presented in Table 6. In most countries of the Central and Eastern Europe and
NIS groups (except Armenia, Russia, and Ukraine), the environmental impact statement (EIS), or
EIA report, reportedly must include a description of the project and its alternatives, the
magnitude and significance of expected environmental impacts, the outcomes of consulting the
public, and a non-technical summary.
26
Table 6. Legal requirements for including certain information in an EIS (OVOS volumes
in the NIS)
Environ- Alterna- Trans- Monitoring Outcome of Non-
Countries mental tives boundary and public technical
manage- impacts enforcement partici- summary
ment plans pation
Central & East
Europe + Turkey
Bulgaria Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � GM Yes Yes
Czech Republic Yes � MM Yes Yes � IA Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Estonia Yes No Yes � IA Yes � GM Yes Yes
Hungary Yes Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � GM Yes Yes
Latvia Yes � MM Yes Yes � IA Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Lithuania Yes Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes � GM Yes Yes
Romania Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Slovenia Yes Yes Yes Yes � MEIA Yes Yes
Turkey Yes � MM Yes No Yes � GM No Yes
NIS
Armenia Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo No No Yes
Azerbaijan Yes � MM Yes (tech. No Yes (post-proj. Yes No
alts. only.) analysis)
Belarus Yes � MM Yes No Yes � MSEE Yes No
Georgia Yes Yes Yes � IA Yes � MSEE Yes Yes
Kazakhstan Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � MSEE Yes No
Kyrgyzstan Yes � MM Yes Yes Yes � MSEE Yes Yes
Moldova Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � MSEE Yes Yes
Russia Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � MSEE Yes Yes
Tajikistan Yes � MM Yes No Yes � MSEE No No
Turkmenistan Yes � MM No No Yes � MSEE No No
Ukraine Yes � MM Yes Yes Yes � MSEE Yes No
Uzbekistan Yes � MM No No Yes � MSEE No No
South East Europe
Albania Yes � MM No No No No No
Bosnia Herzegovina Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � GM No Yes
Croatia Yes � MM Yes Yes � Espoo Yes � GM No Yes
Macedonia Yes � MM No Yes � Espoo Yes � GM No No
Serbia and Yes No No Yes � GM No No
Montenegro
Notes: "Yes" indicates that the information is required in the environmental impact statement and "No" that it is not
required.
Key: MM = mitigation measures only; Espoo = ratified or signed the Espoo Convention for EIA in a Transboundary
Context; IA = international agreement on EIA; GM = general monitoring provision only; MEIA or MSEE =
monitoring or EIA or SEE decisions only.
The production of an EIA report, or EIS or its analogue, is required. All Central and East
European countries require that the EIS be produced as a separate document. According to the
legislation of these countries, an EIS is typically prepared by the developer or consultants
27
selected by the developer (except in Estonia where the EIS is prepared by experts appointed by
responsible authorities).
In most NIS countries, as shown by Cherp (1999), EA findings are reported in the documentation
for the project; they form an "OVOS volume" or an "environmental protection volume."
However, in Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, a separate EIS is required for some activities. In
Kazakhstan and Ukraine, a "statement of environmental consequences" (an abbreviated,
formalized summary of OVOS findings) should be produced. In practice, a separate EIS is
produced, mainly for larger developments, in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Russia.
In South East European countries, no specific requirements for EIA reports or statements exist,
except in Croatia.
4.3.7 Review and decision-making
In all ECA countries, the purpose of the EIA review process is to check whether EA
documentation is "adequate." Additionally, a review seeks to evaluate the activity itself, most
often its broadly defined "environmental acceptability" (e.g., Russia) and/or the "adequacy of the
chosen options, technical solutions, and mitigation measures" (e.g., Slovakia) (Cherp, 1999).
Thus, the review performs at least two functions: (i) EA quality control and (ii) generating the
"official" position on the environmental merits of the proposed activity. In most of the surveyed
ECA countries, the findings of EAs must undergo a mandatory review. Countries in the Central
and East Europe group require a review of the EIS, while those in the NIS group (in most of
which no separate EIS is produced) require the review of all project documentation. In the NIS,
the EIS review is performed by SEE. The review is conducted by responsible authorities (in the
NIS), experts appointed by responsible authorities (in many Central and East European countries,
but also, in some cases, in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan), or by a special commission
(Croatia, Poland). Licensing of experts who conduct reviews is required in Slovakia, Lithuania,
the Czech Republic, Armenia, and Moldova.
4.3.8 Ratification of international conventions
The study included a check to see which ECA countries had signed the key international
conventions, as they relate to EIAs. These are the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the
Espoo Convention for EIA in a Transboundary Context. It is particularly important to check a
given country's adherence to these two conventions, as the areas that they cover, i.e., public
participation and transboundary impacts, are inadequately covered in many ECA country EIA
systems. Table 7 can provide a useful guide.
The Aarhus Convention (http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ratification.htm). The Aarhus
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25 June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus.
With the ratification of Armenia on 1 August 2001 and Estonia on 2 August 2001, the
convention entered into force 30 October 2001. It has been signed by 39 countries and the EU.
The goals of the convention are to guarantee (i) the rights of access to information, (ii) public
28
participation in decision-making, and (iii) access to justice in environmental matters. The
convention is an agreement not only about the environment, but also about government
accountability, transparency, and responsiveness.
The Espoo Convention (http://www.unece.org/env/eia/ratification.htm). The Espoo Convention
for EIA in a Transboundary Context was adopted 25 February 1991 and entered into force 10
September 1997. As of 1 August 2001, there were 38 parties to the convention, including the
EU. The Espoo Convention aims at strengthening international cooperation in assessing the
impacts of a proposed activity on the environment in other countries. It ensures that people
living in areas that will be affected by an adverse transboundary environmental impact are
informed of the proposed activity from which these impacts come and have the opportunity to
comment.
Table 7. Ratification status of ECA Countries for the Aarhus and
Espoo conventions
Countries Espoo Convention Aarhus Convention
Central and East
Europe plus Turkey
Bulgaria 05/12/95 06/25/98(S)
Czech Republic 02/26/01 06/25/98(S)
Estonia 04/25/01 08/02/01
Hungary 07/1197 07/03/01
Latvia 08/31/98 06/25/98
Lithuania 01/11/02 01/28/02
Poland 06/12/97 02/15/02
Romania 03/01/01 07/11/00
Slovakia 11/19/99 -
Slovenia 07/5/98 06/25/98(S)
Turkey - -
NIS
Armenia 02/21/97 08/01/01
Azerbaijan 03/25/99 03/23/00
Belarus 02/26/91(S) 03/09/00
Georgia - 04/11/00
Kazakhstan 01/11/01 01/11/01
Kyrgyzstan 05/01/01 05/01/01
Moldova 01/04 /94 08/9/ 99
Russia 06/06/91(S) -
Tajikistan - 07/17/01
Turkmenistan - 06/25/99
Ukraine 07/20/99 11/18/99
Uzbekistan - -
South East Europe
Albania 04/10/91 06/27/ 01
Bosnia Herzegovina - -
Croatia 08/07/96 -06/25/98(S)
Macedonia -07/22/99 -08/31/99
Montenegro - -
Serbia - -
S= signed, not ratified. As of October 2001.
29
Chapter 5. Compatibility with World Bank OP 4.01
5.1 Criteria for compatibility evaluation
As previously noted, assessing EIA systems for their "compatibility" with World Bank OP 4.01
is not intended to hold up OP 4.01 as a standard of perfection or to impose it as a replacement for
a the country's own EIA procedures. In fact, a country's EIA system may differ from the Bank's
in ways appropriate for that country. The purpose of the compatibility assessment is to highlight
areas that may need attention as World Bank-financed projects are being prepared and
supervised to ensure that the Bank's environmental safeguards are being met.
The ECSSD team made an attempt to evaluate the compatibility of the reviewed environmental
and EA/EIA legal frameworks of ECA countries with World Bank procedures and to arbitrarily
rank them on the basis of general criteria and weights assigned by an expert reviewer. The point
system used and the points assigned each country are given in Annex 5. Table 8 summarizes the
results of this ranking process.
In reviewing Table 8, readers should be aware of some limitations that might have affected
application of the ranking system and that might alter future rankings.
� The ranking is based only on the laws reviewed and cited in each country chapter, no
other sectoral or environmental media legislation, which may have EA/EIA-related
provisions, has been analyzed.
� The provisions of governmental implementing regulations and procedures were used only
when they were readily available and if they detailed, elaborated on, and interpreted legal
stipulations.
Five broad ranking criteria were selected. They reflect the general provisions of the World
Bank, the EU, and internationally accepted EA policies and procedural steps.
� First, it is of paramount importance for the EA process to have its foundation firmly
established in an environmental framework and freestanding EA legislation. This is
ultimately enhanced and strengthened by international obligations under either EU
legislation or the 1991 EIA Espoo Convention.
� Second, the whole thrust and focus of the EA process are determined by transparent
screening and well-coordinated scoping processes. Hence, close to 50% of a possible
150 points is assigned to these two categories.
� Third, timely, transparent, and meaningful public participation at various stages of an
EA, including as stipulated under the 1998 Aarhus Convention, increases the likelihood
of achieving environmentally and socially sustainable (and equitable) development
objectives.
� Fourth, it is equally important for the government to review an EA report and to assure
itself that the proposed activity is in compliance with all applicable laws and standards
and that all EA-derived monitoring and mitigation measures are funded and will be
implemented.
30
� Fifth, additional points were provided to award certain provisions that enhance an
integrated EA and reflect its evolutionary nature.
It is recognized that, while this method may be considered somewhat arbitrary, it offers a rough
way to order the countries.
Table 8. Compatibility of the EIA systems of ECA countries
with World Bank OP 4.01
Countries Compatibility with WB Score
procedures
Central and East
Europe plus Turkey
Bulgaria Medium 125
Czech Republic High 139
Estonia High 140
Hungary High 135
Latvia High 145
Lithuania High 142
Poland High 133
Romania High 133
Slovak Republic High 131
Slovenia Medium 98
Turkey Low 78
NIS
Armenia Low 80
Azerbaijan Low 93
Belarus Low 70
Georgia Medium 114
Kazakhstan Medium 111
Kyrgyzstan Medium 106
Moldova Medium 112
Russia Medium 106
Tajikistan Low 75
Turkmenistan Medium 91
Ukraine High 132
Uzbekistan Medium 94
South East Europe
Albania Low 26
Bosnia Herzegovina Low 69
Croatia Medium 111
Macedonia Low 61
Montenegro Low 69
Serbia Low 69
Note: complete compatibility would score 150.
5.2 Results of the compatibility assessment
Based on the scoring system, three broad clusters of countries emerged as can be seen in Figure
3. The first ("high" compatibility) comprises countries that scored over 130 points, suggesting
that they have a comprehensive EA system and process that includes all internationally practiced
elements. These are (in descending order): Latvia (145), Lithuania (142), Estonia (140), the
31
Czech Republic (139), Hungary (135), Poland (133), Romania (133), Ukraine (132), and the
Slovak Republic (131). As noted in the country studies, it remains for these countries is to
synchronize their systems with the World Bank EA and other safeguard policies and
requirements on the case-by-case basis and to fine-tune guidance regarding innovative EA
approaches championed by the Bank.
The second cluster ("medium" compatibility) comprises countries with scores ranging from 80 to
115. These are (in descending order) Bulgaria (125), Moldova (112), Croatia (111), Kazakhstan
(111), Russia (106), Kyrgyzstan (106), Slovenia (98), Uzbekistan (94), Azerbaijan (93), and
Turkmenistan (91). It may be a surprise that Slovenia is part of this group, particularly as it was
the first country to close Chapter 22 (Environment) under the EC accession process. The reasons
the country scored this low are that it does not have (or ECSSD is not aware of) freestanding EA
legislation; most of the recent provisions on EA, access to information, and public participation
are incorporated in an old environmental framework law. As indicated above, EA
implementation on the ground could be excellent, thus warranting Slovenia's upgrade into the
first cluster. The rest of the second cluster countries have made visible progress in recent years in
adopting new EA legislation, but the test will be coming soon as the legislation is implemented.
Issues of compliance and enforcement of various provisions, as well as with the role of affected
people and local civil society organizations, will undoubtedly arise. These countries will require
more substantive interaction with and assistance from the World Bank to sustain, strengthen, and
develop local EA capabilities and ensure smooth EA processes.
The third cluster ("low" compatibility) comprises countries with scores of 80 points or fewer,
namely Armenia (80), Turkey (78), Tajikistan (75), Serbia (69), Montenegro (69), Bosnia
Herzegovina (69), Macedonia (64), and Albania (26). These countries will require significant
medium-term assistance to develop their EA legal frameworks, organizational systems, and
technical and human capabilities. As may be the case with some countries in the second cluster,
the extent to which these countries will develop their systems will depend largely on high-level
political commitment to EA and the allocation of necessary resources to significantly strengthen
or create anew a coherent and comprehensive EA system and process. Continuous political
turmoil and the deterioration of economies during the 1990s took their toll on EA infrastructure
and diverted attention away from EA in all countries of this group.
Generally, in all EU-accession countries, EIA systems are much more advanced than in the NIS
and are almost fully compatible with EU and World Bank procedures, thus placing them in the
"high" compatibility category. This phenomenon can be attributed to the acceleration of
improvements in EIA legislation brought about by the EU approval process and the clear EA
requirements of the EU. The "medium" group of countries are those NIS that have added
guidelines, regulations, and instructions to the original system in recent years, thus strengthening
it somewhat. The "low" countries are characterized by a weak legal basis for EIAs with no clear
guidelines or regulations and only broad stipulations regarding EIAs. There may be several
reasons, related to internal and external pressures, for the non-EU-accession countries to have
made advancements in their EIA systems (the "medium" group). An increase in public
participation and democratization often results in increased scrutiny of environmental protection.
Externally, as more foreign investors come into a country, intermediary financial institutions
require these investors to know and apply national EIA procedures.
32
scores
compatibility
33
countries:
ECA
of
Map
3.
Figure
Chapter 6. Conclusions and recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
All ECA countries, with the exception of Albania and Macedonia, have laws or regulations on
environmental assessment that form the basis of their EIA systems. The compatibility of these
EIA systems with World Bank OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) varies greatly. All the
countries that are at one stage or another of EU accession have systems that are compatible with
OP 4.01. Of these, the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), the Czech Republic, and
Poland stand out as having the best EIA practices. At the other end of the continuum, all the
countries in the South East Europe group, with the exception of Croatia, have systems that are
compatible only to a very limited extent. Over half of the FSU countries have EIA systems of
"medium" compatibility with OP 4.01, a finding which reflects the relatively recent divergence
of new EIA legislation from the legacy of the Soviet SEE/OVOS model. Even for the EU-
accession group of countries, where compatibility with OP 4.01 is high, there are gaps � ranging
from minor deviations to significant differences � which reflect country-level departures from
what the Bank considers best practice. The two most significant of these departures are (i) the
lack of public consultation and participation and (ii) the lack of the environmental management
plan mechanism, or something similar, to ensure that necessary monitoring and mitigation
measures for avoiding or controlling adverse environmental impacts are implemented.
Since the technical and institutional capacity to conduct and implement EIAs was not the focus
of this study, no conclusions can be reached on that topic. Obviously, capacity should be taken
into account in determining a borrower's ability to adequately meet the standards of OP 4.01
through application of the national EIA system. The borrower may have the legal, technical, and
institutional capacity to reliably handle parts of the EIA process but might need Bank oversight
to handle other parts, as identified in the study. With the exception of the EU-accession
countries, it would be risky to assume that any given ECA country, by applying its own EIA
system to a World Bank-financed project (or subproject, in the case of social funds, etc.), would
be in compliance with OP 4.01. How far they would deviate, and how significant the deviations,
can be inferred in part by examining the country studies.
6.2 Recommendations
Recommendations relate to the legal framework of ECA countries; World Bank project task
management; knowledge sharing; capacity building; and next steps.
1. Strengthen the EIA legal framework in ECA countries. Specific recommendations are made
in the country reports on how to strengthen EIA legislation. This can be achieved through
straightforward technical assistance activities. The recommendations range from very minor
points for the best systems (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), to the need to develop EIA
legislation where it is lacking completely (Albania and Macedonia). Generally, countries are
advised to complete their EIA legislation or to refine it so that requirements are clearer and easier
to enforce. As previously noted, the study is not intended to compel the borrower to adopt
World Bank OP 4.01 requirements, but nonetheless some general components of an EIA system
34
are manifestly absent in borrowers' EIAs � most notably public participation � and these should
be addressed through revisions to EIA legislation.
2. Strengthen oversight of OP 4.01 implementation.
� For category FI projects, the task manager should review the country's EIA system (using
this report, if possible), note discrepancies between the country's system and OP 4.01,
and ensure that the borrower and FI are aware of the OP 4.01 requirements.
� For category A projects in countries with low compatibility with OP 4.01, areas of
discrepancy should be closely monitored by the task manager to ensure that the EA
requirements are met.
� The same applies, perhaps with less-intense scrutiny, to countries with "medium"
compatibility with OP 4.01. Particular attention should be paid to the public consultation
process that is generally very weak among the "medium" and "low" performers. A
World Bank Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update on "Improving the Impact of
EA Public Consultation" is in preparation and will serve as a useful guide for task
managers.
� Supervision should include close examination of the environmental aspects of category A
and B projects and monitoring the EMP.
� Task managers should consider, and environment reviewers should suggest, the inclusion
of EIA capacity-building activities as part of project implementation. Recent ECA
projects have included training in EIA, monitoring equipment, and technical assistance to
strengthen EIA systems, e.g., the Bosnia Herzegovina Roads Project and the Uzbekistan
IDF project on strengthening national SEE/OVOS capacities (a similar project is on-
going in Tajikistan with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank � ADB).
� Bank staff should be aware of developments in SEAs � training opportunities at the Bank
on the topic should be taken advantage of.
� ECSSD might consider new activities that can be used to strengthen EIA capacity. For
instance, an EIA strengthening project is under consideration for Azerbaijan.
3. Improve EIA knowledge management and information sharing. Preparation of this report
pinpointed several shortcomings related to knowledge and information dissemination.
� The staff are not aware of new environmental and EA legal developments in client
countries on a timely basis.
� Operational staff at headquarters do not always share relevant legal information (from the
field) with their environmental colleagues, and the staff from resident missions often do
not have the capability to fill the gap promptly.
� The ECA Region lacks a country-specific environmental-legal knowledge data base or
depository � such a data base should contain all relevant information (preferably in
English), should provide links to sources of information on the Internet, and should be
easily accessible from various work stations.
It is important to address the shortcomings identified above, particularly in light of the increasing
complexity, inter-relatedness, and sometimes redundancy of environmental-legal frameworks in
member-countries and internationally. When Bank lending is being processed, unintentional
35
noncompliance with a variety of national and international environment-related requirements can
lead to negative consequences, including complaints by civil society organizations and an
investigation by the Inspection Panel.
4. Improve dissemination of EA information to borrowers. The study found that in most
countries there is a general lack of detail in EIA systems regarding EIAs for sector-specific
projects. This deficiency was also noted by several borrowers during informal discussions of the
study. The World Bank has guidelines that borrowers could use, specifically the Environmental
Sourcebook and the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. Borrowers (and task
managers) have advised ECSSD that, even though much of this information is on the Internet, it
is not easily accessible to them. ECA has started to develop a "library" of best practices on
various topics � developing terms of reference, EMPs, etc. The guidelines, the library of best
practices, and other publications should be disseminated via a web site, a CD Rom, or
workshops.
5. Conduct training for improved EIA preparation and implementation. Even when a
relatively sound EIA legislative framework has been established, satisfactory implementation
often cannot be achieved without additional initiatives. For example, the quality of the EIAs
may be highly variable; public access to the EIAs may not be provided; EIAs may be conducted
too late in the project cycle to affect decisions; or EIA findings may be ignored. It is important
to develop the technical capacities of line agencies, private consulting firms, consultants,
research institutes, and others, in managing and carrying out EIAs. The capacities of relevant
bodies to evaluate and approve EIAs submitted by consultants and research institutes also needs
to be strengthened in some countries. There are many possibilities: EIA training could be
organized for target groups; bankers and investors could be introduced to the EIA systems of
national and international financial institutions (World Bank and European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development � EBRD); experts of SEE or other reviewing institutions could
be trained in the formulation of terms of reference for EIA; or experts, firms, and design or
research institutions could be trained in conducting EIA studies. Given the lack of attention �
almost across the board � to transboundary and global impacts in EIAs, ECSSD could consider
training for conducting EIAs of projects with transboundary impacts, with the participation of
representatives of the environmental authorities of potentially affected neighboring countries.
Training for public participation in all stages of EIA processes is also needed.
The ECSSD should offer training to the Bank staff in EA requirements and procedures of its
member-countries and clients. In addition, training for ECSSD staff should be an ongoing
process in response to international developments. For instance, given the new EU Directive on
SEA, ECSSD should be prepared to provide expert advice to borrowers regarding SEA
procedures.
6. Develop knowledge on how EA processes are actually applied. To follow up on this report,
the ECSSD should move to the next phase � studying EA processes and implementation on the
ground. Such a study is currently being conducted on a pilot basis by ECSSD in the Russian
Federation.
36
References
Baily, J., and S. Renton, S. 1997. "Redesigning EIA to fit the future: SEA and the policy
process," Impact Assessment 15 (3): 319-334.
Bellinger, Ed, N. Lee, C. George, and A. Paduret, eds. 2000. Environmental Assessment in
Countries in Transition. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Bisset, R. 1996. EIA: Issues, Trends and Practice. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP).
Bosnia Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Regional Environment Center. 2001 (April). Environmental
Impact Assessment in Countries of South East Europe.
Cherp, O. 1999. Environmental Assessment in Countries in Transition. PhD. Thesis.
Manchester, U.K.: University of Manchester.
Cherp, O. 2000. "EA in the Russian Federation," in C. George and N. Lee, eds. Environmental
Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries. University of Manchester. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Cherp, O., and N. Lee. 1997. "Evolution of SER and OVOS in the Soviet Union and Russian
(1985-1996)" in Elsevier Sciences, Inc., Environment Impact Assessment Review. New York.
Cline, George, and Balsam Ahmad. 2000 (January). Institutional Strengthening of the EIA
Systems in METAP Countries:Pilot Project. Final report. Manchester, UK: EIA Center,
University of Manchester.
Cooper, W., and L. W. Canter. 1997. "Documentation of cumulative impacts in environmental
impact statements," Environmental Impact Assessment Review17: 385-411.
Dalal-Clayton , D. B., and B. Sadler. 1998. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Developing
Countries. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Donnelly, A., B. Dalal-Clayton, and R. Hughes. 1998. A Directory of Impact Assessment
Guidelines, 2nd ed. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 1994. Investors'Environmental
Guidelines: Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania. (With the European Community's PHARE Program.).
London/Dordecht/Boston: Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 1995. "A strategy for integrated environmental
assessment at the European Environment Agency," discussion paper for a seminar on 22 June,
EEA/064/95. Copenhagen.
37
George, C. 2000. "Comparative review of environmental assessment procedures and practice" in
C. George and N. Lee, eds. Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries
University of Manchester. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goodland, R., and V. Edmundson, eds. 1994. Environmental Assessment and Development.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Goodland, R., J-R. Mercier, and S. Muntemba, eds. 1995. Environmental Assessment in Africa:
A World Bank Commitment. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Kirkpatrick, C, and N. Lee, eds. 1997. Sustainable Development in a Developing World:
Integrating Environmental Assessment with Socio-Economic Appraisal. Cheltenham, U.K.:
Edward Elgar.
Lee, Norman, and Clive George, eds. 2000. Environmental Assessment in Developing and
Transition Countries. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-98556-2.
Marr, Katherina. 1997. EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) in the UK and Germany. A
Comparison of EIA Practices for Wastewater Treatment Plants. Aldershot, England: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-84014-141-7.
Rees, C. 2000. "Environmental assessment in development banks and aid agencies" in C.
George and N. Lee, eds. Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries.
University of Manchester. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Final Report of the
International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Ottawa: Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency.
Sadler, B., and R. Verheem. 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and
Future Directions. No. 53. The Hague: Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
the Environment, EIA Commission of the Netherlands.
Singleton, Ross, Pamela Castle, David Short, and Thomas Telford. 1999. Environmental
Assessment. London. ISBN 0-72772-612-0.
Sofia Initiative on Environmental Impact Assessment and United Nations Environment Program
Project on EIA Good Practices in Developing and Transitional Countries. 1998 (June).
Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transitional Countries: Emerging Practices. Szentendre,
Hungary.
Vanclay, F., and D. A.. Bronstein, eds. 2000. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.
Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
World Bank. 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook and Updates. Washington, D.C.
38
World Bank, Environment Department (ENV). 1993. Annual Review of Environmental
Assessment 1992. Washington, D. C.
World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department (OED). 1996 (December). Environmental
Assessments and National Action Plans. Precis. Washington, D. C.
World Bank. 1997. The Impact of Environmental Assessment: A Review of World Bank
Experience. Technical Paper 363. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1998. Meaningful Consultation in Environment Assessments. Social Development
Notes Number 39. Washington, D.C.
World Bank, Environment Department (ENV). 1999 (January). Environmental Assessment
Sourcebook Update � Environmental Management Plans. No. 25. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1999 (January). The Evolution of Environmental Assessment in the World Bank:
from "Approval" to Result. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1999. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. Washington, D.C.
World Bank, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Department for Europe
and Central Asia (ECSSD). 2001. Assessment of Safeguards Policy Implementation
Effectiveness. Washington, D. C.
World Bank. 2001. Draft (February). "Strategic Environmental Assessment in World Bank
Operations."
World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department (OED). 2002. Promoting Environmental
Sustainability in Development: An Evaluation of the World Bank's Performance. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank, Quality Assurance Group (QAG). 2002 . Draft (May 3). "Supervision Quality of
Risky Projects (QSR)."
39
Annex 1. Websites
The European Union:
� http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm � EA homepage with links to EIA and
SEA legal context, guidance, procedural and sectoral EA-related manuals and reports
� http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/negotiations/chapters/chap22/index.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/doc.htm � the scope, process, and documents
related to the accession to the EU in general and in the environmental field, and the status of
negotiations under Chapter 22 (Environment)
� http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/9711_consolidated.pdf � amended
and consolidated text of the EIA Directive 97/11/EC
� http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1990/en_390LO313.html � text of the Freedom of
Access to Environmental Information Directive 90/313/EEC
� http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1991/en_391LO692.html � text of the Reporting on
Implementation of Environmental Directives Directive 91/692/EEC
� http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/0142_en.pdf � text of the SEA
Directive 2001/42/EC
The Handbook for Implementation of EU Environmental Legislation at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/handbook/handbook.pdf
The Guide to the Approximation of European Union Environmental Legislation at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/guide/contents.htm
Administrative Capacity for Implementation and Enforcement of EU Environmental Policy in
the 13 Candidate Countries at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/administrative_capacity.pdf
The 1991 EIA Espoo Convention � its status, scope, and recent developments at
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/
The 1998 Aarhus Convention � its status, scope, and recent developments at
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/
EA-related and country legislation data was reviewed at:
http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm �UNECE Country Environmental
Performance Reviews
http://www.oecd.org � OECD Country Environmental Performance Reviews
http://lex.gtz.de/lexinfosys/lexE.htm � legal database maintained by the German GTZ
http://struiken.ic.uva.nl:88/index6.htm � The Dutch European Environmental Law Center
http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/nations.html � the Law Library of the US Congress
40
http://www.uni-wuerzburd.de/law/ - constitutional legal database maintained by the University
of Wurzburg
http://www.law.cornell.edu/world/ - law library of the Cornell University
http://www.usaid.gov/countries/ - US Agency for International Development (USAID) country
briefs and links
http://www.state.gov � US Department of State country background notes
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ - US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2001
World Factbook
41
ot greaterni ehtenfi a
fors ral la tailed
ld
ended
mpatibility am
Cor WB bed process dedluohs Natufo ent ou
nm sh
procedure stryi rovi
nce.
fosegn with oulhs EIA nte and
the rnm ents Minethd Endna NREP) da
(M gui
Cha ELE oveg an cesr cal
The stipulate tail.ed The requirem SEA, soueR ectiont
Pro echnit
sisyalnafo tal .
) enting,v lig ities tified
rsee lanogiredna ,
rk
)f(2 s
woe atth
(OP ation
nte ra. fram and
ryo
andat tal
requirements (m peytdna,hpt enmn
roi port.er pre acts.pmi
adv licy obd activ enid
env
tial AEnani by EAetht oral po an eatiesrt
forg sitive ouginy remiuqre pa,BxennA erall ilities ectojrp as,s
ation
nkaB eduresc Cd de ten projecta satin ) EA ov ab enm
h,dt pod cap cena lig
rldo Pro an,B,A results ing enp pognicna carrr sectgniduclni WB's 8;dna6 try's roniv fin
an
brea that ovrp enhd foel ancedi
the s.ra un nal
tio enla obyrt
un
W WB sib pa co
xes osehw scale, 2) im an gudna notseod
ra. of comro,g on
satisfy A,x coetht ation ch 3)..arap,
with
comparison nneA,9991,104. pa atin
ess ways actspmi sper ryos s,ntemurstni un
tod ne stituni,n WBe sue 42
ocrpehtsi ture,anethno 4.01,
tifies itigm,g tal dvi(a An
use slatioi ternintna Th
(OP enm isrew . ts. ravent 4.01PO(.
ro ofegnra be 7;.
A 3). accootinse en EA
and OP -EA ndeped enid
pact mizini roniv
im -EA min en borehT- 014.PG/PB can leglan
ne. para, tak condl
No EA, 014. fnd
an EA tioan relevrednu reem
ag wou ngirud -
analysis emtsys ) r - it
A Lawn ryo fo
aud iew) (Art.
pertise
EI ents 35,3t. eht ,41 in,
ncear tal SEA
(Rev andlaro
systems stem ectioto (EPL)99 (re Ar uces
Sy Pr cali
rtise sunila enmn 6,.trAd atel policies,fo dna
A EIA( rtisee an sect
EEL
EI khstana tal log ent roi stipu government
EIA n
to the 10,
of Kaz kh lic EEL, an anspl vari
za
the titutios ronmeni 19dna8991ni ndatama56-36.trAni iew)v
ex
iremuqre an
expe eco Exp SEE,d on.iatslgieldna, ous
rtain onmr env
3, EPL,,
-8 ical Art. oniatslgiella
) ), by
81 (3 byd
of Ka ents. ogl
3) ands and ent nte
cture Con5 Env7 puba cedna EIAfo
ary ndede esat ecological ), odrtni23.trA;)26- nm
applicable Eco (EEL e ro rnm
EPL, ve
-199 199- (am pulist 46, nviefonoi Art.d 63dna64. rm
state (SEE), (PEE and 42 not an requirem 9971 16(d
Law Art an foa ramgo edatulpi
stru pr Non -Establishe 7, -St envi go
Summ r r la n
The fo fo for or
ysis: Procedures ent
g ent uresd EIA
2. &
Anal no lin
ab
En oniatslgiel EIA Detailed oniatslgiel ns nte
al nm slatioi
isio ro )A rnm leg ityr esrud
EIA Form ovrp ve ocerp tho
strategic envi assessm (SE Local go EIA or Sectoral au oniatslgiel oce
pr
Annex Sample Legislati 1 2 3 4 5
AE
ry
WBgn eht
ational es.diugd
mpatibility ans
Cor WB
fosegn necessaeussid s,e and
usi
asl dat andn
tio ternind
with wel ndbook, an nualam
oulhs as Ha
Preven cei
Cha PERN esni Updnakoob ent EUla
tion
del urce llu itiond pract
M gui So Po Abatem ad best
k
ok boo onitatul de
as ,
d,
cebor
Sou ndaHtne propos
onscni an ntem and
the
part 4.01PB(
EA
atem EAfo (RESU)it De Board; . gns
ent assi F1ro
and Abd Unr C,
Sector nce,
eduresc ls.) Directors
vo an ewvire onmrvi ent B,,A
Sectot
Pro (3 tion
ok en WBse enm
WB ev Enehtfo utive ncurreoc ories:
.
1)
cebor ).62 Prn . ur
Sou 1-. tio ard
43
llu 6).a natdiroocno roni ronmvinE
r, categ
ra. Execfo RESU
Env chai
EA1 os Po9 alnoi rtoppusht pa,10.4 SU; with, fofoe
199ehT- (Nse par, regi wi, RE
Reg ry Boethy teamk on
to
dat
Up 199ehT- 4.01PO( WB its (BP)V telam
The with necessa (EN Director, ltiu SUER tas
The ectojrp 2)..
para NA
t. r t.
g and to ..d elb
ces eth with rm
stem
Sy ermrofeht Ard Ard aftrd
ational beinears an ehtfosdr usted usegn SEE. and, ffio ghtim onsip nte for an cen foni to
selected Agency of
(adj bei dna
EPL, nte onal heotybde liapm SEE,a SEEe
ternin ok government 8, es are subordinate thorized A/IEr offices andro
au fo rnm dna EPL,, co SEE,a
10 of
EIA
kh
za omfrseni esristniim relatedsn ativg
d dbo the 7-.tr ndaastd andno elinid the ns.oiat
Protection ly dy ve regid resstinula onalitdi ndatam lts
an
an by ent nagemamla
ion hand (A gionalre Art. ena
A, ent secteth MNREPethh
in ares oniatslgiella ringudn
d anseni Uni gula bo
stances)
ental its goeht gulre itornom
n EP neilhg nm sectoral to cisioedn
Ka del an oughht dueth witn ent resueht with
Un REP ent nte inde
EEL del alnte ad;AEfo
guid eti lsau Soviet is nmorvi ro
ation circum ouht of
rnm en nm
rnm lish slatioi atio
d
-Ol Sov man use -Establishe MNeth guid er ro ities
10-11, -Ol form ternin ve
local MNREP, Environm (EPA), go MNREP, lyetamitul P,ERN ne, nvier
Kazakhsta M No have fo (EIA/SEE) teractioin poser emriu ve
pu req applicable envi go Estab EEL:,21 legeth licbup termin activ
r la
&
ral esni AIEr fo ent odyb ilities nte ilities
ityr nm ityr sib sib
del nia nistrativei fo etentp ro
dy tho
Gene specific gui M adm bo Com au envi acceptability ewvieR AIEr oral rnm
tho ve
fo Sect au respon Local go respon
6 Administration 7 8 9 10 11
as
e la d
an
ent
mpatibility audit,
Cor WB ndatamdluohs well fo bjectus
as reu nm tion
are ro en
natd that
an prevn
fosegn with nte categories anst ties as
rnm ingn ecjo nviefosepyt
prfo activid chus tioullop
Cha oveg rent etc.,
scree
The EIA pesyt propose ffediot atedr rol
analysis, tegin cont
ni P
the (O e
gal ned teaml and
on
Le defi report and rotn lse itudengam
B ndbook ethfot pe,ytreiht strativ
thedna asdna5. wer
rro AE certain
on nts,e co W Ha levn .)31-8 and
bo the 6-12). andec the ent illugn
issio atemen
of ab ras. usi
etc.
ENV; eme
eduresc para, the ran
writing requirem Abatem ativ andn pa,104. ongnidn
depes reutaneth
in tio ect and ),8.aarp,
Pro air,hc
t;n
WB
W ra. an 4.01PO(
preside 014.PB.,ge.( LEG,eth ses paras. assu
reviews "anchor" andn en
advi proj
B nt,e is
4.01, q lityau ent tio alternd prev .
en 6) scaled
ENV,eth ewi process, eth tion
cevi (LEG) the: rev;)5 EA (PB mmen
classifies ity,
pollu actsp 44
with quiremre the environmeht Prevnoti guidance
llu to and itivs im
onal
regi ntemrt .s)PO EA of as
nt lly:a llya entation projects:y of Po recoyam
para. pa,104.PO( OP)1Fdna,C.,B,Ase
reens sen,n tial
vae ernt risk of EAe ectjo sc entop
The Depa rel -In -Extern WB's 4.01, aspects docum -For (QACT) -Use available -Th approaches pr gorietaC WB catiolo of
,yr esi th r as
r , ot ,
la bod are ot
n no .d esu ity or
es
ent fo
stem nm dustnI,ht nistr e r ,g EEL,
an rofsnte heot ram
Uni types ectj activ
Sy ro
Heal Miethd fo fogin 15, llutio wellsa subject sub vald
issuym usegn
esni ttini akm- ehtotin bodies hol edso EELeht
scales, fit SEE.d rem andci po etvi of blish prog,
tal rules So bei ngi ities on.iatslgielr
del es. onal om esta in deliniug"y
EIA
kh
za
Ka nvieeussi,nosiu esristnii rmep, an quire
sion on er ealth are
M,nte ur Art.dna and entation heot
nce, Econo guid ing toe rm
EEL, annlp reshtht listed
na hav registi
and an L,PE
and caligool ecfo enmn s,
roiv
norm foeht nw esat E activfo wi by oprpeth orarp
and docum SE ofn
etc. rnm Fi,y ant,nem
ern nsoi gnsied, decidna fferingidfo edni
SEE procedde EIArofel pesyt enla mmooC Sttned ities ryo lists
oveg SEE,d itiesv "tems
nom
concl licenses, The Eco etc. govehT- cena ngi sib 46-61, rds, rme
ities and lish ous ities. omrf pen 14,dna6 project an iour
Finfo ructstni the det
annlp licensing, activ EIA estab -MNREP sponer echsibla
-Art. est vari activ -Nation standa hoset de
and In -Art. activfo and ndatam arisopm actieth av
-Detailed EIA are Co to in
r
esdi fo noi r noi noti &
bor sibleno gnni n ening
he ovalr natdir gn ovalr natdir lluop rol ovalr latio Scre gnin gnin
Ot resp anpl ofdohte heotht
app M coo wi anipl esdi ofdohte of
app bo M coo with cont app regu Scree categories Scree hodtem
12 13 14 Stages 15 16
in
e nceer d ;n tok of no
cts ce
ental
tim atio
mpatibility . pesyt
onm
Cor WB ndatamdluohs ehtninoi refe anyle fo
atio seed aspe dan
ofs rticipap oulhs liancepmoc lan erationd
natdi with consi cialos ous vir
fosegn with nte oroc rmetfo lic nce ternin en
le and and guieussid
rnm ent publ A,
ncy ferere hronized nneramde varifo
sync licabp ents ental oulhs etc.
Cha oveg opm EIA/SEE, gfuin ap entnt EIrof
The rageetni an ofs reu ronm gratetni PERN
devel for mean term ens with requirem envi an M coeht rto
rep analysis,
pacts
im
tialn ,alcios,y n OP er
of keat yar r
4.20 ,tsial .
ru
1999), obe ust 7) und &s
fet tegratedni are OP ug gnriu er
st 6-.
potedna sadnaht aspects an
in esciilop ebF(
1991), (Oct73.4 508.PO,)10 specila ens pact
rk imla
ental edr B 4.07PO (A0.7 rrower,obeth
(Augu 20 ent
14
ber with nm
ent
W ), 4.11 ro EA,ehtrof on.itandi paras,
oroc 014.P owrrobeht
woe nm
eduresc B). scale,,
Pro nature healnamuh, ronm OP,)39 nvie (B
(Decem 19 ro
envi conside envi anpl
are 1998) 4.20 ay ref of sr data
WB Annex, (M letter.
the ent global
nm herotrednude 0012e OP, une(J06.7 DO,)2991 EAeth tonevig frame
unJ(40.4 char
ber OD Op,)1002 of rencee nceer
(M refe B,xe nte
scope ent
4.01PG( ro and aspects OP., 019. ofs es arep sn
the gencyaretnidna ofs Ann, strativinim pre
account envi (Decem 2001), une(J rmet add ativ nagemam rt ltatio pportingus
ber usses aft rmetswe veroc yr
4.01 ory onipt
OP ternal pore 45
nsu and
listsgni into ralu ndatamsnte
sboundaryn e.gt:nu 4.09 364.PO,)99
disc anybtsividelfiagnirud oniatpicirt in mmause anla scri data of co
takes
een nateht cialosdna
OP 19r DO,)5991 B ng drotsp revi of
explanat tiv leg de oni cesn
tra ities. ural . remui acco (Decem obe ust ). W hel eddi
eq ug udes: AIEfo
ov licy, assessmdnanoictdi lysisa alntemnoriv
scr -EA on and activ -Nat way -R toin 507.PO,)10 jecto
2000), 4.12 (Oct 20 (A 9891 -The udiclni pacibl
and pu USER- Pr WB's Incl cuexE- -Po -Pr -Baseline -Pre gattiim -An -En -List -Record -Refere
as
or an ofs s .s
REP
stem e athtse sk
ris change dna
ity ity a
Sy MNeth ns. veleldna
lish and ental asureemnoi ope to
EIA cablipl tio :ed activ sc
en ect
of ap nv estab cluin pacts ectot the activro
kh all im sed pr tablishesse for subjn E.
za der
ctions EEL, sh pesytfonoi environm SE
Ka
struind undedivo cola
rt nati ental of ents tatio
ation (4), oporpeht ojectrp
EEL, oft ryo
16 repo erm ronm
an pr ternin None Art. EIA -Det envi -Forecast toeud alntemnoriv 15, entn
-En Art. requirem co enmucod ndatam
gnip udytS
gn Sco hodtem oft fotne rtopre
ontC EIA
Scopi 17 Conten 18
.
mpatibility ou ou
Cor WB
fosegn sihteatulpistd a eht n
its
atelu eb nin eht eb nin eht
with for tatio ehtdna ld ns, etalu ehtdna
stip
ld EMP, lebisn enmelp ld ns, etalu
sht slatioi
leg pplicablea atio regd on,i calnihcetedivo
lig sht slatioi
leg pplicablea atio regd on,i calnihcetedivo
lig
with en oul catilp prd en oul catilp prd
oulhs ent. shoun ing imd with sh ap toin with sh ap
ndib respot an toin
irem obla nte oulhs . irem obla nte oulhs .
Cha PERN en cen cen
osed osed
slatioi ation ation
llya on requ alrud alrud
is sp rnm requ
ve sp rnm
M requirem Leg leg oprp ingcna
fin Th tran accorda ternin oce PERN dance is
go pr M gui Th tran accorda ternin ve oce PERN dance
go pr M gui
e
d
. a area nid .yt
its 4.01, yb ene
5-7
s.arap nsulteoc tea Ayr
in ehtot ravt noitul versi guideth
pol
are alu (OP
explaine con in
atht being evot actsp etc., EMPeth ego
ecified.
related sp la odibi
is imd and
es of is atth on,ietlp ons ecified
4.01,PG 7)
an le catehtfo ation sp
groups EA ativ a.r nt isions ities
ts. deen (BP) as stro
language an pactmi ecialist
eduresc see,tr the risks (pa roeth prov activ
ce altern enm ozo, nce ce rep sp
and to tal
Pro 014.
pore rm ble ponemoca ternnitna verse
clarifies EMPg eatiesrtlano
ati ectojrp ree EA tal
ag fereer of
WB AE foa sin,tne enmn as relev change
P citin er and ofs referenfos we enm
in accessi remiu roiv ectojrpein OPni ands ternin cena ate roniv
the ). en am red EM and all addna,rse
clim term term revid en
of and
at mmaryus 16.a req
tential exot enth rt EA.ethfon finton undsn wat 46
with treaties
atio with
par, licy repo es
po streng tatio ce do lig tal withn
. include cy annoi anyb
form poa calfi ngtisilyl
EA B ob enm d aratp sitiv
the utive rstandable
On Exec unde 4.01PO( is arisop
is
Th ect'sojrp e,cneuflinfo requiyl
2).. .Cx 4.01 calfi uire
ne un pacts sisten
para Speci- An -OP speci p i -Co -Th co en ectojr enmelpm lianpm We try roniv naloiatnretni
-Req Im- of Com prer
- -Con fo -Field
fo
ous . A
re rt
rof with
vari pasa ce
stem
Sy erdnu onsicturstni EEL,) EEL, EIeht ateslu
er yb stip dna
ate ational
(3)(2 to,n odyb lianpm
red 16 3))(4(61. g
ied 2001. EPL,, d,etit eth
62 ternin quiresnoitnev ons.mmoc -makin bm co
onal
EIA
kh
za quierhg PERN undderiu tatio
January ewsi
M" decision
Ka ouht Art.ybde Art req tifar,noit climlab
Art. susi
byd en
ugh 11n glo some conla rt rev
ugh ofn registi
ent
nm & pore enmucod ich
porary lish Convo
ne, tho,e layer;e oballgfonoi A
ro wh
EI ity
No em"t hesibla
Estab Est tho,enoN Espo Kazakhsta Non ectiotorp onzo ectot orPERN
envi pr An activ M SEE,
gn la icipation,t
nte nte es nte ent nte )P nte ry nte of
rem -n ce
rem ativ rem nm (EM rem rem alb parc of
quieR nor arym ro ndauob &tne
fo technical sum quieR iderisnocr
fo altern quieR r
fo envi nagemam plans quieR r publi we
fo ansrt pacts
im quieR glor pacts rofdohte bstan
fo im M revi cont su
19 20 21 22 23 Review, 24
eat atn eat ,d portsre
an
mpatibility
Cor WB gulredluohs atio callod
andt, rticipap al,
lic oni gulredluohs localdna
unrestricte A/SEEIE
fosegn with nte to gional,re
aren
sp
rnm publ regl,a nte
timely,
rnm
tran gfuin access onal,
Cha oveg nati
The ly,emti mean tionaneth ls.e oveg ensure free
the ls.e
lev The and and at lev
ect-ojrp era la
) ared.p d s d. .n
(1 nce pre ahc ehtr
lts is fon eth ofd cim
en ysad atio praispa
ice:
nsu tw ferere aisal otro inn
re day03 quirere B
pr receiven 60p is Inform W econod
co rs
er ofs report ap pri:A whirof
DR vegido whe of
locatio rep nal an
owrr cucon term EA ectoj ID IB oph foebdetit rt,o
shoo rtopre
Inf rture
AE pr B Brof AE eratio gnsied
eduresc boeth, Infos W the Op depa .kr
ltatio re drafta
fo torio byd byd
oph at of
ase
Pro nsu pr fos periemiton(d licbupel bmus
WB be rt loans wol ectojrp
NGOs. co once d;aroB
In nel
WB ectsjorp bed nancefis nancefis ireu suitaba the stum poer ase rele sure
to earscldna of Pa
B calol 'sB at
req ns: rt A
& and ects,ojrp angn (2)dna projects: W ectjo ectjo )tro IBRD sam aisal
pr pr is inel
rep AE
tee: onaitdida pr
A the rt ratio pore
ailab B the ap ectionp
Ay Ay reeni ytr thefo Disclo:0.5 47
sc ping)o at By By Ins
or or pore EA av un ailableva ope
of or anar issionmr
pe 17 esriu
or or is co is gu
groups (sc eg eg
after category EA on rt
ing eetingm guarantee: BP viewsre reqro ithw
(BP) 17.55:
categ categ available ssii repo portre teenar Ayr
BRDI teda
IDA also, on BP
orF- affected orF- tlyr For catroF) catroF)
sho finalized (1) -EA (2 appraisal (3 separate subm -EA owrrob Gua) egoat
-EA (4 -C appraisal orF- reo reo 'serwor
bef bef -For Bor See -RESU ssiim egrtnI- analysis See
d
an d d in d
an ng
rds for dna for rity, dna
da la NGOs blesi to srtap for
secu L,
stem
Sy
EIA
kh anstdnasnte ental EPL,, udiclni
on ng anseidob ses. EP
79, provide ent ,nte esdi
. nm ands bo access itiesr
on, udi
resp ati tho licen
nvironme -74
EEL, ro ansthgrihsibla au
of 72, nvie estd are rm 6,8-48.
citizen tricteds mmercial,
) and L
za an local Art
rem ofs nagemamla PEE.dna foni (exclstro cot its
unre rep by EE,
Ka quire uacyq asuresemnoi 65,6,5 29-32, of"
8, ost oniat ent calolstidna
nm oritiesht ent alnogirestidna
EE, ng secrets
au nm esenr rmep edat
ade
galel ectot
the pr 2,t.rA 5, sna
Art. "gl rmofni ation ro ngi ro EES rep 37-38
ligbo PERN
envi EIA/S M callo arra envi EIA/ atth state PERN andlanoi puli
or M reg related St Art.
ts nte ents to rof
ation
porer ittedmb rem blic
pur access rtsopre -nosi
EA su quieR fo rticipap Arrangem for EIA Deci ngkiam ityr
tho nsoisiv
au Pro appeal
25 26 27 28
d
EAtned an r
entno folenap or"h dna
mpatibility pen
Cor WB oprp ry "ancla
fosegn with ndei:dedivo bydenia soiv ent
adla . nm onaliatrepo ent.
pr
Cha be retsrt ation issues rovine opm
To expe ternin joram
,4 The.)evi scussdiot evelDd
rs
heto annoi
anola
of bystsivinoisiv nahsibla ra.
categoryr ands uctr
nst
est fo pa,104. rectdilanoi oni
rat
es OP reg
ope( all ecoRrof
sionsiv (see m
AE OD fro nkaB
eduresc proeth perus,reworrob s,rtepxe issurojam
nt
for Panely rty. ce),i naloi
ndee paa itsnu
Pro with by
WB ce ) nelapla Safet
nor actrpd tal nater
oog( enm
lianpm
co WBotdetti 20. depninia ation Damehtr ). =IntDR
para, fod 4.37P signatorya GP,e)r roniv
en IB
of 48
rs internt iefs
itonom ent. ubmssrt 014.P retdluohs en ans ceduo
(B
WB agreem poeR WB erworroB /BPO ch on;iatcio
ndepedin ectjo neither
and is lesb
pr Asst
A .7nf prkna
WB (B
assem enmp
d atth
stem anseidob for
blesi ,lorntoc, PB,)
11 ured
11 tity Develola
on ocerp ene
Sy
EIA
kh
za
Ka alnogirestidna resp ngriot LPE tifiedarn ation
tio ratifiedn ngi
ultativs rnet
are onimla e 9,7-77.t en
perato( conlan IDA=In
PERN oritiesht ent liancp PO
au nm Arnidre nvoC
ro com Espoo 0012yar tionevnoCs 0012yar
M callo envi and quieR NA IAE- Janu -Aarhu Janu nkaBdrl nizatioagro rest.etinno
an
,gnriot ent, snte mm
pu g
liancep w- ring
rem rofesi ofn o Wo.
la ) cofo
ctin if related (Espo
(by ation husr tesony isknaB
oni com
M enforcem & quieR follor itonom ty pert ndu e)blsi rld
fo & Ex co EIA sector, pos Ratificatio ternin EIA Aa
treaties to & onsitnevnoC orta
an
paci
Monitoring 29 30 Ca 31 23 plxE woethfo ttersam
licyop
Annex 3. EIA laws in ECA countries
Countries Legal document Year
Central and East Europe plus Turkey
Bulgaria Environmental Protection Act (Chapter Four ) 1991
Regulation No. 1 on Environmental Impact Assessment 1993
Regulation No.2 on the Certification of Professional Knowledge of the Experts 1995
who Assess the Impact on the Environment
Czech Republic Czechoslovak Federal Act on the Environment (No. 17/1992) 1991
Act on Environmental Impact Assessment and ammendments to some related
acts (#100, 2001)
Estonia Law on Environmental Protection 1990
Law on Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Audit June
2001
Hungary Government Decree on the Temporary Regulations of EIA of Certain Activities 1993
86/1993
Government Decree on the Modification of the List of Activities Requiring EIA 1994
67/1994
Environmental Protection Act 1995
Degree No.152 on Activities Requiring the Completion of an EIA 1995
Law on EIA April
2001
Latvia Law on Environmental Protection 1990
Regulations on Territorial Planning 1991
Law on Construction 1994
Law on Territorial Planning Development 1995
Law on Environmental Impact Assessment 1998
Lithuania Law on Environmental Protection 1992
Law on Environmental Impact Assessment 1996
Governmental Resolution #456 Concerning Approval of the List of Proposed 1997
Activities and Projects That Shall Be Made Subject to the Full EIA
Government Resolution 3 1305 on the Approval of the Order of Informing the 1996
Public about the Proposed Activity and Implementing the Proposals
Poland Law on EIA April
2001
Landuse Planning Act (LPA) with amendments 1994
Highways (Toll Motorways) Act 1994
Ministry of Environment Executive Order on the Forecast of the Environmental 1995
Consequences of Local Land-Use Plans (connected with LPA)
Ministry of Environment Executive Order on Environmental Impact 1995
Assessment of Highways on Environment, Agricultural and Forest Lands and
49
Countries Legal document Year
Cultural Heritage (connected with the Highways Act)
Executive Order on Hazardous and Potentially Harmful Developments and 1995
Environmental Impact Sssessment
Law on Environmental protection May
2001
Law on Sccess to Information on Rnvironmental Audits and on EIAs Nov.
2000
Romania Law on Environmental Protection (No. 137) 1995
Ministerial Order 125 - The Permitting Procedure for Economic and Social 1996
Activities Having an Environmental Impact
Ministerial Order 278 - Accreditation Rules for EIA and Environmental Audit 1996
Performers
Slovakia Act on EIA (3391/2000) 2000
Slovenia Environmental Protection Act 1993
Regulations on the Types of Activities for Which an EIA is Mandatory 1996
Instruction on the Methodology for the Preparation of a Report on EIA 1996
Decree on the Conditions and the Procedure for Obtaining an Authorization for 1996
Preparing Reports on Environmental Impacts
Law on Environmental Protection 1990
Turkey Environmental Act (No 2872 of 1983) 1983
EIA Regulation 23/6/97 1997
NIS
Armenia The Principles of Legislation "On Nature Protection" 1991
Law on Sanitary-Hygienic Safety of Population 1992
Law on the Expert Review of Impacts on the Environment 1995
Azerbaijan Law on Environmental Protection and Utilization of Natural Resources 1992
EIA Regulation 1996
Belarus Law on Environmental Protection 1992
Law on State Ecological Expertise 1993
Instruction on the Order of Conducting State Environmental Expert Reviews 1995
Georgia Law on Environmental Protection 1996
Law on Environmental Permits 1996
Law on State Ecological Expertise 1996
Kazakhstan Law "On the Protection of the Environment" 1997
Law on Ecological Expertise 1997
Temporary Instruction on Procedure of OVOS of Planned Activities 1993
Instruction on the Procedure of SEE for Pre-Project and Project Documentation 1997
50
Countries Legal document Year
Kyrgyzstan Law on Environmental Protection 1991
Law on Ecological Expertise 1999
The Instruction on the Order of Conducting OVOS 1997
The Instruction on the Order of Conducting SER 1997
Moldova Law on the Protection of the Environment 1993
Law on Ecological Expertise and the Assessment of Environmental Impacts no. 1996
851-XII
Russia Law on Environmental Protection 1991,
1993
Cabinet's State Ecological Expertise Regulations 1993
Instruction on Environmental Substantiation of Economic Activities 1995
Construction Norms and Rules SNIP 11.01.95 1995
Construction Rules SP 11.01.95 1995
Federal Law on Ecological Expertise 1995
State Environmental Expert Review Procedures 1997
Regulations on the Assessment of Environmental Impacts May,
2000
Tajikistan Law of the Republic of Tajikistan on the Protection of the Natural Environment 1993
Regulation on State Environmental Expert Review (Expertise) No. 156 1994
Turkmenistan Law on the State Ecologiccal Expertise 1995
Law on Nature Protection 1991
Ukraine Environmental Protection Act 1991
Law on Ecological Expertise 1995
The Law on Scientific Expert Review (Expertise) 1995
Structure and Content of Documents on Environmental Impact Assessments 1995
(OVOS) in Designing and Construction of Businesses, Houses and Buildings.
Main Designing Principles. DBN A.2.2-1-95
Uzbekistan Law on Nature Protection 1992
Instruction on the Order of Conducting the State Ecological Expertise before
1995
Instruction on the Order of Carrying out OVOS before
1995
Law on State Ecological Expertise May,
2000
South East Europe
Albania Law on Environmental Protection 1993
Regulation and Procedure on EIA draft
Bosnia Environmental Protection Act 1993
Herzegovina
51
Countries Legal document Year
Instructions on the Methodology for Preparing an EIA Report 1996
Regulation on EIA Activities
Croatia The Law on Physical Planning and Spatial Arrangement; 1980
The Law on Environmental Protection (Art. 25-Art.32) 1994
Government Decree on EIA 1997
FRY Macedonia Law on Environment and Nature Protection and Promotion 1996
Law on Physical and Urban Planning 1996
Guidelines for Issuing Approval and Fecision for the Use of Facilities 1996
Montenegro Law on Environment 1996
Government Decree No.145 on the Assessment of the Environmental Impacts 1997
of Projects
Serbia Environmental Protection Act 1991
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1992
52
Annex 4. EIA-responsible institutions in ECA countries
Countries EIA responsible institution
Central and East Europe plus Turkey
Bulgaria Ministry of Environment and Waters
Czech Republic Ministry of Environment
Estonia Ministry of Environment and natural resources
Hungary Ministry of Environment
Latvia Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development
Lithuania Ministry of Environmental Protection
Poland Ministry of Environment
Romania Ministry of Environment and Waters
Slovakia Ministry of Environment
Slovenia Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
Turkey Ministry of Environment
NIS
Armenia Ministry of Nature Protection
Azerbaijan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental protection
Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Georgia Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Kazakhstan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Kyrgyzstan Ministry of Ecology and Emergency Situations
Moldova Ministry of Ecology, Construction and Territorial Development
Russia Ministry of Nature Protection
Tajikistan Ministry of Nature Protection
Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Use and Environmental Protection
Ukraine Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety
Uzbekistan State Committee for Nature Protection
South East Europe
Albania Ministry of Environment
Bosnia Herzegovina Ministry of Urban Planning, Utilities and Environment
Croatia Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning
Macedonia Ministry of Urban Planning, Construction and Environment
Montenegro Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
Serbia Ministry of Health and Environment
53
l
ta 5 1 9 0
To 26 80 93 70 69 12 11 13 14 47 4 5 1
11 13 11
,
ehtrofsnt ity
rnedom tal ws,la essn
eration snoisivo
EA nsive global,
nsid prr herotr licies,op
licbup & ronmeni &k co pacts, ry ard
Bank poi51ar im nces, heot esoth ndeu
ility 51
ailab
Ext clarity, av envethfo wore rehepmoc atedr ndauob &, to edat =
fram their tegin social
of ansrt conseque IPPC ilarmsi safegu
pulist tal
WB etc. To 0 5 5 3 0 10 8 10 10 0 8 15 8
World AE B 30
the with for
an Wehtr dy
onali bola tra
ex gin 01 =
10
nat dez + to
of of report ent + 30
ndeu = 25 24 25 22 25 25 25
nm +
that ewvieR =
contents rto by)yci orihtuay tsin ndib up 20 22 25 25 22
ro
EA/EIA (consistency the rep pol dul envi po02� r:ofsnt ally s.nt 10=0
+ =2 =5 =5 +2 10 =5 =4 =5 =2 =5 =5 =5
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
poi -Leg EMP, poi Total 10. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
thiw
k at ni
EA
or ation 20� artxe gn .stin =5
n, +
ation 21
husr 23 21 20 25 23 25 25 21 25 25
=
lic critical sposin tio po5 20 5
en to
tra nv =5 =1 3= =1 =0 =5 3= =5 =5 1= =5 =5
Pub rticipap +snt r:ofsnt
two stages poi poi -Particip & Aaeht up
Co + Total 25 +0 + + + + + + + + + + +
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
framew 54
yb snt snt ng + )
ing 26 30 30 40 40 22 30 40
legal & opi
ired sc eth fos 20 17 17 22
+0 5
=0 =1 =5 6
=0 =1 =5 =5 =5 =5 =1 =5 =5 =2
EA ingn quer )02+0
(1 poiartxe screen term ess,corp tsin 40 +0 +1 +5 +5 +5 +5 +1 +5 +5
ree encyg (103 +1 + +1 +1
= + +1 + + + + + + + + +
sc ing 30� +snt poi5otpu
+ toinstu po5 =5 10 10 20 20 10 10 20
r:
EA scop law poi fo -Detailed lists, erant-I inp rence
& EA/EIA refe topu tal +5 +0 10 +0 10 12
To + +5 +5 +10
10 +5 +5 + + + + + + +
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 +7
)
countries' an 40
with 20 40 30
&s 16 15 15 10 25 = 10 30
la +01( ,noit 30=
law extra ethni 5 =5 =5 31
CAE en +0 6= =1 =5 =0 =0 =5 =0 =0
ent + UEehtg on,iatslgiel stin .stin
rk ision sin po5 ation po5 40 +1
0 +0 +0 +0 +55 +0 +5 +5 +0 +5 =1
nm 30� (103 + + + + +
of rovi woe ovrp wal tsin po alnt = =5 +0+ +
ns +0 0+
En fram EA EA po)02 r:ofsnt zori to Convo to 20 20 10 20
up up tal +5
poi -Tra ho + -Particip Espo + To + +0+5 10 +5 10 +0 +0+0
+5 +5 +5 + +1 +1 + + + +20 + +
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
c
ublic a
d na publi
Compatibility ani ani ijan an
ia govi iar Re
tiaa a Repl agi ansth
5. ba sn lga oni rae avisloguY garyn
Al Arme Azerba Belarus Bo Herze Bu Cro Czech Est Fed of Geor Hu Kazak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Annex
6 5 7 2 3 3 6 1 2
10 14 14 61 11 13 13 10 13 98 75 78 91 13 94
6 15 15 0 7 10 8 10 6 0 0 0 0 8 6
25 30 30 30 30 30
=5 = 27 22 22 22 23 21 21
10 =7 =2 =
10 =2 = =
10 10 =2 21= 23= =3 =1 =
10 =1
+ + + + + + + + + +1 +3 + + + +
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
25 20 25 24 25 25 25 20 23 25 23 20 23
=5 =0 =5 =4 =5 =5 =5 =0 =3 =5 =3 +0 =3 23 20
3= =0
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 55
19 40 36 40 40 19 40
=1 =5 0 32
40 18 16 25 17
=5 =1 =5 17
+1 +5 =5 =0 =3 =5 =5
3= =1 =1
+ + + +0
10 20 20 +0 +5+0 +3 +5 =3
+ + +3 +5 1+ =2+2 +5 +1 +5
+ + + + + + +1
+
20 20 20 20 10 20
+7 + + +5 10 10 10
10 10 +0 + + +
10 10 10 +5 + + +
10 10 15 +5 +5 +
10 +5
31 40=5 40 31 40 30 30 40 30 31
=5 =1 =5 =5 =0 =5 10 10 30
=1 +5 +5 +0 +5 +5 +0 +5 20 =0 =0 =0 =1 =0
+ + + 15 + + + + + =5 +0 +0 +0 +0 +0
20 20 20 =5 20 20 10 20 20 +5 +0 +0 + + +
20 20
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +20
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
ci
a ani ublp
a Re n anst
tvia aniuht do ovd ani a ak ain meni en anstki
land ma
Kyrgyzstan La Li Mace Mol Po Ro Russi ovSl oveSl jikista
Ta Turkey Turk Ukrai Uzbe
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28