(1)

Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health.

(1)

Directive 2011/92/EU has harmonised the principles for the environmental assessment of projects by introducing minimum requirements (with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main obligations of developers, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public), and contributes to a high level of protection of the environment and human health. The Member States should be permitted to lay down more stringent rules to protect the environment and human health.

(3)

It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence.

(3)

It is necessary to amend Directive 2011/92/EU in order to strengthen the quality of the environmental assessment procedure, streamline the various steps of the procedure , align the procedure with the principles of smart regulation and enhance coherence and synergies with other Union legislation and policies, as well as strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. The ultimate purpose of amending this Directive is to bring about more effective implementation at Member State level. In many cases administrative procedures became too complicated and protracted, causing delays and creating additional risks for the protection of the environment. In this respect, simplification and harmonisation of the proceedings should be one of the aims of this Directive. The suitability of creating a one-stop shop is to be taken into account with a view to allowing coordinated assessment or joint procedures when several environment impact assessments (EIAs) are required, for instance in cases of cross-border projects, as well as to defining more specific criteria for mandatory assessments.

(3a)

In order to guarantee harmonised application and equal protection of the environment across the Union, the Commission should, in its role as the guardian of the Treaties, ensure qualitative as well as procedural compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU, including those on public consultation and participation.

(3b)

In the case of projects which could have cross-border effects on the environment, the Member States concerned should set up, on the basis of equal representation, a joint liaison body responsible for dealing with all the stages in the procedure. The consent of all the Member States concerned should be required for final authorisation of the project.

(3c)

Directive 2011/92/EU should also be revised in a way that ensures that environmental protection is improved, resource efficiency increased and sustainable growth supported in Europe. To this end, the procedures it lays down should be simplified and harmonised.

(4)

Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency, biodiversity, climate change, and disaster risks, have become more important in policy making and should therefore also constitute critical elements in assessment and decision-making processes, especially for infrastructure projects.

(4)

Over the last decade, environmental issues, such as resource efficiency and sustainability , biodiversity protection , land use, climate change, and natural and man—made disaster risks, have become more important in policy making. They should therefore also constitute important elements in assessment and decision-making processes for any public or private project likely to have a significant impact on the environment , especially for infrastructure projects and, as the Commission has not established guidelines for the application of Directive 2011/92/EU on conservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage, the Commission should propose a list of criteria and indications, including in relation to visual impact, with a view to a better implementation of the Directive.

(4a)

Stipulating that it is necessary to take greater account of environmental criteria in all projects could also prove counter-productive if it served to add to the complexity of the procedures involved and to lengthen the time needed to authorise and validate each stage. This could increase costs and even, in itself, come to pose a threat to the environment if infrastructure projects take a very long time to complete.

(4b)

It is essential that environmental issues relating to infrastructure projects do not divert attention from the fact that any project will inevitably have an impact on the environment, and it is necessary that the focus be on the balance between the value of a project and its environmental impact.

(5)

In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU.

(5)

In its Communication entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the Commission committed itself to including broader resource efficiency and sustainability considerations in the context of the revision of Directive 2011/92/EU.

(11)

Protection and promotion of cultural heritage and landscapes, which are an integral part of the cultural diversity that the Union is committed to respect and promote in accordance with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can usefully build on definitions and principles developed in relevant Council of Europe Conventions, in particular the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the European Landscape Convention and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society.

(11)

Protection and promotion of cultural heritage and landscapes, which are an integral part of the cultural diversity that the Union is committed to respect and promote in accordance with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, can usefully build on definitions and principles developed in relevant Council of Europe Conventions, in particular the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, the European Landscape Convention, the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society and the International Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas adopted in Nairobi in 1976 by UNESCO .

(11a)

Visual impact is a key criterion in environmental impact assessment in terms of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, of natural landscapes and of urban areas; this is another factor that should be applied in assessments.

(12)

When applying Directive 2011/92/EU, it is necessary to ensure a competitive business environment, especially for small and medium enterprises, in order to generate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the objectives set out in the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.

(12)

When applying Directive 2011/92/EU, it is necessary to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the objectives set out in the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’.

(12a)

With a view to strengthening public access and transparency, a central portal providing timely environmental information with regard to the implementation of this Directive electronically should be made available in each Member State.

(12b)

In order to reduce the administrative burden, facilitate the decision-making process and reduce project costs, the necessary steps should be taken towards standardisation of the criteria in line with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation  (2) , with the aim of being able to support the use of best available technologies (BAT), improve competitiveness and prevent standards from being interpreted differently.

(12c)

Again with a view to further simplifying and facilitating the work of the competent administrations, guidance criteria should be drawn up that take into account the characteristics of the various sectors of economic or industrial activity. This should be based on the instructions under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora  (3) .

(12d)

In order to ensure the best possible preservation of historical and cultural heritage, guidance criteria should be drawn up by the Commission and/or the Member States.

(13)

Experience has shown that in cases of civil emergency compliance with the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU may have adverse effects, and provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in appropriate cases.

(13a)

Article 1(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU, which lays down that that Directive does not apply to projects adopted by a specific act of national legislation, provides for an open-door derogation with limited procedural guarantees and could substantially circumvent the implementation of that Directive.

(13b)

Experience has shown that specific rules need to be introduced to avoid the conflict of interest that can arise between the developer of a project that is subject to environmental impact assessment and the competent authorities referred to in Article 1(2)(f) of Directive 2011/92/EU. In particular, the competent authorities should not also be the developer nor in any way be dependent on, linked to or subordinate to the developer. For the same reasons, an authority that has been designated as a competent authority under Directive 2011/92/EU should not be able to play that role in relation to projects that are subject to environmental impact assessment which the authority itself has commissioned.

(13c)

Proportionality is to be taken into account in the environmental impact assessment of the projects. The requirements that are asked for in the environmental impact assessment of a project should be proportionate to its size and stage.

(16)

When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required.

(16)

When determining whether significant environmental effects are likely to be caused, the competent authorities should define clearly and strictly the most relevant criteria to be considered and use the additional information that may be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently . In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening decision, in particular where no environmental assessment is required.

(16a)

In order to avoid unnecessary efforts and expenditure, the projects under Annex II should include a statement of intent that never exceeds 30 pages and the projects' characteristics and information on the location of the project to be subject to screening, which should consist of an initial assessment of its viability. That screening should be public and reflect the factors set out in Article 3. It should show the significant direct and indirect effects of the project.

(17)

The competent authorities should be required to determine the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment and streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination.

(17)

The competent authorities should , when they deem it necessary or if the developer so requests, issue an opinion determining the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental report (scoping). In order to improve the quality of the assessment , to simplify the procedures and to streamline the decision-making process, it is important to specify at Union level the categories of information on which the competent authorities should make that determination.

(18)

The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design.

(18)

The environmental report of a project to be provided by the developer should include an assessment of reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario), as a means to improve quality of the comparative assessment process and to allow integrating environmental considerations at an early stage in the project’s design , in order to enable the choice that is most sustainable and has the least environmental impact to be made .

(19)

Measures should be taken to ensure that the data and information included in the environmental reports, in accordance with Annex IV of Directive 2011/92/EU are complete and of sufficiently high quality. With a view to avoiding duplication of the assessment, Member States should take account of the fact that environmental assessments may be carried out at different levels or by different instruments.

(19)

Measures should be taken to ensure that the data and information included in the environmental reports, in accordance with Annex IV of Directive 2011/92/EU are complete and of sufficiently high quality.

(19a)

It should be ensured that the persons who check the environmental reports have, due to their qualifications and experience, the necessary technical expertise to carry out the tasks set out in Directive 2011/92/EU in a scientifically objective manner and in total independence from the developer and the competent authorities themselves.

(20)

With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out and the relevant information gathered.

(20)

With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate comprehensively and in detail its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out with the public concerned and all the relevant information gathered. Should that condition not be met, the public concerned should have the right to appeal against the decision.

(21)

It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the construction and operation of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation.

(21)

It is appropriate to establish common minimum requirements for the monitoring of the significant adverse effects of the implementation and management of projects to ensure a common approach in all Member States and to ensure that, after the implementation of mitigation and compensation measures, no impacts exceed those initially predicted. Such monitoring should not duplicate or add to monitoring required pursuant to other Union legislation. Where the outcome of the monitoring indicates the presence of unforeseen adverse effects, provision should be made for appropriate corrective action to remedy the problem, in the form of additional mitigation and/or compensation measures.

(22)

Time-frames for the various steps of the environmental assessment of projects should be introduced, in order to stimulate more efficient decision-making and increase legal certainty, also taking into account the nature, complexity, location and size of the proposed project. Such time-frames should under no circumstances compromise the high standards for the protection of the environment, particularly those resulting from other Union environmental legislation, and effective public participation and access to justice.

(22)

Reasonable and predictable time-frames for the various steps of the environmental assessment of projects should be introduced, in order to stimulate more efficient decision-making and increase legal certainty, also taking into account the nature, complexity, location and size of the proposed project. Such time-frames should under no circumstances compromise the high standards for the protection of the environment, particularly those resulting from other Union environmental legislation, and effective public participation and access to justice , and any extensions should be granted only in exceptional cases .

(22a)

One of the objectives of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Århus Convention), which the Union has ratified and transposed into Union law  (4) , is to ensure the right of the public to participate in decision-making in environmental matters. Therefore, that participation, including participation by associations, organisations and groups, in particular non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection, should continue to be fostered. Moreover, Article 9(2) and (4) of the Århus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions involving public participation. Elements of this Directive should also be strengthened in cross-border transport projects, making use of existing structures for the development of transport corridors and of tools to identify the potential impact on the environment.

(23a)

The production thresholds laid down for crude oil and natural gas in Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU do not take into account the specificity of daily production levels of non-conventional hydrocarbons, which are often highly variable and lower. Accordingly, despite their environmental impact, projects concerning such hydrocarbons are not subject to compulsory environmental impact assessment. In accordance with the precautionary principle, as called for by the European Parliament resolution of 21 November 2012 on the environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities, it would be appropriate to include non-conventional hydrocarbons (shale gas and oil, 'tight gas, ‘coal bed methane’), defined according to their geological characteristics, in Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU, regardless of the amount extracted, so that projects concerning such hydrocarbons are systematically made subject to environmental impact assessment.

(24a)

Member States and other project promoters should ensure that assessments of cross border projects are carried out efficiently, avoiding unnecessary delays.

(26)

In order to adjust the selection criteria and the information to be provided in the environmental report to the latest developments in technology and relevant practices, the power to adopt acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should be delegated to the Commission in respect of Annexes II.A, III and IV of Directive 2011/92/EU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

(26)

In order to adjust the selection criteria and the information to be provided in the environmental report to the latest developments in technology and relevant practices, the power to adopt acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should be delegated to the Commission in respect of Annexes II.A, III and IV of Directive 2011/92/EU. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

(27)

The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure the simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

(aa)

in point (a) of paragraph 2, the second indent is replaced by the following:

(ab)

point (c) of paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

(b)

in paragraph 2, the following definition is added:

(b)

in paragraph 2, the following definitions are added:

(g)

‘environmental impact assessment’ shall mean the process of preparing an environmental report, carrying out consultations (including with the public concerned and the environmental authorities), the assessment by the competent authority, taking into account the environmental report and the results of the consultations in the development consent procedure as well as the provision of information on the decision in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(g)

‘environmental impact assessment’ shall mean the process of preparing an environmental report by the developer, carrying out the consultations (including with the public concerned and the environmental authorities), the assessment by the competent authority and/or by the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) , taking into account the environmental report , including data concerning pollution from emissions, and the results of the consultations in the development consent procedure as well as the provision of information on the decision in accordance with Articles 5 to 10;

(gb)

‘cross-border section’ means the section which ensures the continuity of a project of common interest between the nearest urban nodes on both sides of the border of two Member States or between a Member State and a neighbouring country;

(gc)

‘standard’ means a technical specification, adopted by a recognised standardisation body, for repeated or continuous application, with which compliance is not compulsory, and which is one of the following:

(gd)

‘Urban historical sites’ are part of a wider totality, comprising the natural and the built environment and the everyday living experience of their dwellers as well. Within this wider environment, enriched with values of remote or recent origin and permanently undergoing a dynamic process of successive transformations, new urban spaces may be considered as environmental evidence in their formative stages;

(ge)

‘corrective action’ means further mitigation and/or compensation measures that may be undertaken by the developer to redress unforeseen adverse effects or any net biodiversity loss identified by project implementation, such as may arise from deficiencies in mitigation of impacts arising from project construction or operation, for which development consent has already been granted;

(gf)

‘Visual Impact Assessment’: Visual impact is defined as a change in the appearance, or view, of the built or natural landscape and urban areas resulting from the development which can be positive (improvement) or negative (deterioration). Visual impact Assessment also covers the demolition of constructions that are protected or those with a strategic role in the traditional image of a place or a landscape. It shall cover obvious change to geological topography and any other obstacle such as buildings or walls that limit the view of nature as well as the landscape's harmony. Visual impact is assessed largely by qualitative judgements, involving human appreciation of, and interaction with, landscape and the value they give to a place (genius loci);

(gg)

‘Joint Procedure’: Under the Joint Procedure the competent authority shall issue one environmental impact assessment, integrating the assessments of one or more authorities without prejudice to other provisions of other relevant Union legislation;

(gh)

‘Simplification’ means the reduction of forms and administrative procedures, the creation of joint procedures or coordination tools to integrate the assessments made by many authorities. It means to establish shared criteria, to make the submission of reports shorter and to strengthen objective and scientific evaluations.

(c)

paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

(c)

paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

3.   Member States may decide, on a case-by-case basis and if so provided under national law, not to apply this Directive to projects having as their sole purpose national defence or the response to civil emergencies , if they deem that such application would have an adverse effect on those purposes.

3.   Member States may decide, on a case-by-case basis and if so provided under national law, not to apply this Directive to projects having as their sole purpose national defence, if they deem that such application would have an adverse effect on those purposes.

(ca)

the following paragraph is added:

‘4a.     Member States shall designate the competent authority or authorities in such a way as to ensure their full independence in the performance of the duties assigned to them under this Directive. In particular, the competent authority or authorities shall be designated in such a way as to avoid any relationship of dependence, any links or subordination between them or their members and the developer. A competent authority may not perform its duties under this Directive in relation to a project which it has commissioned itself.’.

(1a)

‘1.     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 after having consulted the public. Measures to monitor significant adverse environmental effects and mitigation and compensation measures shall be taken, if appropriate, by the competent authority when development consent is given. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’.

(2a)

‘4.     Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in exceptional cases if so provided under national law, exempt a specific project having as its sole purpose the response to civil emergencies in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this Directive, if such application would have an adverse effect on these purposes.

In that event, the Member States may inform and consult the public concerned and shall:

The Commission shall immediately forward the documents received to the other Member States.

The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this paragraph.’.

(a)

population, human health, and biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ;

(a)

population, human health, and biodiversity including flora and fauna , with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directives 92/43/EEC , 2000/60/EC and 2009/147/EC;

(b)

land, soil, water, air and climate change ;

(b)

land, soil, water, air and climate;

(c)

material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape;

(c)

material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape;

(d)

the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c);

(d)

the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c);

(e)

exposure, vulnerability and resilience of the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c), to natural and man-made disaster risks.

(e)

exposure, vulnerability and resilience of the factors referred to in points (a), (b) and (c), to likely natural and man-made disaster risks.

(4)

Article 4 is amended as follows:

(4)

Article 4 is amended as follows:

(a)

the decisions and opinions to be obtained;

(b)

the authorities and the public likely to be concerned;

(b)

the authorities and the public likely to be concerned;

(c)

the individual stages of the procedure and their duration;

(c)

the individual stages of the procedure and timeframes for their duration;

(d)

reasonable alternatives relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics;

(d)

reasonable alternatives that may be considered by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project, its specific characteristics and its significant impacts on the environment ;

(e)

the environmental features referred to in Article 3 likely to be significantly affected;

(f)

the information to be submitted relevant to the specific characteristics of a particular project or type of project;

(f)

the information to be submitted relevant to the specific characteristics of a particular project or type of project;

(g)

the information and knowledge available and obtained at other levels of decision-making or through other Union legislation, and the methods of assessment to be used.

(g)

the information and knowledge available and obtained at other levels of decision-making or through other Union legislation, and the methods of assessment to be used.

(a)

the developer shall ensure that the environmental report is prepared by accredited and technically competent experts or

(a)

the developer shall ensure that the environmental report is prepared by competent experts ; and

(b)

the competent authority shall ensure that the environmental report is verified by accredited and technically competent experts and/or committees of national experts.

(b)

the competent authority shall ensure that the environmental report is verified by competent experts and/or committees of national experts whose names shall be made public .

(5a)

‘Article 5a

For cross-border projects, the Member States and neighbouring countries involved shall take all measures necessary to ensure that respective competent authorities cooperate in order to provide jointly for one integrated and coherent cross-border environmental impact assessment from an early planning stage, in accordance with applicable legislation on Union co-funding.

In the case of European transport network transport projects, the potential impact on the Natura 2000 network shall be identified using the Commission’s TENTec system and Natura 2000 software and possible alternatives.’

(-a)

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.     Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities or local jurisdiction are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent. To that end, Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted, either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis. The information gathered pursuant to Article 5 shall be forwarded to those authorities. Detailed arrangements for consultation shall be laid down by the Member States.’;

(-aa)

‘2.     The public shall be informed through a central portal which is accessible to the public electronically in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information*, by public notices and other appropriate means such as electronic media, early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided.’

(-ab)

‘3.     Member States shall ensure that, within reasonable time-frames, the following is made available at least through a central portal which is accessible to the public electronically:

(-ac)

‘5.     The detailed arrangements for informing the public […] and for consulting the public concerned […] shall be determined by the Member States. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant information is provided through a central portal which is accessible to the public electronically in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/4/EC.’:

(ba)

the following paragraph is added:

‘7a.    In order to ensure the effective participation of the public concerned in the decision-making procedures, Member States shall ensure that contact information of and easy and quick access to the authority or authorities responsible for performing the duties arising from this Directive be available to the public at any time and regardless of any ongoing specific project subject to an environmental impact assessment, and that due attention is paid to the comments made and opinions expressed by the public.’.

(7a)

‘5a.     In the case of cross-border projects of common interest in the field of transport included in one of the corridors set out in Annex I of the Regulation…  (*) establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, Member States shall be involved in coordinating the work of the public consultations. The coordinator shall ensure that an extensive public consultation process takes place with all stakeholders and civil society during the planning of new infrastructure. In any event, the coordinator may propose ways of developing the corridor plan and implementing it in a balanced manner.’.

(a)

the environmental assessment of the competent authority referred to in Article 3 and the environmental conditions attached to the decision, including a description of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects;

(a)

the results of the environmental assessment of the competent authority referred to in Article 3 , including a summary of the observations and opinions received pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 , and the environmental conditions attached to the decision, including a description of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects;

(b)

the main reasons for choosing the project as adopted, in the light of the other alternatives considered, including the likely evolution of the existing state of the environment without implementation of the project (baseline scenario);

(b)

an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects;

(c)

a summary of the comments received pursuant to Articles 6 and 7;

(d)

a statement summarising how environmental considerations have been integrated into the development consent and how the results of the consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 have been incorporated or otherwise addressed.

(d)

a statement summarising how environmental considerations have been integrated into the development consent and how the environmental report and the results of the consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 have been incorporated or otherwise addressed.

*

(a)

the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto;

(b)

having examined the environmental report and the concerns and opinions expressed by the public concerned, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information about the public participation process;

(c)

a description of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the significant adverse effects;

(d)

a description, where appropriate, of the monitoring measures referred to in Article 8(2).

(9a)

‘Article 9a

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority or authorities, when performing the duties arising from this Directive, do not find themselves in a conflict of interest pursuant to any legislation binding upon them.’

(9b)

‘The provisions of this Directive shall not affect the obligation on the competent authorities to respect the limitations imposed by national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, and accepted legal practices with regard to commercial and industrial confidentiality, including intellectual property, and the safeguarding of the public interest, provided that they comply with Directive 2003/4/EC.’.

(9c)

‘Article 10a

Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’.

(9d)

‘Any such procedure shall be adequate and effective, allow for applications for injunctive relief, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.’

(-1)

(-1a)

1.

A description of the project, including in particular :

1.

A description of the project, including:

2.

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project.

2.

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project.

3.

A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from:

3.

A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment , including risks to the health of the population concerned and the effects on the landscape and cultural heritage, resulting from:

4.

A description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce any significant adverse effects on the environment.

4.

A description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce the significant adverse effects on the environment , in particular when they are considered irreversible .

(ii)

coastal zones;

(ii)

coastal zones and marine environment ;

1.

Description of the project, including in particular:

1.

Description of the project including in particular:

2.

A description, of the technical, locational or other aspects (e.g. in terms of project design, technical capacity, size and scale) of the alternatives considered, including the identification of the least environmentally impacting one, and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made , taking into account the environmental effects .

2.

A description, of the technical, locational or other aspects (e.g. in terms of project design, technical capacity, size and scale) of the reasonable alternatives considered by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made.

3.

A description of the relevant aspects of the existing state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project (baseline scenario) . This description should cover any existing environmental problems relevant to the project, including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance and the use of natural resources.

3.

A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline scenario) and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project , where the natural or social changes from the baseline scenario can be reasonably predicted . This description should cover any existing environmental problems relevant to the project, including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular environmental importance and the use of natural resources.

4.

A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, human health, fauna, flora, biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides, land (land take), soil (organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing), water (quantity and quality), air, climatic factors, climate change (greenhouse gas emissions, including from land use, land use change and forestry, mitigation potential, impacts relevant to adaptation, if the project takes into account risks associated with climate change), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological ones, landscape; such a description should include the inter-relationship between the above factors, as well as the exposure, vulnerability and resilience of the above factors to natural and man-made disaster risks.

4.

A description of the factors of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, human health, fauna, flora, biodiversity through its fauna and flora , land (land take), soil (organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing), water (quantity and quality), air, climatic factors, climate (greenhouse gas emissions, including from land use, land use change and forestry, mitigation potential, impacts relevant to adaptation, if the project takes into account risks associated with climate change), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological ones, landscape; such a description should include the inter-relationship between the above factors, as well as the exposure, vulnerability and resilience of the above factors to natural and man-made disaster risks.

5.

A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from, inter alia:

5.

A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from, inter alia:

The description of the likely significant effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-, medium- and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. This description should take into account the environmental protection objectives established at EU or Member State level which are relevant to the project.

The description of the likely significant effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-, medium- and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. This description should take into account the environmental protection objectives established at Union or Member State level which are relevant to the project.

6.

The description of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment referred to in point 5, as well as an account of the main uncertainties involved and their influence on the effect estimates and selection of the preferred alternative.

6.

The description of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment referred to in point 5, as well as an account of the main uncertainties involved and their influence on the effect estimates and selection of the preferred alternative.

7.

A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment referred to in point 5 and, where appropriate, of any proposed monitoring arrangements, including the preparation of a post-project analysis of the adverse effects on the environment. This description should explain the extent to which significant adverse effects are reduced or offset and should cover both the construction and operational phases.

7.

A description of the measures envisaged to , as a priority, prevent and reduce and, as a last resort , offset any significant adverse effects on the environment referred to in point 5 and, where appropriate, of any proposed monitoring arrangements, including the preparation of a post-project analysis of the adverse effects on the environment. This description should explain the extent to which significant adverse effects are prevented, reduced or offset and should cover both the construction and operational phases.

8.

An assessment of the natural and man-made disaster risks and risk of accidents to which the project could be vulnerable and, where appropriate, a description of the measures envisaged to prevent such risks, as well as measures regarding preparedness for and response to emergencies (e.g. measures required under Directive 96/82/EC as amended ).

8.

An assessment of the likely natural and man-made disaster risks and risk of accidents to which the project could be vulnerable and, where appropriate, a description of the measures envisaged to prevent such risks, as well as measures regarding preparedness for and response to emergencies (e.g. measures required under Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, or requirements arising from other Union legislation or international conventions ).

9.

A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.

9.

A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings.

10.

An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of knowhow) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information and of the sources used for the descriptions and assessments made, as well as an account of the main uncertainties involved and their influence on the effect estimates and selection of the preferred alternative.

10.

An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of knowhow) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information and of the sources used for the descriptions and assessments made, as well as an account of the main uncertainties involved and their influence on the effect estimates and selection of the preferred alternative.