- Email: [email protected]
Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468 – 480 www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects Per Christensen ⁎ Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Fibigerstraede 13, DK-9220 Aalborg O, Denmark Received 1 August 2005; received in revised form 1 December 2005; accepted 1 January 2006 Available online 6 March 2006
Abstract Since its introduction into Danish planning in 1989, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been widely discussed. At the centre of the debate has been the question of whether EIA actually offered anything new and there has been a great deal of scepticism about the efficacy of the instrument, especially when it comes to livestock projects. In an evaluation of the Danish EIA experience, we have looked more closely at how the EIA instruments function regarding livestock projects. This article addresses both the EIA process as well as the EIA screening. It is demonstrated that the EIA screening in its own right is a kind of regulatory instrument. Examining the assessments made during screening more closely, we conclude that there is still some way to go in order to make the assessment broader and more holistic in accordance with the ambitions set out in the EIA directive to contribute to a more sustainable development. Although the provisions laid down are the same the praxis related to the field has developed at a considerable speed. In order to understand this development we have closely examined how the decisions made by the Nature Protection Board of Appeal (NPBA) have been changed and conclude that these changes definitely address some of the shortcomings found in the evaluation. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: EIA; EIA-screening; Livestock projects; Holistic assessment; Natura 2000
1. Introduction Following the first EU directive on EIA in 1985 (EU Directive 85/337/EEC), Denmark implemented EIA in 1989. The Danes were not enthusiastic about it, primarily because a system of environmental planning and regulation was already well established. Environmental regulation was founded on several sectoral laws that were media oriented, covering pollution, wastewater, ⁎ Tel.: +45 96 35 83 26; fax: +45 98 15 37 88. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.002
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
469
water use, resource extraction, etc. Governing the issuing of permits and licenses were plans made at town and county level, the municipal plan and the regional plan respectively. However, during the 1990s EIA gained a lot of credibility as the instrument clearly showed that it could address a wider variety of problems than existing planning and regulations could. The reason for the success of the EIA rules is that it gives a more holistic description and assessment of the environment and consequently better addresses prospective problems (Christensen et al., 2005). Considerations for groundwater protection and managing biodiversity increased in the 1990s and the more holistic concept of the environment used in the EIA better matched this new situation than the traditional zoning practices, which did not leave much room for this. The background for these new considerations is found in the continuing growth in agricultural production. In particular, the growth of pig production and the handling of vast amounts of slurry meant increased pressure on groundwater and decreasing quality of protected habitats, as critical loads for nitrogen exposure are often exceeded (Agger et al., 2002). Actually, now we are facing eutrophication not only of the waters but of the whole countryside (Matson et al., 2002). 1.1. Changing regulations The process of making an EIA in Denmark is different from most other countries. The farmer, helped by his consultants, is obliged to provide the necessary information but it is the county authorities that are obliged to undertake the assessment. The county can ask a consultant to make the assessment or the farmer himself, helped by his consultant, can do it. But in the end the county is responsible for the content of the resulting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A ‘full’ EIA covers three documents. Firstly the EIS has to be prepared. This then forms the basis for formulation of a project specific amendment to the regional plan. Thirdly, and concomitant with this amendment, the sectoral permit/license has to be issued, as in, for example, the case of issuing an environmental permit for a farm. When the directive on EIA was amended in 1997 and then implemented in a Danish composite order in 1999, several changes were made to the system. Firstly, a new “EIA permit” was introduced as a new kind of permit to cover cases where traditional sectoral permits did not provide regulatory measures. The “EIA permit” would now reflect the fact that the EIA is based on a more holistic view of the impacts of projects. Secondly, up to this point Annex 1 of the directive did not include agricultural activities, but now installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than: (a) 85 000 places for broilers, 60 000 places for hens; (b) 3000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg); or(c) 900 places for sows were included. However, in 1994, it was decided as part of the Danish implementation that farms with more than 250 AU1 should be liable to a ‘full EIA’. Denmark used the provisions in Annex II of the old directive (EU Directive 85/337/EEC) to decide that farms of this size should be included in Annex I. Already in 1992 the same limit was introduced in the law of environmental protection as the limit beyond which an environmental permit would be mandatory.
1 An AU is an ‘animal unit’ covering in this case the yearly production of 36 pigs for slaughtering (30–100 kilo) or 175 smaller pigs (7.2–30 kilo), amounting to manure or slurry containing 100 kg N per AU. The limit mentioned above goes for 3000 places for production of pigs, i.e. giving rise to a considerable higher number of pigs produced per year. Furthermore has the amount of produced pigs per AU been increasing as environmental regulations spurs the interest in optimising the use of fodder, i.e. the slurry contains less N and consequently more pigs are used to produce 1 AU.
470
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
Thirdly, the amendments to the directive in 1997 placed more emphasis on screening as a de facto regulatory process in its own right. Projects smaller than those listed in Annex I now featured in Annex II, and would undergo screening in order to assess whether their environmental impacts were significant; this lead to smaller projects being subjected to a “full EIA”. Alternatively, screening itself could lead to the project being modified in order to avoid going through an EIA. Screening has therefore become not only an administrative filtering procedure but also effectively a form of regulation (Nielsen et al., 2005). In some countries threshold values below which a screening is not necessary are set (Wood, 2003). Such threshold values were not implemented in 1999, but recently a checklist has been introduced to avoid using too much time on smaller projects with no apparent significant impact on the environment. This was proposed as a notification scheme for simplifying EIA screening procedures in relation to certain livestock projects. In the summer of 2003 the notification scheme entered into force. It covers the establishment or expansion of livestock projects of up to 100 AU. Generally, smaller farms situated in zones with no immediate environmental conflicts or with sensitive areas can completely escape going through a screening process. Regarding livestock cases the Danish provisions are thus similar to those of other countries, as e.g. UK (Wood, 2003). 1.2. EIA and sustainability Worldwide the EIA instrument was one of the first instruments for environmental protection (Wood, 2003). Already from the beginning it stood out as more than traditional sectoral regulations that had been introduced specifically after the UN World Summit in Stockholm 1972 (Carter, 2001). From the beginning holistic aspirations were clear and from its launch in the EU in 1985 it also became clear that prevention was the main aim of these regulations: the best environmental policy consists in preventing the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects; whereas they affirm the need to take effects on the environment into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and decision-making processes (EU Directive 85/337/EEC). These intentions were further elaborated on in the amendment that was adopted in 1997. In the meantime sustainability had become the catchword in environmental discourses and consequently it was underlined that the instrument should be seen in that light: the assessment procedure is a fundamental instrument of environmental policy as defined in Article 130R of the Treaty and of the Fifth Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). Besides still clinging to prevention, which at that time was becoming part of the growing ideology on ecological modernisation (Carter, 2001; Mol and Spargaren, 2000), new principles such as the precautionary principle, had come to light: policy on the environment is based on the precautionary principle and on the principle that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). Notwithstanding these sound principles, EIA is often criticised for not living up to these ambitious goals (Benson, 2003; Sadler, 1996). The reasons for this are manifold, among others is the fact that the inherent rationalistic conception of decision making is naïve at best and that public participation never really has realised its potential (Benson, 2003). But, critically, it is also
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
471
that a range of more concrete practical aspects still have not been undertaken in a reasonable manner as e.g. goes for alternatives, uncertainty, judging significance and not least the question on cumulative effects (Benson, 2003; Cooper and Sheate, 2002). Although a host of investigations points to a range of shortcomings (Wood, 2003) which also goes for the Danish experiences which this article is based on (Christensen et al., 2003), generally these evaluations also demonstrate that EIA as an instrument is constantly improving. One of the main accomplishments has been that the idea of EIA and the underlining of prevention and holistic assessments are spreading among not only officials but also developers and consultants (Sheate, 2003). Bond put it very nicely regarding the UK conditions, that EIA has proved to be ‘a tool which has already changed the mindset of those involved in decision-making processes and is thus already moving the UK towards sustainable planning’ (Bond, 2003, p. 267). There seems to be some truth in this, although we should be cautious and only contend that an improvement in the instrument certainly is the case. This we will try to unveil in this investigation of the Danish experience of EIA and screening procedures used for livestock projects. 2. Methodology Most of the material presented in this article is the result of an evaluation of the Danish experiences of EIA (Christensen et al., 2003), covering the period 1999–2002. In order to sustain and put some of the conclusions into perspective a recent investigation on changing administrative praxis has been carried out. Our investigations of EIA in livestock projects draw on several sources of information. From the EIA cases finalised by the end of August 2001 in all the 12 Danish counties conducting EIA, a number of EIA cases were selected for analysis. Each County was asked to select three cases for consideration, each case covering a different category of project. It was specified that the cases should include their best example of an EIA project, plus two more average cases. Some counties only forwarded two cases. The selection of cases is not representative as an average of the typical Danish EIA project but would typically be better than the average case. Among the projects were 13 livestock projects. The majority of these cases concern increase in pig production. In 11 cases pig production increased above the level of 250 AU. Typically, the increase is from an average of 199 AU to an average of 396 AU. In another case, two existing pig farms were joined together, though total production was not increased. In the case of the incorporation of two cattle farms there was a concomitant increase in dairy production. In the evaluation of the screening decisions a separate sample of 55 livestock cases were selected, covering the period from 12th of June 1999 when the amendments to the EU directive were implemented in Denmark to August 2001, covering 2 years. The counties were asked to select 4–6 at random among their cases. The cases are thus believed to be representative for the Danish screening decisions at this point in time. We studied the documentary evidence, e.g. applications, minutes and decisions. Besides scrutinizing a host of documents and environmental reports, interviews with officials, consultants and farmers were carried out for both EIA and screening decisions. The indirect effects, i.e. those taking place prior to application, were investigated by interviewing farmers and consultants from all the projects. Often, it is difficult to establish these changes as nothing is normally written down and we are thus mainly relying on their anecdotal recollections. Furthermore, as modifications of the projects are made they tend to become naturalized as parts of the project design and the farmer and consultant do not necessarily think of them as changes made to the project. The number of modifications to projects made prior to application thus definitely is underestimated.
472
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
For both screening decisions and EIA's, interviews were made with farmers, consultants and county officials to support the picture made by the documentary evidence. We thus go a step further than found in many other investigations where only the final decision or EIS is analysed (Christensen et al., 2005). We did not cling to a methodology estimating the quality of the EIS as a proxy for quality of the EIA as found in many recent investigations (Badr et al., 2004). In all EIS reports and screening decisions we looked at how impacts are described. Much emphasis has been placed on the question of whether the cumulative effects of other projects, potential impacts, and the absorption capacity of the natural environment has been assessed properly in the decisions. Analysing these issues provides an indication of whether the authorities operate with a broad concept of the environment in practice. To follow up on the constantly changing praxis, official policies laid down by the Nature Protection Board of Appeal were scrutinised. Their role is to decide on appeals, amongst other things, of EIS and screening decisions. 3. Experiences from EIA of livestock projects The reasoning behind an EIA is that a holistic assessment of the likely environmental impacts should lead to adequate modifications of the projects. In four of the 13 livestock projects we did not find any changes, whilst in the remaining 9 we identified 16 changes. In Table 1, we have listed the 16 identified modifications according to their characteristics. The EIA process facilitates a dialogue with the farmer so that modifications to the project are brought forward and eventually agreed upon. An important finding was that even before the application is submitted some form of dialogue probably exists between the authorities, the farmer and his consultants, resulting in changes being made to 6 of the 13 livestock projects. These included changes in the magnitude of the project, the removal of a slurry tank from a project design, changes in crop-rotation, and changes in plans for fertilizing a field with slurry. A major argument behind these modifications was the existence of vulnerable natural habitats or vulnerable groundwater aquifers near the farm or its fields. With due consideration for the wellbeing of neighbours, potential problems with odour and dust also generated some modifications. For one of the earliest livestock projects, which sought to establish a new pig production facility, a brief and very superficial EIS was made. This was withdrawn because the Nature Protection Board of Appeal decided that a more thorough description of the impact on the environment was required. Subsequently, investigations of the nearby nitrate vulnerable zones and vulnerable habitats were carried out, resulting in modifications to the project. Areas where slurry could be spread were changed, i.e. fields draining towards vulnerable areas were removed from the project. Table 1 Modifications found in 9 of the 13 livestock cases Changes in projects
Cases
Changes in fields fertilized with manure Changes project size Placement of slurry tank Changes in crop rotation Changes in technology Changes in design of stables Unspecified minor changes
4 2 2 2 2 1 3
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
473
In one of the later projects dealing with increasing pig production, the first public hearing resulted in neighbours and NGOs expressing concerns about increased slurry spreading on fields bordering vulnerable groundwater zones and natural habitats. Agreement was reached on prohibiting slurry spreading within a 16 m buffer zone around vulnerable areas. Furthermore, some fields in particularly vulnerable areas were removed from the project. In the dialogue between the farmer and the county authorities it was also agreed that vegetation should be grown to screen the view of the facilities. As neighbours resided very nearby, measures to reduce odour and dust problems were also implemented. 3.1. Mitigation Besides modifications of projects prior to and during the EIA process, changes of projects were also made to the final proposal as mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are proposed in the EIS and, at least in the Danish system, afterwards put forward as demands on the project, normally formulated in the amendment to the regional plan and the permits or licenses following it. In the livestock projects 29 mitigation measures were identified or on average 2.2 per case. This is considerably less than what can be found in EIA cases for traditional industrial with 3.5 per case or infrastructure projects with 5.7 per case (Christensen et al., 2005). In two-thirds of the cases the reason for adopting the mitigation measures were related to the narrower concept of the environment. The reason for this is probably that focus is often on substances and emissions such as nitrate, ammonia and phosphorus. On the other hand, it seems strange that effects, particularly on landscape and biodiversity are not more dominant in the consideration of livestock projects. The farms are, after all, widely dispersed through the countryside, having not only aesthetic impacts but also severe impacts on biodiversity. In relation to impacts on flora and fauna, mitigation was only demanded in one project, despite the fact that 85% of the cases were found to have significant impacts in this regard. This underlines the fact that many aspects of the broader concept of the environment are not only difficult to assess but even more so to transform them into demands for mitigation measures. 3.2. Environmental assessments made The EU directive on EIA's presents a broader concept of the environment than traditional sectoral regulations as for example the environmental permit. Besides the more traditional concept of the environment, the EIA directive contains considerations linked to landscapes, nature/biodiversity and cultural heritage, cf. annex III and IV of the directive. Furthermore, cumulative impacts and impacts on the “population” also have to be assessed in an EIA. All in all, a very broad and comprehensive concept of the environment emerges. In the evaluation we also looked into the use of this broad concept of the environment. We found that the description of environmental problems is fairly broad, encompassing those related to the use of slurry and fertilizers (surface and groundwater), noise and air pollution, as well as potential effects on landscapes and biodiversity, cf. Fig. 1. The environmental impacts are described very much on a par with the intentions of the EUdirective, but actually we observed an extreme tendency not to assess the impacts described to be of significance, cf. Fig. 1. When it comes to an assessment of what is significant, however, only groundwater and landscape emerge as significant problems and then only in a minority of cases. For other types of EIA projects as for industries and infrastructure projects it was found that one-third of the problems described were assessed to be significant (Kørnøv et al., 2005), but for
474
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
Assessment of significance in livestock cases Assessed not significant
100%
Assessed significant
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Other
Socio economic
Landscape
Culture
Transport
Clima
Flora/fauna
Population
Waste
Emissions
Raw material
Noise
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface water
0%
Fig. 1. Environmental parameters described in livestock cases. It is furthermore indicated how many of those have been assessed significant.
livestock projects this was only to be the case for 3%. The reason for this is that, probably, livestock projects often are viewed as being smaller and of less significance than, for example, industrial projects. This probably reflects a rather naive preconception that farming is a ‘natural activity’ compared with industry. The magnitude of emissions from agriculture and their contribution to, for example, groundwater pollution and oxygen depletion in coastal waters illustrates that this is in fact a misconception. This misunderstanding seems to stem from a failure to properly assess the cumulative effects of livestock projects in relation to water problems as well as their impact on vulnerable natural habitats. Overall, then, the description of the environment and the assessment of environmental problems due to farming activities does not seem to equate with the intentions of the EIA regulation. It follows too much the restricted perspective of sectoral regulations, where, normally, only limited aspects of the environment are focused upon. This is of course problematic for the overall value of the EIA instrument. It would be reasonable for observers to enquire as to why traditional sectoral regulatory instruments could not perform the job with less time, effort and expense, but also to ask the fundamental question: whether EIA regulations contribute to sustainable development? 4. Screening of livestock projects Since the implementation of the amendment to the EU directive in 1999, the Danish counties have screened approximately 2000 projects annually. Among these, livestock projects cover 90% (Christensen et al., 2003). Approximately 3% of the decisions arising from screening lead to a ‘full EIA’. The amendment to the directive also implied changes regarding screening of projects first and foremost because Annex III of the directive now underlines an elaborate list of criteria
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
475
that should be addressed in the screening of projects. This list is now included as Annex III of the Danish Composite order (Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1999). In this evaluation 55 screening decisions for livestock projects were studied (Christensen et al., 2003). The first step in the EIA is the farmer's submission of his plans to the authorities. Below 250 AU an EIA is not required but the project must be considered in relation to annex II, i.e. a screening is made to substantiate if there are any potential significant impacts from the project, and it is considered on this basis whether or not a full EIA is required of the project. The farmer is obliged to provide all the required information. Based on this and their existing information the authorities then conduct the assessment. Provided all necessary information is at hand one working day is judged sufficient time to handle the case and make a decision. Officially, it is now a goal that projects that have been appropriately described by the applicant should be fully processed within 2 weeks. Prior to application, there will frequently be discussions between farmers and their consultants that result in changes to a proposed project. They are likely to try to avoid the delay and costs implied by attempting to pre-empt the screening decision. This may be the result of clear signals coming from the County about what is expected from projects of various kinds. Consultants often have experience of similar cases, and are thus able to inform the farmer on expected demands in order not to be subject to a ‘full EIA’. For livestock projects it was found that 35% were changed before the farmer submitted the application. 23 changes were identified in these 19 livestock projects. Interviews gave us an opportunity to identify who had suggested these changes. Most active are farmers and consultants who together suggested approximately 83% of the changes, equally divided between them. In livestock projects we often find that consultants play an important role as farms are very dependent on their advice. Furthermore, because of the many extensions of livestock projects taking place, consultants quickly have learned how to accommodate the demands for information and how to handle these cases. We also identified changes to projects after they were submitted to the authorities. Among livestock projects 29% or 16 out of 55 were modified, i.e. slightly fewer than before submission of application. In general, the nature of changes made before and after submission of the application was similar. They covered basically minor changes as e.g. the areas designated for spreading slurry; location; the size of the project (which was reduced in all cases); and technology for spreading of slurry and for ventilation of stables. Overall, 53% (29 of 55) livestock projects were changed as a result of screening. 4.1. Environmental assessments made in screening decisions The assessments made during the screening are done according to the criteria laid down in annex III of the directive (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). One of the main challenges is how to deal with the holistic environmental concept implied in these criteria. Up until 2002, 8 of the 12 Danish counties responsible for conducting EIA screening had developed checklists for assessing environmental impacts. However, only three of these county checklists fully reflected Annex III of the EIA directive. In these three counties, checklists are used for a variety of projects. The other five counties' checklists cover only aspects of project location and they are used exclusively for livestock projects. For most projects, completing the checklist comprises the assessment. From the documents analysed, it seems that filling in the blanks is essentially at this point based on common sense. We
476
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
cannot see from the documents on what basis checklists have been completed as there is no indication of the kind of environmental impact considered, if it is quantitatively or qualitatively assessed. According to interviews with county officials the assessments made are primarily qualitative. In only a small number of cases are they based on any form of models or calculations. The potential impacts are included in the developed checklists of just 4 of the 12 counties. It can be concluded that in almost two-thirds of projects potential impacts have not been included, while in only 7 cases have they been either calculated or otherwise systematically considered. Such calculations have either been on nitrogen pollution of groundwater or on nitrogen deposits into environmentally sensitive geographical areas. If assessment of cumulative effects is included at all, it is as a rough estimate. Farming in Denmark is very intensive and it is therefore extremely relevant to assess the cumulative effects of livestock projects. Actually, these were only accounted for in 8% of the projects at this point in time. Due to agricultural activities the environmental loads of nitrogen are very high in most rural areas and often constitute a threat to groundwater, surface waters and natural habitats (Agger et al., 2002); so assessing a project in isolation would not give a meaningful indication of the extent of this threat. Officials have judged protected areas (NATURA 2000 sites) to be affected in two-thirds of the projects. However, in less than half of these cases the authorities made a specific estimate of impact. It must be concluded that by 2002, at least, Danish authorities had not fully developed practices that comply with the directive. They need to improve with regard to including cumulative and potential impacts. Moreover, they should conduct specific assessments of the impact in geographically sensitive areas affected by a project. 5. Progress in handling environmental effects in screening decisions The first decision on screenings of livestock projects saw light in 1999 and 2000 and has grown to app. 2000 per year. Approximately 200 screening decisions are appealed to the Nature Protection Board of Appeal (NPBA) every year. During the period 1999–2004 major changes are found in how screening decisions have been dealt with not only from NPBA when deciding on appeals but also from the Ministry of the Environment when making guidelines for the counties in their work. Here, we will highlight some of these changes as the course of action clearly demonstrates how the demands put on projects are on the rise and constantly try to accommodate the pressures from the ongoing public debate. In the first generation of screening decisions, the NPBA ruled very conservatively and underlined that normal planning provisions ideally should cover all cases, and only in rare exceptions would a ‘full EIA’ be necessary. As an effect of this many farmers applied for increasing production to 249 AU, being almost certain not to be liable to an EIA. The exceptions calling for an EIA would only be when production smaller than 250 AU “are situated in areas, that are especially environmentally vulnerable or contains special natural assets to protect” (NPBA, 2000). At this point in time the NPBA did not even demand that proper assessments were made of e.g. impacts on groundwater from the handling of slurry. In the autumn of 2000 a committee was established to investigate how a reasonable short processing time of screenings could be obtained without compromising fundamental protection measures (Ministry of Energy and Environment, 2001). In February 2001 they concluded that a processing time of 14 days should be aimed at. To cater for this a checklist was made. Fundamentally it was two pages of information that should be provided by the farmer on the
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
477
location and content of the project and a one-page checklist to be ticked by the authorities, mostly in relation to relevant planning provisions and zoning. Due to intensified discussions on pig production and EIA screenings, the NPBA changed their policies in the autumn of 2001. They now underlined that the character of the planning zones that the projects were situated in was very important for the decisions. Where hitherto only very few areas were found to result in an EIA it was now underlined that being part of a “special groundwater protection area” designated as “nitrate vulnerable” would normally lead to an EIA (NPBA, 2001a). The same goes for Natura 2000 designated areas, especially when N- and Pcompounds could impact these, not only from within the borders of the area, but could also impact it at a distance e.g. through groundwater or watercourses. Besides which, areas protected according to the Danish law on nature protection are now considered as well. If there are significant negative impacts on the area in question demands could be put on the spreading of slurry within the designated areas, and in one case the NPBA even noted that the deposition of airborne ammonia in such an area had lead to the demanding of an EIA. The question on cumulative impacts surfaces in this period. The board concluded ‘that only the extra impact coming from the project in question should be assessed’ (NPBA, 2001b). Actually this is a ‘salami-slicing’ methodology, and not in accordance with the EU-guideline on “cumulative impacts” that was published in 1999 (Hyder, 1999). The NPBA though underlined that among other things the screening decision should be based on the total impact in the area of e.g. N-compounds. In many of the concrete decisions made in this period these figures were not presented to the public though. Furthermore, at least some of the counties at this point in time regarded a significant impact to amount to 10% of the actual baseline conditions! The NPBA also concluded that the “cumulative effect” should be part of the screening ‘but in another way, and normally with far less weight, than describing and assessing the environmental impacts, flowing from the project in question’ (NPBA, 2001b). The NPBA now also underlined that sufficient information on impacts should be available in order to make a proper decision. Among other things this meant that leaching from a farm to a Natura 2000 area should be estimated, impacts on groundwater should be calculated and evaporation of ammonia should be assessed. The Board now sees to it that the ‘counties go through the relevant screening criteria, cf. the Composite Order Annex III, and provides sufficient information for deciding the case on these criteria’ (NPBA, 2001b). Often this would be in contrast to the very small amount of information needed to tick off the previously mentioned checklist and of course also in potential conflict with the aim of processing the application within 14 days. In the spring of 2003 the board stated that regarding an EIA of a project close to a Natura 2000 site, special demands on the content of the EIS could be expected, ‘both when it comes to professional quality, reliability and level of details in describing and assessing as well as accounting for methods of calculations and their uncertainties’ (NPBA, 2003). In the summer of 2003 the Ministry of the Environment introduced threshold values for smaller livestock projects in order to reduce the numbers going through a screening. The EU directive opens the door for making exemptions to screening of Annex II projects as threshold limits can be set below which a screening is not necessary (EU Directive 97/11/EEC, article 4 (2)). A checklist has been introduced to avoid using too much time on small projects with no apparent significant impact on the environment (Ministry of Environment, 2003). It functions as a notification scheme for simplifying EIA screening in relation to livestock projects. It covers the establishment or expansion of livestock projects of up to 100 AU. Generally smaller farms situated in zones with no immediate environmental conflicts can escape going through a screening process.
478
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
In the autumn of 2004 a briefing more specifically aiming at the relationship with Natura 2000 regulations were published (NPBA, 2004). It took as its point of departure the demands in the EU habitat directive to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species within Natura 2000 sites for a number of species and natural habitats listed on Annex I and II of the Habitats directive. In these provisions it is underlined that reaching the specific objectives set for the habitat and species in question is mandatory (EU-Commission, 2000). The Habitats directive thus underlines that any impacts, whether coming from inside or outside the designated area, should be eliminated in as far as they have a negative impact on the species or natural habitats in question. This was officially underlined in a letter from the Ministry of Environment to all counties, saying that emissions that could harm the Natura 2000 site would lead to a situation where an amendment to the regional plan could not be given (Ministry of Environment, 2005). In other words expansion of farms leading to an extra load of nitrogen, phosphorus or airborne ammonia in a Natura 2000 site could no longer be allowed, i.e. the project being subject to a “full EIA”. The NPBA constantly have tried to accommodate to growing pressures on especially the screening decisions. Gradually they raise the demands on what kind of vulnerable environments could lead to demands for a ‘full EIA’ being undertaken. Furthermore, it is still more often underlined that especially cumulative impacts should be attended to and that relevant tools and methods should be applied so that the description of impacts and assessments can be made at an appropriate level, i.e. entailing quality, reliability and the proper level of details. 6. Conclusion The EIA directives of the EU are part of the instruments argued to provide a ‘sustainable development’. The role of the EIA in that process is to make proper assessments of proposed projects so early in the process that preventative changes can be made to it. Based on the 13 EIA cases which are estimated to be better than the average Danish livestock EIA and the 55 screening decisions that are estimated to be more average cases, we conclude that there is still some way to go in order to make the assessment broader and more holistic in accordance with the ambitions set out in the EIA directives. Among other things, this goes for the assessment of cumulative and potential impacts. It can certainly be concluded that EIA so far do not provide us with a ‘sustainable development’. There still seems some way to go before the instruments can deliver such results. Notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcomings it must be noted that the EIA as well as screening procedures have a notable effect on outcomes. First of all the farmers (the developers) together with their consultants are involved in the process and this leads to better projects as they are improved even before the administrative process takes its start. The screening procedure, in particular, has given birth to a new more self-regulatory kind of regulation. However, it should be underlined though that this always functions together with demands from the authorities whether these are set by the counties in their decisions or made by the Ministry of Environment or the Nature Protection Board of Appeals when making guidelines on how to decide on the cases. Although the EIA and screening is still begging major improvements regarding proper assessment, cumulative impacts and so on, some steps are being taken in that direction. An expansion of considerations to take into account when making a screening has for example paved the way for much more elaborated screening decisions living up to the demands for quality, reliability and level of details. Although it is still underlined that a screening should be accomplished within 14 days the demands put on that decision are so high that it definitely
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
479
collides with these intentions. The EIA practices developed so far are not perfect, but the instruments are improving. Especially the EIA screening has developed to be a regulatory instrument in its own right, which increasingly cater for still more elaborate considerations and societal demands on how farms should prevent and mitigate negative consequences of a still increasing production. References Agger P, Christensen P, Reenberg A, Aaby B. The Fat Landscape—Nutrients from the agriculture and the critical load of nature (Det fede landskab—Landbrugets næringsstoffer og naturens tålegrænser). In Danish. Forlaget Niche. 2002. Badr EA, Cashmore M, Cobb D. The consideration of impacts upon the aquatic environment in environmental impact statements in England and Wales. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, vol. 6 No. 1. Imperial College Press; 2004. p. 19–49. Benson JF. What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21 (4):261–6. Bond A. Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(4):266–9. Carter N. The politics of the environment. Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Christensen P, Elsborg K, Kørnøv L, Nielsen EH, Schmidt J, Stensen Christensen H. The advantages of EIA—Evaluation of EIA in Denmark, main report (Udbyttet af VVM—Evaluering af VVM i Denmark, hovedrapport). Ministry of the Environment; 2003. Christensen P, Kørnøv L, Nielsen EH. EIA as regulation: does it work? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2005;48(3):393–412. Cooper LM, Sheate WR. Cumulative effects assessment. A Review of UK environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22(4):415–39. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, The Council of the European Communities, 1985. Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, The Council of the European Union, 1997. EU-Commission. European Commission: Managing NATURA 2000 sites. The provisions of article 6 of the “Habitats” directive 92/43/EEC; 2000. Hyder. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions. EC DG XI. Environment, nuclear safety and civil protection. Luxembourg: European Communities; 1999. Kørnøv L, Christensen P, Nielsen EH. Mission impossible: does environmental impact assessment in Denmark secure a holistic approach to the environment? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 23(4). Guildford, UK: Beech Tree Publishing; 2005. December. p. 303–14. Matson P, Lohse KA, Hall SJ. The globalization of nitrogen deposition: consequences for terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 2002;31(2):113–9. Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1999. Ministerial Order on supplementary rules pursuant to the Planning Act, no. 428 of 2. 1999. June. Ministry of Energy and Environment. Reduction of processing time for EIA-screenings of livestock projects without compromising fundamental considerations for protecting nature (in Danish); 2001. 9 February. Ministry of Environment. User manual on notification scheme for livestock projects (in Danish). Ministry of the Environment; 2003. July. Ministry of Environment. Treatment of livestock projects that impacts or can impact internationally protected areas. Skov-og Naturstyrelsen; 2005. 16. marts 2005. Mol APJ, Spargaren G. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. In: Mol, Sonnenfeld, editors. Ecological modernisation around the world. Perspectives and critical debates. London: Frank Cass; 2000. p. 17–49. Nielsen EH, Christensen P, Kørnøv L. EIA screening in Denmark: a new regulatory instrument? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2005;7(1):1-15. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 225. EIA—livestock production—Annex II (in Danish); 2000. December. NPBA. EIA-screenings of livestock projects less than 250 AU (in Danish); 2001a. 18th of October. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 239. EIA—livestock production—composite order, annex II (in Danish); 2001b. December.
480
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 276. EIS for livestock production—deficiencies of content—invalid decisions (in Danish); 2003. March. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 330. Impacts on Natura 2000 areas in relation to establishment and extension of livestock projects (EIA-screening) (in Danish); 2004. September. Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Final report. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Hull, Quebec: CEAA; 1996. Sheate WR. EIA: there's life in the old dog yet—response to Benson. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(4):273–5. Wood C. Environmental impact assessment. A comparative review. second ed. Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2003. Per Christensen is a Professor in Environmental Planning at Aalborg University. His research focus on the way the planning and regulatory practises affect the use and protection of vital resources as groundwater and biodiversity. Recently he has taken part in large evaluation of the Danish experiences of EIA and EIA-screenings and now looks more into how these instruments function in relation to protection of designated natural areas as well as Natura 2000 sites.
Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects Per Christensen ⁎ Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Fibigerstraede 13, DK-9220 Aalborg O, Denmark Received 1 August 2005; received in revised form 1 December 2005; accepted 1 January 2006 Available online 6 March 2006
Abstract Since its introduction into Danish planning in 1989, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been widely discussed. At the centre of the debate has been the question of whether EIA actually offered anything new and there has been a great deal of scepticism about the efficacy of the instrument, especially when it comes to livestock projects. In an evaluation of the Danish EIA experience, we have looked more closely at how the EIA instruments function regarding livestock projects. This article addresses both the EIA process as well as the EIA screening. It is demonstrated that the EIA screening in its own right is a kind of regulatory instrument. Examining the assessments made during screening more closely, we conclude that there is still some way to go in order to make the assessment broader and more holistic in accordance with the ambitions set out in the EIA directive to contribute to a more sustainable development. Although the provisions laid down are the same the praxis related to the field has developed at a considerable speed. In order to understand this development we have closely examined how the decisions made by the Nature Protection Board of Appeal (NPBA) have been changed and conclude that these changes definitely address some of the shortcomings found in the evaluation. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: EIA; EIA-screening; Livestock projects; Holistic assessment; Natura 2000
1. Introduction Following the first EU directive on EIA in 1985 (EU Directive 85/337/EEC), Denmark implemented EIA in 1989. The Danes were not enthusiastic about it, primarily because a system of environmental planning and regulation was already well established. Environmental regulation was founded on several sectoral laws that were media oriented, covering pollution, wastewater, ⁎ Tel.: +45 96 35 83 26; fax: +45 98 15 37 88. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.002
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
469
water use, resource extraction, etc. Governing the issuing of permits and licenses were plans made at town and county level, the municipal plan and the regional plan respectively. However, during the 1990s EIA gained a lot of credibility as the instrument clearly showed that it could address a wider variety of problems than existing planning and regulations could. The reason for the success of the EIA rules is that it gives a more holistic description and assessment of the environment and consequently better addresses prospective problems (Christensen et al., 2005). Considerations for groundwater protection and managing biodiversity increased in the 1990s and the more holistic concept of the environment used in the EIA better matched this new situation than the traditional zoning practices, which did not leave much room for this. The background for these new considerations is found in the continuing growth in agricultural production. In particular, the growth of pig production and the handling of vast amounts of slurry meant increased pressure on groundwater and decreasing quality of protected habitats, as critical loads for nitrogen exposure are often exceeded (Agger et al., 2002). Actually, now we are facing eutrophication not only of the waters but of the whole countryside (Matson et al., 2002). 1.1. Changing regulations The process of making an EIA in Denmark is different from most other countries. The farmer, helped by his consultants, is obliged to provide the necessary information but it is the county authorities that are obliged to undertake the assessment. The county can ask a consultant to make the assessment or the farmer himself, helped by his consultant, can do it. But in the end the county is responsible for the content of the resulting Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A ‘full’ EIA covers three documents. Firstly the EIS has to be prepared. This then forms the basis for formulation of a project specific amendment to the regional plan. Thirdly, and concomitant with this amendment, the sectoral permit/license has to be issued, as in, for example, the case of issuing an environmental permit for a farm. When the directive on EIA was amended in 1997 and then implemented in a Danish composite order in 1999, several changes were made to the system. Firstly, a new “EIA permit” was introduced as a new kind of permit to cover cases where traditional sectoral permits did not provide regulatory measures. The “EIA permit” would now reflect the fact that the EIA is based on a more holistic view of the impacts of projects. Secondly, up to this point Annex 1 of the directive did not include agricultural activities, but now installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than: (a) 85 000 places for broilers, 60 000 places for hens; (b) 3000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg); or(c) 900 places for sows were included. However, in 1994, it was decided as part of the Danish implementation that farms with more than 250 AU1 should be liable to a ‘full EIA’. Denmark used the provisions in Annex II of the old directive (EU Directive 85/337/EEC) to decide that farms of this size should be included in Annex I. Already in 1992 the same limit was introduced in the law of environmental protection as the limit beyond which an environmental permit would be mandatory.
1 An AU is an ‘animal unit’ covering in this case the yearly production of 36 pigs for slaughtering (30–100 kilo) or 175 smaller pigs (7.2–30 kilo), amounting to manure or slurry containing 100 kg N per AU. The limit mentioned above goes for 3000 places for production of pigs, i.e. giving rise to a considerable higher number of pigs produced per year. Furthermore has the amount of produced pigs per AU been increasing as environmental regulations spurs the interest in optimising the use of fodder, i.e. the slurry contains less N and consequently more pigs are used to produce 1 AU.
470
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
Thirdly, the amendments to the directive in 1997 placed more emphasis on screening as a de facto regulatory process in its own right. Projects smaller than those listed in Annex I now featured in Annex II, and would undergo screening in order to assess whether their environmental impacts were significant; this lead to smaller projects being subjected to a “full EIA”. Alternatively, screening itself could lead to the project being modified in order to avoid going through an EIA. Screening has therefore become not only an administrative filtering procedure but also effectively a form of regulation (Nielsen et al., 2005). In some countries threshold values below which a screening is not necessary are set (Wood, 2003). Such threshold values were not implemented in 1999, but recently a checklist has been introduced to avoid using too much time on smaller projects with no apparent significant impact on the environment. This was proposed as a notification scheme for simplifying EIA screening procedures in relation to certain livestock projects. In the summer of 2003 the notification scheme entered into force. It covers the establishment or expansion of livestock projects of up to 100 AU. Generally, smaller farms situated in zones with no immediate environmental conflicts or with sensitive areas can completely escape going through a screening process. Regarding livestock cases the Danish provisions are thus similar to those of other countries, as e.g. UK (Wood, 2003). 1.2. EIA and sustainability Worldwide the EIA instrument was one of the first instruments for environmental protection (Wood, 2003). Already from the beginning it stood out as more than traditional sectoral regulations that had been introduced specifically after the UN World Summit in Stockholm 1972 (Carter, 2001). From the beginning holistic aspirations were clear and from its launch in the EU in 1985 it also became clear that prevention was the main aim of these regulations: the best environmental policy consists in preventing the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects; whereas they affirm the need to take effects on the environment into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and decision-making processes (EU Directive 85/337/EEC). These intentions were further elaborated on in the amendment that was adopted in 1997. In the meantime sustainability had become the catchword in environmental discourses and consequently it was underlined that the instrument should be seen in that light: the assessment procedure is a fundamental instrument of environmental policy as defined in Article 130R of the Treaty and of the Fifth Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). Besides still clinging to prevention, which at that time was becoming part of the growing ideology on ecological modernisation (Carter, 2001; Mol and Spargaren, 2000), new principles such as the precautionary principle, had come to light: policy on the environment is based on the precautionary principle and on the principle that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). Notwithstanding these sound principles, EIA is often criticised for not living up to these ambitious goals (Benson, 2003; Sadler, 1996). The reasons for this are manifold, among others is the fact that the inherent rationalistic conception of decision making is naïve at best and that public participation never really has realised its potential (Benson, 2003). But, critically, it is also
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
471
that a range of more concrete practical aspects still have not been undertaken in a reasonable manner as e.g. goes for alternatives, uncertainty, judging significance and not least the question on cumulative effects (Benson, 2003; Cooper and Sheate, 2002). Although a host of investigations points to a range of shortcomings (Wood, 2003) which also goes for the Danish experiences which this article is based on (Christensen et al., 2003), generally these evaluations also demonstrate that EIA as an instrument is constantly improving. One of the main accomplishments has been that the idea of EIA and the underlining of prevention and holistic assessments are spreading among not only officials but also developers and consultants (Sheate, 2003). Bond put it very nicely regarding the UK conditions, that EIA has proved to be ‘a tool which has already changed the mindset of those involved in decision-making processes and is thus already moving the UK towards sustainable planning’ (Bond, 2003, p. 267). There seems to be some truth in this, although we should be cautious and only contend that an improvement in the instrument certainly is the case. This we will try to unveil in this investigation of the Danish experience of EIA and screening procedures used for livestock projects. 2. Methodology Most of the material presented in this article is the result of an evaluation of the Danish experiences of EIA (Christensen et al., 2003), covering the period 1999–2002. In order to sustain and put some of the conclusions into perspective a recent investigation on changing administrative praxis has been carried out. Our investigations of EIA in livestock projects draw on several sources of information. From the EIA cases finalised by the end of August 2001 in all the 12 Danish counties conducting EIA, a number of EIA cases were selected for analysis. Each County was asked to select three cases for consideration, each case covering a different category of project. It was specified that the cases should include their best example of an EIA project, plus two more average cases. Some counties only forwarded two cases. The selection of cases is not representative as an average of the typical Danish EIA project but would typically be better than the average case. Among the projects were 13 livestock projects. The majority of these cases concern increase in pig production. In 11 cases pig production increased above the level of 250 AU. Typically, the increase is from an average of 199 AU to an average of 396 AU. In another case, two existing pig farms were joined together, though total production was not increased. In the case of the incorporation of two cattle farms there was a concomitant increase in dairy production. In the evaluation of the screening decisions a separate sample of 55 livestock cases were selected, covering the period from 12th of June 1999 when the amendments to the EU directive were implemented in Denmark to August 2001, covering 2 years. The counties were asked to select 4–6 at random among their cases. The cases are thus believed to be representative for the Danish screening decisions at this point in time. We studied the documentary evidence, e.g. applications, minutes and decisions. Besides scrutinizing a host of documents and environmental reports, interviews with officials, consultants and farmers were carried out for both EIA and screening decisions. The indirect effects, i.e. those taking place prior to application, were investigated by interviewing farmers and consultants from all the projects. Often, it is difficult to establish these changes as nothing is normally written down and we are thus mainly relying on their anecdotal recollections. Furthermore, as modifications of the projects are made they tend to become naturalized as parts of the project design and the farmer and consultant do not necessarily think of them as changes made to the project. The number of modifications to projects made prior to application thus definitely is underestimated.
472
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
For both screening decisions and EIA's, interviews were made with farmers, consultants and county officials to support the picture made by the documentary evidence. We thus go a step further than found in many other investigations where only the final decision or EIS is analysed (Christensen et al., 2005). We did not cling to a methodology estimating the quality of the EIS as a proxy for quality of the EIA as found in many recent investigations (Badr et al., 2004). In all EIS reports and screening decisions we looked at how impacts are described. Much emphasis has been placed on the question of whether the cumulative effects of other projects, potential impacts, and the absorption capacity of the natural environment has been assessed properly in the decisions. Analysing these issues provides an indication of whether the authorities operate with a broad concept of the environment in practice. To follow up on the constantly changing praxis, official policies laid down by the Nature Protection Board of Appeal were scrutinised. Their role is to decide on appeals, amongst other things, of EIS and screening decisions. 3. Experiences from EIA of livestock projects The reasoning behind an EIA is that a holistic assessment of the likely environmental impacts should lead to adequate modifications of the projects. In four of the 13 livestock projects we did not find any changes, whilst in the remaining 9 we identified 16 changes. In Table 1, we have listed the 16 identified modifications according to their characteristics. The EIA process facilitates a dialogue with the farmer so that modifications to the project are brought forward and eventually agreed upon. An important finding was that even before the application is submitted some form of dialogue probably exists between the authorities, the farmer and his consultants, resulting in changes being made to 6 of the 13 livestock projects. These included changes in the magnitude of the project, the removal of a slurry tank from a project design, changes in crop-rotation, and changes in plans for fertilizing a field with slurry. A major argument behind these modifications was the existence of vulnerable natural habitats or vulnerable groundwater aquifers near the farm or its fields. With due consideration for the wellbeing of neighbours, potential problems with odour and dust also generated some modifications. For one of the earliest livestock projects, which sought to establish a new pig production facility, a brief and very superficial EIS was made. This was withdrawn because the Nature Protection Board of Appeal decided that a more thorough description of the impact on the environment was required. Subsequently, investigations of the nearby nitrate vulnerable zones and vulnerable habitats were carried out, resulting in modifications to the project. Areas where slurry could be spread were changed, i.e. fields draining towards vulnerable areas were removed from the project. Table 1 Modifications found in 9 of the 13 livestock cases Changes in projects
Cases
Changes in fields fertilized with manure Changes project size Placement of slurry tank Changes in crop rotation Changes in technology Changes in design of stables Unspecified minor changes
4 2 2 2 2 1 3
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
473
In one of the later projects dealing with increasing pig production, the first public hearing resulted in neighbours and NGOs expressing concerns about increased slurry spreading on fields bordering vulnerable groundwater zones and natural habitats. Agreement was reached on prohibiting slurry spreading within a 16 m buffer zone around vulnerable areas. Furthermore, some fields in particularly vulnerable areas were removed from the project. In the dialogue between the farmer and the county authorities it was also agreed that vegetation should be grown to screen the view of the facilities. As neighbours resided very nearby, measures to reduce odour and dust problems were also implemented. 3.1. Mitigation Besides modifications of projects prior to and during the EIA process, changes of projects were also made to the final proposal as mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are proposed in the EIS and, at least in the Danish system, afterwards put forward as demands on the project, normally formulated in the amendment to the regional plan and the permits or licenses following it. In the livestock projects 29 mitigation measures were identified or on average 2.2 per case. This is considerably less than what can be found in EIA cases for traditional industrial with 3.5 per case or infrastructure projects with 5.7 per case (Christensen et al., 2005). In two-thirds of the cases the reason for adopting the mitigation measures were related to the narrower concept of the environment. The reason for this is probably that focus is often on substances and emissions such as nitrate, ammonia and phosphorus. On the other hand, it seems strange that effects, particularly on landscape and biodiversity are not more dominant in the consideration of livestock projects. The farms are, after all, widely dispersed through the countryside, having not only aesthetic impacts but also severe impacts on biodiversity. In relation to impacts on flora and fauna, mitigation was only demanded in one project, despite the fact that 85% of the cases were found to have significant impacts in this regard. This underlines the fact that many aspects of the broader concept of the environment are not only difficult to assess but even more so to transform them into demands for mitigation measures. 3.2. Environmental assessments made The EU directive on EIA's presents a broader concept of the environment than traditional sectoral regulations as for example the environmental permit. Besides the more traditional concept of the environment, the EIA directive contains considerations linked to landscapes, nature/biodiversity and cultural heritage, cf. annex III and IV of the directive. Furthermore, cumulative impacts and impacts on the “population” also have to be assessed in an EIA. All in all, a very broad and comprehensive concept of the environment emerges. In the evaluation we also looked into the use of this broad concept of the environment. We found that the description of environmental problems is fairly broad, encompassing those related to the use of slurry and fertilizers (surface and groundwater), noise and air pollution, as well as potential effects on landscapes and biodiversity, cf. Fig. 1. The environmental impacts are described very much on a par with the intentions of the EUdirective, but actually we observed an extreme tendency not to assess the impacts described to be of significance, cf. Fig. 1. When it comes to an assessment of what is significant, however, only groundwater and landscape emerge as significant problems and then only in a minority of cases. For other types of EIA projects as for industries and infrastructure projects it was found that one-third of the problems described were assessed to be significant (Kørnøv et al., 2005), but for
474
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
Assessment of significance in livestock cases Assessed not significant
100%
Assessed significant
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Other
Socio economic
Landscape
Culture
Transport
Clima
Flora/fauna
Population
Waste
Emissions
Raw material
Noise
Air
Soil
Groundwater
Surface water
0%
Fig. 1. Environmental parameters described in livestock cases. It is furthermore indicated how many of those have been assessed significant.
livestock projects this was only to be the case for 3%. The reason for this is that, probably, livestock projects often are viewed as being smaller and of less significance than, for example, industrial projects. This probably reflects a rather naive preconception that farming is a ‘natural activity’ compared with industry. The magnitude of emissions from agriculture and their contribution to, for example, groundwater pollution and oxygen depletion in coastal waters illustrates that this is in fact a misconception. This misunderstanding seems to stem from a failure to properly assess the cumulative effects of livestock projects in relation to water problems as well as their impact on vulnerable natural habitats. Overall, then, the description of the environment and the assessment of environmental problems due to farming activities does not seem to equate with the intentions of the EIA regulation. It follows too much the restricted perspective of sectoral regulations, where, normally, only limited aspects of the environment are focused upon. This is of course problematic for the overall value of the EIA instrument. It would be reasonable for observers to enquire as to why traditional sectoral regulatory instruments could not perform the job with less time, effort and expense, but also to ask the fundamental question: whether EIA regulations contribute to sustainable development? 4. Screening of livestock projects Since the implementation of the amendment to the EU directive in 1999, the Danish counties have screened approximately 2000 projects annually. Among these, livestock projects cover 90% (Christensen et al., 2003). Approximately 3% of the decisions arising from screening lead to a ‘full EIA’. The amendment to the directive also implied changes regarding screening of projects first and foremost because Annex III of the directive now underlines an elaborate list of criteria
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
475
that should be addressed in the screening of projects. This list is now included as Annex III of the Danish Composite order (Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1999). In this evaluation 55 screening decisions for livestock projects were studied (Christensen et al., 2003). The first step in the EIA is the farmer's submission of his plans to the authorities. Below 250 AU an EIA is not required but the project must be considered in relation to annex II, i.e. a screening is made to substantiate if there are any potential significant impacts from the project, and it is considered on this basis whether or not a full EIA is required of the project. The farmer is obliged to provide all the required information. Based on this and their existing information the authorities then conduct the assessment. Provided all necessary information is at hand one working day is judged sufficient time to handle the case and make a decision. Officially, it is now a goal that projects that have been appropriately described by the applicant should be fully processed within 2 weeks. Prior to application, there will frequently be discussions between farmers and their consultants that result in changes to a proposed project. They are likely to try to avoid the delay and costs implied by attempting to pre-empt the screening decision. This may be the result of clear signals coming from the County about what is expected from projects of various kinds. Consultants often have experience of similar cases, and are thus able to inform the farmer on expected demands in order not to be subject to a ‘full EIA’. For livestock projects it was found that 35% were changed before the farmer submitted the application. 23 changes were identified in these 19 livestock projects. Interviews gave us an opportunity to identify who had suggested these changes. Most active are farmers and consultants who together suggested approximately 83% of the changes, equally divided between them. In livestock projects we often find that consultants play an important role as farms are very dependent on their advice. Furthermore, because of the many extensions of livestock projects taking place, consultants quickly have learned how to accommodate the demands for information and how to handle these cases. We also identified changes to projects after they were submitted to the authorities. Among livestock projects 29% or 16 out of 55 were modified, i.e. slightly fewer than before submission of application. In general, the nature of changes made before and after submission of the application was similar. They covered basically minor changes as e.g. the areas designated for spreading slurry; location; the size of the project (which was reduced in all cases); and technology for spreading of slurry and for ventilation of stables. Overall, 53% (29 of 55) livestock projects were changed as a result of screening. 4.1. Environmental assessments made in screening decisions The assessments made during the screening are done according to the criteria laid down in annex III of the directive (EU Directive 97/11/EEC). One of the main challenges is how to deal with the holistic environmental concept implied in these criteria. Up until 2002, 8 of the 12 Danish counties responsible for conducting EIA screening had developed checklists for assessing environmental impacts. However, only three of these county checklists fully reflected Annex III of the EIA directive. In these three counties, checklists are used for a variety of projects. The other five counties' checklists cover only aspects of project location and they are used exclusively for livestock projects. For most projects, completing the checklist comprises the assessment. From the documents analysed, it seems that filling in the blanks is essentially at this point based on common sense. We
476
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
cannot see from the documents on what basis checklists have been completed as there is no indication of the kind of environmental impact considered, if it is quantitatively or qualitatively assessed. According to interviews with county officials the assessments made are primarily qualitative. In only a small number of cases are they based on any form of models or calculations. The potential impacts are included in the developed checklists of just 4 of the 12 counties. It can be concluded that in almost two-thirds of projects potential impacts have not been included, while in only 7 cases have they been either calculated or otherwise systematically considered. Such calculations have either been on nitrogen pollution of groundwater or on nitrogen deposits into environmentally sensitive geographical areas. If assessment of cumulative effects is included at all, it is as a rough estimate. Farming in Denmark is very intensive and it is therefore extremely relevant to assess the cumulative effects of livestock projects. Actually, these were only accounted for in 8% of the projects at this point in time. Due to agricultural activities the environmental loads of nitrogen are very high in most rural areas and often constitute a threat to groundwater, surface waters and natural habitats (Agger et al., 2002); so assessing a project in isolation would not give a meaningful indication of the extent of this threat. Officials have judged protected areas (NATURA 2000 sites) to be affected in two-thirds of the projects. However, in less than half of these cases the authorities made a specific estimate of impact. It must be concluded that by 2002, at least, Danish authorities had not fully developed practices that comply with the directive. They need to improve with regard to including cumulative and potential impacts. Moreover, they should conduct specific assessments of the impact in geographically sensitive areas affected by a project. 5. Progress in handling environmental effects in screening decisions The first decision on screenings of livestock projects saw light in 1999 and 2000 and has grown to app. 2000 per year. Approximately 200 screening decisions are appealed to the Nature Protection Board of Appeal (NPBA) every year. During the period 1999–2004 major changes are found in how screening decisions have been dealt with not only from NPBA when deciding on appeals but also from the Ministry of the Environment when making guidelines for the counties in their work. Here, we will highlight some of these changes as the course of action clearly demonstrates how the demands put on projects are on the rise and constantly try to accommodate the pressures from the ongoing public debate. In the first generation of screening decisions, the NPBA ruled very conservatively and underlined that normal planning provisions ideally should cover all cases, and only in rare exceptions would a ‘full EIA’ be necessary. As an effect of this many farmers applied for increasing production to 249 AU, being almost certain not to be liable to an EIA. The exceptions calling for an EIA would only be when production smaller than 250 AU “are situated in areas, that are especially environmentally vulnerable or contains special natural assets to protect” (NPBA, 2000). At this point in time the NPBA did not even demand that proper assessments were made of e.g. impacts on groundwater from the handling of slurry. In the autumn of 2000 a committee was established to investigate how a reasonable short processing time of screenings could be obtained without compromising fundamental protection measures (Ministry of Energy and Environment, 2001). In February 2001 they concluded that a processing time of 14 days should be aimed at. To cater for this a checklist was made. Fundamentally it was two pages of information that should be provided by the farmer on the
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
477
location and content of the project and a one-page checklist to be ticked by the authorities, mostly in relation to relevant planning provisions and zoning. Due to intensified discussions on pig production and EIA screenings, the NPBA changed their policies in the autumn of 2001. They now underlined that the character of the planning zones that the projects were situated in was very important for the decisions. Where hitherto only very few areas were found to result in an EIA it was now underlined that being part of a “special groundwater protection area” designated as “nitrate vulnerable” would normally lead to an EIA (NPBA, 2001a). The same goes for Natura 2000 designated areas, especially when N- and Pcompounds could impact these, not only from within the borders of the area, but could also impact it at a distance e.g. through groundwater or watercourses. Besides which, areas protected according to the Danish law on nature protection are now considered as well. If there are significant negative impacts on the area in question demands could be put on the spreading of slurry within the designated areas, and in one case the NPBA even noted that the deposition of airborne ammonia in such an area had lead to the demanding of an EIA. The question on cumulative impacts surfaces in this period. The board concluded ‘that only the extra impact coming from the project in question should be assessed’ (NPBA, 2001b). Actually this is a ‘salami-slicing’ methodology, and not in accordance with the EU-guideline on “cumulative impacts” that was published in 1999 (Hyder, 1999). The NPBA though underlined that among other things the screening decision should be based on the total impact in the area of e.g. N-compounds. In many of the concrete decisions made in this period these figures were not presented to the public though. Furthermore, at least some of the counties at this point in time regarded a significant impact to amount to 10% of the actual baseline conditions! The NPBA also concluded that the “cumulative effect” should be part of the screening ‘but in another way, and normally with far less weight, than describing and assessing the environmental impacts, flowing from the project in question’ (NPBA, 2001b). The NPBA now also underlined that sufficient information on impacts should be available in order to make a proper decision. Among other things this meant that leaching from a farm to a Natura 2000 area should be estimated, impacts on groundwater should be calculated and evaporation of ammonia should be assessed. The Board now sees to it that the ‘counties go through the relevant screening criteria, cf. the Composite Order Annex III, and provides sufficient information for deciding the case on these criteria’ (NPBA, 2001b). Often this would be in contrast to the very small amount of information needed to tick off the previously mentioned checklist and of course also in potential conflict with the aim of processing the application within 14 days. In the spring of 2003 the board stated that regarding an EIA of a project close to a Natura 2000 site, special demands on the content of the EIS could be expected, ‘both when it comes to professional quality, reliability and level of details in describing and assessing as well as accounting for methods of calculations and their uncertainties’ (NPBA, 2003). In the summer of 2003 the Ministry of the Environment introduced threshold values for smaller livestock projects in order to reduce the numbers going through a screening. The EU directive opens the door for making exemptions to screening of Annex II projects as threshold limits can be set below which a screening is not necessary (EU Directive 97/11/EEC, article 4 (2)). A checklist has been introduced to avoid using too much time on small projects with no apparent significant impact on the environment (Ministry of Environment, 2003). It functions as a notification scheme for simplifying EIA screening in relation to livestock projects. It covers the establishment or expansion of livestock projects of up to 100 AU. Generally smaller farms situated in zones with no immediate environmental conflicts can escape going through a screening process.
478
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
In the autumn of 2004 a briefing more specifically aiming at the relationship with Natura 2000 regulations were published (NPBA, 2004). It took as its point of departure the demands in the EU habitat directive to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species within Natura 2000 sites for a number of species and natural habitats listed on Annex I and II of the Habitats directive. In these provisions it is underlined that reaching the specific objectives set for the habitat and species in question is mandatory (EU-Commission, 2000). The Habitats directive thus underlines that any impacts, whether coming from inside or outside the designated area, should be eliminated in as far as they have a negative impact on the species or natural habitats in question. This was officially underlined in a letter from the Ministry of Environment to all counties, saying that emissions that could harm the Natura 2000 site would lead to a situation where an amendment to the regional plan could not be given (Ministry of Environment, 2005). In other words expansion of farms leading to an extra load of nitrogen, phosphorus or airborne ammonia in a Natura 2000 site could no longer be allowed, i.e. the project being subject to a “full EIA”. The NPBA constantly have tried to accommodate to growing pressures on especially the screening decisions. Gradually they raise the demands on what kind of vulnerable environments could lead to demands for a ‘full EIA’ being undertaken. Furthermore, it is still more often underlined that especially cumulative impacts should be attended to and that relevant tools and methods should be applied so that the description of impacts and assessments can be made at an appropriate level, i.e. entailing quality, reliability and the proper level of details. 6. Conclusion The EIA directives of the EU are part of the instruments argued to provide a ‘sustainable development’. The role of the EIA in that process is to make proper assessments of proposed projects so early in the process that preventative changes can be made to it. Based on the 13 EIA cases which are estimated to be better than the average Danish livestock EIA and the 55 screening decisions that are estimated to be more average cases, we conclude that there is still some way to go in order to make the assessment broader and more holistic in accordance with the ambitions set out in the EIA directives. Among other things, this goes for the assessment of cumulative and potential impacts. It can certainly be concluded that EIA so far do not provide us with a ‘sustainable development’. There still seems some way to go before the instruments can deliver such results. Notwithstanding the aforementioned shortcomings it must be noted that the EIA as well as screening procedures have a notable effect on outcomes. First of all the farmers (the developers) together with their consultants are involved in the process and this leads to better projects as they are improved even before the administrative process takes its start. The screening procedure, in particular, has given birth to a new more self-regulatory kind of regulation. However, it should be underlined though that this always functions together with demands from the authorities whether these are set by the counties in their decisions or made by the Ministry of Environment or the Nature Protection Board of Appeals when making guidelines on how to decide on the cases. Although the EIA and screening is still begging major improvements regarding proper assessment, cumulative impacts and so on, some steps are being taken in that direction. An expansion of considerations to take into account when making a screening has for example paved the way for much more elaborated screening decisions living up to the demands for quality, reliability and level of details. Although it is still underlined that a screening should be accomplished within 14 days the demands put on that decision are so high that it definitely
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
479
collides with these intentions. The EIA practices developed so far are not perfect, but the instruments are improving. Especially the EIA screening has developed to be a regulatory instrument in its own right, which increasingly cater for still more elaborate considerations and societal demands on how farms should prevent and mitigate negative consequences of a still increasing production. References Agger P, Christensen P, Reenberg A, Aaby B. The Fat Landscape—Nutrients from the agriculture and the critical load of nature (Det fede landskab—Landbrugets næringsstoffer og naturens tålegrænser). In Danish. Forlaget Niche. 2002. Badr EA, Cashmore M, Cobb D. The consideration of impacts upon the aquatic environment in environmental impact statements in England and Wales. Journal of environmental assessment policy and management, vol. 6 No. 1. Imperial College Press; 2004. p. 19–49. Benson JF. What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21 (4):261–6. Bond A. Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(4):266–9. Carter N. The politics of the environment. Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Christensen P, Elsborg K, Kørnøv L, Nielsen EH, Schmidt J, Stensen Christensen H. The advantages of EIA—Evaluation of EIA in Denmark, main report (Udbyttet af VVM—Evaluering af VVM i Denmark, hovedrapport). Ministry of the Environment; 2003. Christensen P, Kørnøv L, Nielsen EH. EIA as regulation: does it work? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2005;48(3):393–412. Cooper LM, Sheate WR. Cumulative effects assessment. A Review of UK environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002;22(4):415–39. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, The Council of the European Communities, 1985. Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, The Council of the European Union, 1997. EU-Commission. European Commission: Managing NATURA 2000 sites. The provisions of article 6 of the “Habitats” directive 92/43/EEC; 2000. Hyder. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions. EC DG XI. Environment, nuclear safety and civil protection. Luxembourg: European Communities; 1999. Kørnøv L, Christensen P, Nielsen EH. Mission impossible: does environmental impact assessment in Denmark secure a holistic approach to the environment? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 23(4). Guildford, UK: Beech Tree Publishing; 2005. December. p. 303–14. Matson P, Lohse KA, Hall SJ. The globalization of nitrogen deposition: consequences for terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 2002;31(2):113–9. Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1999. Ministerial Order on supplementary rules pursuant to the Planning Act, no. 428 of 2. 1999. June. Ministry of Energy and Environment. Reduction of processing time for EIA-screenings of livestock projects without compromising fundamental considerations for protecting nature (in Danish); 2001. 9 February. Ministry of Environment. User manual on notification scheme for livestock projects (in Danish). Ministry of the Environment; 2003. July. Ministry of Environment. Treatment of livestock projects that impacts or can impact internationally protected areas. Skov-og Naturstyrelsen; 2005. 16. marts 2005. Mol APJ, Spargaren G. Ecological modernisation theory in debate: a review. In: Mol, Sonnenfeld, editors. Ecological modernisation around the world. Perspectives and critical debates. London: Frank Cass; 2000. p. 17–49. Nielsen EH, Christensen P, Kørnøv L. EIA screening in Denmark: a new regulatory instrument? J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2005;7(1):1-15. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 225. EIA—livestock production—Annex II (in Danish); 2000. December. NPBA. EIA-screenings of livestock projects less than 250 AU (in Danish); 2001a. 18th of October. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 239. EIA—livestock production—composite order, annex II (in Danish); 2001b. December.
480
P. Christensen / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 468–480
NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 276. EIS for livestock production—deficiencies of content—invalid decisions (in Danish); 2003. March. NPBA. Nature protection board of appeal briefing no. 330. Impacts on Natura 2000 areas in relation to establishment and extension of livestock projects (EIA-screening) (in Danish); 2004. September. Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Final report. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. Hull, Quebec: CEAA; 1996. Sheate WR. EIA: there's life in the old dog yet—response to Benson. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2003;21(4):273–5. Wood C. Environmental impact assessment. A comparative review. second ed. Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2003. Per Christensen is a Professor in Environmental Planning at Aalborg University. His research focus on the way the planning and regulatory practises affect the use and protection of vital resources as groundwater and biodiversity. Recently he has taken part in large evaluation of the Danish experiences of EIA and EIA-screenings and now looks more into how these instruments function in relation to protection of designated natural areas as well as Natura 2000 sites.