eia manual - ibecaibeca.al/pages/docs/selea/18062014 eia manual_eng version_final doc... · 1.1...

The European Union’s IPA 2010 programme for Albania

Technical Assistance for Strengthening the

Capacity of the Ministry of Environment in Albania

for Law Drafting and Enforcement of National

Environmental Legislation (EuropeAid/130987/C/SER/AL)

EIA Manual Activity 3.C

Final Document

This project is funded by the European Union

Technical Assistance for Strengthening the Capacity of the Ministry of Environment in Albania for Law Drafting and Enforcement of National Environmental Legislation

2

Project title: Technical Assistance for Strengthening the Capacity of the Ministry of Environment in Albania for Law Drafting and Enforcement of National Environmental Legislation

Project number: Europe Aid/130987/C/SER/AL; Contract no. 2011/275-693 Country: Republic of Albania

Beneficiary Contractor Name: Ministry of Environment Grontmij A/S Address: Durresi Str, Nr 27, Tirana, Albania Granskoven 8 DK-2600 Glostrup Contact Person: Ardiana Sokoli Paolo Bacca Phone: +355 4 2270622 +355 4 2226493 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Date of Report: June 2014 Title: EIA Manual Authors: QA/QC

Breda Howard, Alma Bako, Erjola Muka & Kurt Terpgaard-Jensen Paolo Bacca

Acknowledgement The project team wishes to express its gratitude to all resource persons and experts from all institutions and stakeholders involved in the collection of data and information and to all persons and bodies that have supported the development of this Working Paper. Special thanks are extended to the directors of the Ministry of Environment and the National Environment Agency.

This report has been prepared by a project team working for Grontmij. The findings, conclusions and interpretations expressed in this document are those of Grontmij alone and should not in any way be taken to reflect the opinions and policies of the European Commission.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


3

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 PURPOSE AND USE OF THE MANUAL 4

2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5 2.1 WHAT IS EIA? 5 2.2 SCOPE OF EIA 5 2.3 EIA PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENTS 6 2.4 NEA DECISIONS ON EIA (EIA DECLARATION) 6

3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 8

4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 10 4.1 KEY PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS 10 4.2 OTHER PARTIES IN THE EIA PROCESS 11

5 NEA´s ADMINISTRATION OF THE EIA PROCESS 13 5.1 NEA`S ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 13 5.2 TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES 15

6 EIA PROCESS 16 6.1 PRELIMINARY EIA PROCESS 19 6.2 PROFOUND EIA PROCESS 23

7 EIA REGISTRATION FORMAT 38

REFERENCES 40

ANNEX 1 – PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PROFOUND EIA PROCEDURES 41

Annex 2 - PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PRELIMINARY EIA PROCEDURES 44

Annex 3 – CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS IN EIA 47

Annex 4 - ECONOMIC VALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IN EIA 65

Annex 5 - DEALING WITH MITIGATION AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES IN EIA 73

Annex 6 - DEALING WITH HAZARDS AND OTHER ‘ABNORMAL EVENTS’ IN EIA 90

Annex 7 - MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN EIA 98

Annex 8 – EIA APPLICATION FORMAT 99

ANNEX 9 – FORMATS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION AND DECLARATION 110

ANNEX 10 - TERMINOLOGY 117


4

1 INTRODUCTION

The present EIA Manual is designed to provide practical and detailed technical management tools to environmental impact assessment (EIA) NEA practitioners and external experts on technical issues arising from the requirement to review and make decisions on EIA applications.

The Manual is based on Law No. 10440, dated 7.7. 2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment”. After the entry into force of the new Law on EIA, which in June 2014 is in process of approval in Parliament, National Licensing Center (NLC) will not be part of the EIA process any more.

The Manual contains technical information and explains the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders.

The Manual have a number of annexes with detailed technical information for specific challenges in the EIA process.

1.1. PURPOSE AND USE OF THE MANUAL

The purpose of the Manual is to provide a management tool for the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Albania and to facilitate an efficient EIA application process for each project submitted for approval.

The ultimate goal is to provide a high level of environmental protection, through prevention, minimization and compensation of the damages to environment from the project proposals, prior to their development consent and to guarantee an open decision making process during identification, description and assessment of the adverse significant environmental impacts in an appropriate time and the involvement of all interested parties.

Stages of the preliminary EIA application process and stages of the profound EIA application process are described in details step by step supported with Tables and Checklists from start to completion.

A Register Format is provided to show “at a glance key data” to make available the current status and numbers of all EIA Applications, preliminary and profound in the system.

Utilising the Manual will allow the officials and managers in the EIA system to quickly assess progress and effectively manage the complex multiple deadlines, information, and consultation required to manage EIA applications at all stages in the process.

The Manual can be used in hard copy format. However, the format has been designed to facilitate an electronic format to allow official users in the system to assess information on the status of application(s) in real time.

The Manual is part of efforts to improve the environmental impact assessment procedures to ensure the environmental assessment process takes comprehensively place in the most efficient manner.

The use of the Manual:

The Manual sets out step by step Tables and checklists which show exactly what is required from each of the parties responsible for administration of the preliminary and profound EIA process. This is done through clear definition of roles and responsibilities and how each party can fulfil its obligations and meet strict deadlines set out in the legislation from the start to the conclusion of the process.

Annexes supplement the main text of the Manual.


5

2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

EIA is the environmental assessment in a process of assessments (environment, spatial planning, construction, etc.) that will eventual lead to a Development Consent.

The purpose of an EIA is to provide information for decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of a proposed development activity.

2.1. WHAT IS EIA?

Impact Assessment is essentially about answering key questions:

A. What will the environment be like without the project? (i.e. Baseline Studies). This will identify and describe the current condition of resources and features present in the environment that could be affected by the project and how these will develop in the absence of the project.

B. What will happen to the environment as the consequence of a project? (i.e. Prediction). This will describe the environment as it is without the project and how it will change as a consequence of the project in terms of the environmental resources or people (the receptors) that are affected, the nature and the scale of change, its geographical extent and timeframe.

C. Does this matter? (i.e. Evaluation). Predicting an impact is not enough. Most decision-makers (and certainly the majority of competent authority staff and external stakeholders) do not have the expertise to understand what the technical findings of impact predictions really mean. They also need information to allow them to judge how important (significant) the impact is, so that this can be weighed up against the other costs and benefits of the project in making a decision on whether it should be allowed to proceed.

D. If it matters can we do anything about it? (i.e. Mitigation). Finally it is important to understand whether, if an impact is significant, anything can be done to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for it. The project developer can then include these measures in the project proposals and the competent authority can include the related requirements in the conditions on the grant of consent.

E. In order for competent authorities and external stakeholders to decide if a projectshould go ahead, it is essential that the environmental information provided by the developer in the EIA report (1) clearly answers these questions. The aim of EIA studies is therefore to generate and present this information in a clear, coherent and accurate manner.

2.2. SCOPE OF EIA

The idea about EIA is to provide information for decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of proposed developments. Moreover the idea is to promote environmentally sound development through the identification of appropriate enhancement and mitigation measures.

The principle objective of the EIA is to identify potentially significant environmental impacts of new individual development projects. Within this aim, the EIA process seeks to:

• consider alternatives for location and their associated environmental impacts • improve the environmental design of the proposal; • ensure that resources are used appropriately and efficiently;


6

• identify appropriate measures for mitigating the potential impacts of the proposal; and • setting environmental conditions for construction; and • facilitate informed decision making, including setting the environmental terms and conditions

for implementing the proposal.

2.3. EIA PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENTS

An important distinction is made between:

The legislative EIA Procedure: this is the sequence of actions, which must be undertaken by developers, competent authorities and consultees to meet the requirements of the EIA Directive and of the domestic legislation in Albania.

The EIA report: the EIA report is the document, which must be submitted by the developer with the development consent application and which describes the project, its environmental impacts and the mitigation measures to be implemented in order to minimise the impacts.

The EIA Studies: these are the surveys, investigations and analyses carried out byor on behalf of the developer to prepare the information that must be included inthe EIA report. The EIA studies will involve baseline studies, prediction and evaluation of impacts and development of mitigation.

2.4. DECISION ON EIA

National Environmental Agency (NEA) reviews and assesses the EIA applications and at the end of each EIA procedure, preliminary or profound, issues a Decision for preliminary EIA, and regarding profound EIA issues an Environmental Declaration with respective recommendations and sends it to the Ministry.

At the end of process, the decision consists in:

• Decision – issued by NEA at the end of preliminary EIA • Environmental Declaration – Endorsed by the Minister at the end of profound EIA –

Decision

The Decision of NEA at the end of preliminary EIA procedure defines if a project listed in the Annex II of the EIA Law is subject to profound EIA. Otherwise such Decision defines the reasons and considerations where this opinion is based, the opinion of the consulted institutions and the description, case by case, of the proposed measures to eliminate or mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts.

Environmental Declaration

The final result of the profound EIA assessment process is the Environmental Declaration that may contain a rejection or approval with recommendations for the Planning Authority to continue the process on the specified environmental conditions.

Annex 9 hereto contains the Decision and Environmental Declaration Formats.

The Environmental Declaration serves as an orienting document for the planning authoritiesand/or any other responsible decision making authority for a development permit or any other permit included in the category III.1 of the Annex to“Permits and licenses in the Republic of Albania” Law.

Decision of the Planning and Licensing Authority


7

The Planning Authority or the responsible authority for licensing, when decides to grant or not the development consent/license, or to define conditions for the developer, takes into consideration the Decision and the Environmental Declaration for the environmental impacts of a proposed project.


8

3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The scope of the EIA Law is to define requirements, responsibilities, rules and procedures for the assessment of the adverse significant environmental impacts of the proposed projects, private or public.

According to Envronmental Protection Law, the environmental impact assessment for a proposed development project is the assessment of potential significant environmental effects of this project on environment.

During the EIA process there are identified, described and proper assessed the effects on the environment of a project, defining potential direct and indirect impacts on soil, water, the sea, air, forests, climate, health, flora and fauna, natural landscape, cultural heritage, taking into consideration the interaction between impacts.

Environmental impact assessment implies the preventative principle since the initial phase of the project design, aiming the elimination or minimization of the negative impacts on environment, through harmonization with environmental carrying capacity.

An environmental impact assessment is also carried out and reported by the developer, as part of the preparations for the development of the project design before applying for the development consent.

The Albanian EIA Law, transposing the EIA Directive, aims to provide a high level of environmental protection through prevention, minimization and compensation of the environmental damages from the proposed projects before the development consent and guarantee an open decision making process during identification, description and assessment of the significant environmental effects, at the right way and timeand involvement of all interested parties.

This law is intended to be applied for the proposed public or private projects, which may cause direct or indirect negative significant effects on the environment by virtue of their size, nature or location.

General legal Requirements of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Project:

• The environmental impact assessment includes the definition, description and assessment of the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts in case of implementing or not implementing the project.

• The environmental impacts of project shall be assessed in relation to the state of the environment in the affected territory at the time of submitting the relevant environmental impact assessment report of the project.

• The environmental impact assessment includes the preparation, implementation, operation and its decommissioning including the results of liquidation thereof, as appropriate, and also decontamination or reclaiming of the area, if the obligation of decontamination or reclaiming (clean up) or return into its previous state, if it is laid down by the special regulation. Both normal operations and the possibility of accidents shall be assessed, as appropriate.

• Assessment of the project also includes the proposal of necessary measures to prevent, reduce, mitigate or minimize such impacts, or to increase the positive impacts on environment during the project implemention, including the assessment of the expected effects of the proposed measures.

The projects that are subject to EIA are listed in the Annexes to the EIA Law (Annex I and Annex II). In order to decide if the proposed project is subject to any of these annexes or to which of the Annexes it falls, this depends on the nature of the proposed project, its scale, location and if it is likely to have


9

adverse impacts on the environment. To this end help the criteria set for assisting in deciding first whether EIA is required and if yes to which annex it belongs, while competent authorities such as environmental authorities or line ministries and institutions consulted during the process, decide on the significance of the environmental impacts.


10

4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1. KEY PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS

NLC1

NLC is the National Licensing Center. The NLC receives applications, forward them to the relevant Competent Authority and submit the response to the developer.

NLC checks the administrative requirements are met and the Service fee is paid for.

Ministry of Environment

MoE drafts, reviews, issues legislation and regulations regarding EIA as well as guidance documents, guidelines on best EIA practices, sectoral guidelines, etc.

During the EIA procedure, NEA and Ministry, according to their competences, consult the relevant institutions defined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Law.

MoE publishes an annual report on the implementation of the EIA Law.

NEA

NEA is a national public institution under the Minister’s of Environment authority and has under its jurisdiction the whole Albanian territory, through the central office and regional branches, the regional environmental agencies (REA’s).

Being responsible for the decision making process, NEA:

• decides whether projects would be likely to have significant effects; • decides if EIA is required, preliminary EIA/profound EIA; • defines the issues to be considered in the EIA report; • reviews the applications; • provides consultations with necessary institutions; • defines the environmental permit conditions (requirements).

Regional Environmental Agencies (REA’s)

Regional Environmental Agency (REA) located in the district (Qark) where the project is proposed to be implemented seeks the opinion from the government and local institutions in the Qark. REA where the project is proposed to be implemented sends a copy to the representative of the relevant institutions in the Qark and to the local government unit that administers the territory of the proposed project.

REA forwards to NEA the outcomes of the consultation process.

REA is present on the day of the public hearing and has a supervisory role, by recording independently the opinions and the requests from the public meeting and parties present. Within five days from the end of the hearing, REA convey the information to NEA about how the procedure is implemented and the opinions and requirements of the public and the parties present. The information from the REA is immediately published on the website of NEA.

State Environment, Forests and Waters Inspectorate

The Planning Authority and other institutions licensing the activities subject to the EIA Law, inform immediately the Ministry of Environment regarding the decision taken on the approval/refusal of

1Should be considered until the entry into force of the new Law on EIA


11

the development consent, in order to enable the monitoring and implementation of the environmental requirements during project implementation, as well as drafting of the report on EIA Law implementation.

The State Environment, Forests and Waters Inspectorate is responsible for undertaking necessary actions according to the EIA Law, for the provision of compliance with the requirements defined in the constructions legislation provisions, for planned activities which are subject to the EIA Law.

Planning & Licensing Authorities

The relevant planning ministry and licensing authorities take into account the Environmental Declaration issued and the relevant environmental conditions.

Other revelant Ministries and Public Institutions

Ministries with responsibility for planning, protection of public health, agriculture, economic development and public infrastructure development submit their views/opinions on the application. Planning authorities and other institutions issuing permits for the projects which are subject to EIA, inform immediately the MoE for the approval of development permit/consent or not.

The Public institutions provide necessary environmental information needed, requested expertise, opinions, comments etc. assisting the competent authorities in the decision making process.

The institutions, depending on the type of the project which are responsible for permitting/licensing or responsible for natural and civil emergencies provide expertise, opinions and comments as well.

Planning authorities and other institutions issuing permits for the projects which are subject of EIA, inform immediately the MoE for the approval of development permit or not, aiming the monitoring of environmental requirements as result of project development and the preparation of the law implementation report.

The Ministries of the respective countries cooperate in case of transboundary EIA’s.

4.2. OTHER PARTIES IN THE EIA PROCESS

Developer

Responsible on behalf of the developer of the project is the person or public authority that applies for development consent for a private or public project. The developer submits the application and accompanying documentation at the National Licensing Center (NLC) in compliance with legislation in force.

The developer:

• notifies NEA in the early stages of project development (project idea stage) accompanied by the necessary information;

• despite the EIA Law provisions, may seek preliminary opinion from NEA, if the proposed project is subject to the EIA Law;

• submits to the NLC the application and accompanying documentation; • prepares the necessary documentation; • in case of profound EIA, informs the public and carries out consultations with interested public

on environmental impact assessment of the proposed activity; submits the information on public information and consultation as part of the application for Environmental Declaration;

• having prepared the profound EIA report, notifies NEA for the organisation of public hearing; • having conducted public hearing and developed the profound EIA report submits the

necessary documents to the NLC.


12

The developer is responsible to implement all the requirements set in the Environmental Declaration.

The developer is responsible during project implementation to carry out monitoring of the environmental impacts of the project, in accordance with the definitions of the Environmental Declaration and the applicable legislation.

In case the project developer has changed during the EIA procedure, the new developer applies for a new EIA procedure.

In case the developer has changed after the finalization of EIA procedure, the new developer, requests to QKL the respective change in the issued Environmental Decision/Declaration, depositing the requested documents according to the legislation in force.

Certified EIA Expert

The developer assigns a Certified EIA Expert licensed by the National Licensing Centre for EIA and environmental auditing or/and individuals certified by the Ministry for EIA and environmental auditing, for the preparation of the EIA report. Only the EIA report which has been signed by a certified private expert (EIA expert) shall be accepted as such report. However, such signature shall not remove any responsibility or liability of the developer as regards that report. The developer who intends to implement a project that is subject of proceedings of the profound EIA, reports since the initial stages of the project (project idea) accompanied by the information defined in the respective legislation. The preparation of the EIA report is the responsibility of the developer.

The EIA expert assesses on behalf of the developer the significance of the environmental impacts, mitigating measures, preparation and submition of EIA report in compliance with legislation, guarantee the reliability of the information and compliance with conditions set in the consent.

Public in general and NGO’s

‘The Public’ has the meaning given in the Environmental Protection Law No 10 431, dated 9.06. 2011 which states that “Public” means one or more natural or legal persons, their associations, organisations or groups. The Public includes directly and indirectly affected people, public sector agencies, developers and others at local regional and international levels that may have an interest in the activity.

Public concerned

Article 5 of the EIA Law defines the “Public concerned" as the public affected or likely to be affected, or the public who is interested environmental decision making, including environmental NGOs expressing interest.

The Public concerned are all the people with an interest in environmental decision making based on a development project's location and/or type, all those affected or likely to be affected by the development project, and environmental Non Governmental organisations (NGOS). The concerned Public includes all the people who may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development. They will include all the residents around the proposed site, any people within range of pollution or nuisances from the site, and others whose livelihoods may be affected such as landowners, business operators and owners, clubs and societies. NGOs that have an interest in an issue that may arise during the EIA may also request to be considered to be part of the affected public. The EIA process is structured to identify and involve the affected public as early as is reasonably practical.


13

5 NEA´S ADMINISTRATION OF THE EIA PROCESS

5.1. NEA`S ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

NEA is the overall coordination body for the whole EIA process and for the provision of compliance with legislation in force.

NEAs key Roles

NEA checks the information submitted by the developer and consider if it is unsufficient. NEA communicates with NLC and requires the completion of missing information with related legal and technical reasons for a request.

NEA reviews the EIA in accordance with EIA Law and the criteria of the DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure", as well as best EU practices.

NEA recommends conditions that are binding on the developer and will provide the basis for a legal contract that sets out the responsibilities of the developer and any contractors or partners who may later be involved in construction and operation.

At the end of profound EIA process, NEA prepares the Environmental Declaration and submits it at the Ministry.

NEAs detailed Roles: • Assesses the applications and decides whether the proposed project should or should not be

subject to the profound EIA procedure. NEA carries out consultations and makes a decision on the preliminary EIA. Following the respective procedures and relevant deadlines, NEA’s decision is notified to the NLC, the Ministry and institutions consulted and a copy is published in the National Register of Permits and Licenses;

• Assesses the application and determines whether the proposed project, due to the potential significant impact on the environment, should be subject to a profound EIA procedure. If the information provided by the developer is not in accordance with requirements the NEA communicates this to the NLC and requires the completion of the missing information;Requests opinions on the application from other institutions, consultations with other Institutions (other institutions depending on the type of the project are responsible for permitting/licensing or responsible for natural and civil emergencies), Regional Environmental Agency (REA) in the qark where the project is proposed to be implemented and which are instructed to seek the opinion from the government institutions in the Qark where the project is proposed. These institutions provide necessary environmental information needed, requested expertise, opinion, comments etc. assisting the competent authorities in the

decision making process; • Publishes the application. In order to inform the public and NGOs, NEA publishes the

preliminary EIA application on its website. The publication outlines the procedure and the expected timing of the publication of the NEA decision in the National Registry of Permit and Licenses;

• Takes decisions and notifies the NLC, MoE and institutions consulted. • Publishes the decision in the National Registry of Permits and Licenses; • In case of profound EIA, communicates with the developer on the issues to be included in the

profound EIA report. Publishes the communication with the developer at NEA’s website and a copy is submitted to the consulted institutions;


14

• Carries out public hearing with public and interested NGO-s during profound EIA procedure, seeking their opinion during the decision making process. Public hearing is carried out in cooperation with local government unit (LGU) and the developer. NEA, after the developer’s notification for the organization of public hearing, requests REA’s collaboration with LGU and project developer for the realization of public hearing;

• Reviews the documentation delivered by NLC for granting the Environmental Declaration which is issued by the minister. The Environmental Declaration is submitted to the NLC, consulted institutions, and a copy is immediately published in the National Register of Permits and Licenses.

NEA is responsible for: • Consultations with other institutions, the public and NGO’s on the issues to be addressed in

the profound EIA report; • Communication with the developer on the requests of the consulted parties for the issues to

be addressed in the profound EIA report, determining the Content of the profound EIA. In this regard, NEA is responsible for consultations with other institutions and the publication of the application. NEA requests an opinion on the application;

• Consultations with MoE (departments/sectors) aiming to ensure compliance with overall environmental strategy, environmental plans/programmes, concerns of specially protected areas etc;

• Consultations with MoE departments/sectors before finalization of the Environmental Declaration.

Special Concerns

Deadlines

NEA coordinates with parties involved in the EIA process in compliance with the set timeframe/deadlines. The consulted parties, line ministries and their dependent structures, local government units, and instititions with responsibilities in the EIA process have to provide comments/opinions within the deadlines and their relevant functions and responsibilities. In case the above mentioned institutions do not reply within the deadlines, it means that they agree with the project proposal. No additional time is foreseen for the provision of comments from these institutions. The deadlines should be respected but proceeding with limited information may result in approval with later implications to environment.

Potential non-compliances with approved strategic documents, plans or programmes may also result in later implications.

To meet the deadlines of this procedure, the institutions with a responsibility or a role in the procedure, share to the extent possible the information for the project through electronic communications.

If no request for additional information, the timeframe for the preliminary EIA procedure from the moment of application at NLC until the final decision is given in the Chapter 6 (Table 1 of 6.1.2).

Details on deadlines are given in the tables of Chapter 6 ““EIA process”.

In case the project which has been subject to EIA, does not start the implementation within a two-year period from the approval date, all submitted documentation will be considered “not valid” and the EIA process should start from the beginning.

Sanctions


15

The developer is in charge of legal responsibilities, according to legislation in force, in case of unproved facts, data presented and the documentations accompanying his application and when submits false documents or falsify the documents.

In case of non professional and weak EIA reports, the minister applies sanctions for the EIA expert, temporary retrieval up to retrieval of the certificate, informing the NLC for the respective decission taken.

Confidentiality

If a developer considers that certain data in the documentation requested by the EIA procedure are confidential, this is communicated to NEA and NLC at the moment of documentation’s submission which contains the confidential information.

If the NEA and NLC are notified in advance by the developer for the preservation of confidential data then they are obliged to implement the requirements of the relevant legislation under the provisions of Law No. 9901, dated 14.04.2008 "On commercial companies", Law no. 9887 dated 10.03.2008 "On protection of personal data", Law no. 9380, dated 28.4.2005 "On copyright and related rights", as well as Law no. 9947, dated 7.7.2008 "On Industrial Property”.

Deadlines related to the confidential data protection and administration, there are not counted (added) in terms of the EIA procedures implementation under this Decision.

Exclusions

The projects of the national defence, where it is identified that the EIA for these projects is against the national defence aims, are excluded from the EIA procedure. The Ministry of Defenece in cooperation with the MoE sets up a working group, which case by case approves these projects and recommends the necessary measures to mitigate and prevent adverse environmental impacts.

Public Hearings

NEA, after receiving the notification of developer, requires REA to cooperate with the local government unit and the developer to realise the public information requirements.

In case of profound EIA, NEA:

• Carries out public hearing with public and NGO’s in cooperation with LGU’s and developer;Reviews the profound EIA;

• Publishes the Non-Technical Summary on its website aiming the public, NGOs and other interested parties, give their opinions before the Environment Declaration is issued.

Appeal

Each party has the right to an administrative appeal, by request in the NLC, against acts, actions or non-actions during the development of EIA procedure in accordance with the requirements of article 25 of Law no. 10440, dated 07. 07. 2011 "On environmental impact assessment" and according to article 30 of Law No. 10 081, dated 23.2.2009 "On licenses, authorizations and permits in the Republic of Albania".

5.2. TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES

In case NEA identifies potential environmental transboundary impacts from a proposed project, or in case of such notification is done by a neighbor country, immediately notifies the NLC and MoE.

In case NEA is notified, or has received an EIA report from a neighbor country, for a project proposal that my have potential impacts in the Albanian environment, immediately notifies the MoE for


16

starting discussions with this neighbor country, procedures and timeframe for submitting opinions on the proposed project.

6 EIA PROCESS

The private or public projects listed in the Annex I and II of the EIA law are subject to the environmental impact assessment, in compliance with the EIA law before the respective permit is issued by the responsible authority for the development of the project or not.

The EIA procedure includes:

a) Preliminary environmental impact assessment process; b) Profound environmental impact assessment process.

Application

The application should bes done according to the EIA Application Format, Annex 8 attached to this

Manual, which should be completed by the developer for obtaining an Environmental Decision or

Declaration.

Preliminary EIA process

Stage 1 Submission of application and accompanying documentation by the developer to the National Licensing Centre (NLC), initial administrative compliance check by NLC and transfer from NLC to the National Environment Agency (NEA);

Stage 2 Initial technical check by NEA and consultation with other institutions and publication of the application;

Stage 3 NEA notifies for the decision taken the, Ministry of Environment (MoE), the NLC, the relevant involved parties and publishes the decision at NEA’s website.

Profound EIA process

There are five phases to profound EIA as follows:

Stage 1 Notification by the developer of intention to submit a profound EIA;

Stage 2 NEA consultation with other institutions, the public and NGOs on the issues they would like to be addressed in the profound EIA report;

Stage 3 NEA communication with the developer on the issues the consulted parties require to be addressed in the profound EIA report;

Stage 4 Development of the profound EIA report by the developer, and public hearings;

Stage 5NEA prepares the Environmental Declaration and submits to the Ministry. The Minister signs the Environmental Declaration for approval or a refusal. The Environmental Declaration is submitted to the NLC and parties involved in the EIA process and is published at NEA’s website.

The basic document of the EIA proces is the environmental impact assessment report, which based on the potential significant impacts of the project, is:

a) Preliminary environmental impact assessment for the projects of Annex II; b) Profound environmental impact assessment for the projects of Annex I.

The most important aspects of the preliminary EIA process are the consultations with other parties and the decision if a profound EIA is needed.


17

Aiming better decisions on the need for EIA (preliminary or profound EIA), on the necessary information to be included in the EIA report for the provision of high quality EIA reports and better decision making it is necessary first to go through the Screening Checklist http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-screening-full-text.pdf.

The Screening Checklist should be used to decide whether EIA is required based on the characteristics of the project, environmental sensitivity of the location and characteristics of the potential impact, while the Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interaction http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf should be used when defining and deciding oncumulative impacts and impact interactions. At the final stage of the preliminary EIA process, it is decided by NEA if a profound EIA Procedure is needed.

In case a profound EIA Procedure is needed, a notification is submitted by the developer on the intention to submit a profound EIA. A very important aspect is again the consultation of NEA with other institutions, the public and NGOs on the issues that they wish to have addressed in the profound EIA report. While all above issues there are tackled in this Manual and EIA Guidance Manual, the technical issues arising from the requirement to review and make decisions on EIA applications are considered in this document and are focused on those issues which are important in EIA review and decision making but not covered elsewhere in a single guidance document. The aim is to form a starting point for development of a full suite of technical guidance on EIA which needs to be developed in Albania.The Annexes (Annex 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)contain the following technical aspects of EIA:

• Dealing with Alternatives and Multi-Criteria Decisions (Annex 3); • Application of Cost Benefit Analysis (Annex 4); • Consideration of Mitigation and Best Available Techniques (BAT), (Annex 5); • Dealing with Risk in EIA (Annex 6); • Managing Uncertainty (Annex 7).

Before dealing with alternatives, cost benefit analyses, BAT etc., which are necessary for providing a context for such technical aspects, some general principles underpinning the EIA process there are introduced here:

Baseline studies: The purpose of baseline studies is to identify and describe aspects of the environment that could be affected by the project. Once relevant aspects have been identified as much information as possible should be collected from existing sources. These may include government bodies, research institutes, non-governmental organisations, private companies and the general public. It is also important in characterising the baseline environment to think about how it will change in the absence of the project. The environment will change as a consequence of general trends and other developments – the moving baseline – and this must be taken into account in the assessment. This may require predictions (see below) to be made of the without-project (or no- project) situation.

Predicting magnitude of impacts: Prediction is the activity of determining the nature and size of the impacts of a project on the environment (commonly referred to as impact magnitude). The impact of the project is the difference between with and without project situations and may need to be described.

Many different types of methods can be used to predict these characteristics of the magnitude of impacts, including simple observations, e.g. counting, modelling by using simple and complex mathematical methods, physical representations etc.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-screening-full-text.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf


18

In general rule predictions should provide quantitative information as far as possible, but it is usually also important to provide a qualitative description of what will happen as numbers only provide part of the information needed. Finally the predictions should also be accompanied by an assessment of the uncertainty attached to them so that the reader can judge how confident they can be about what will happen.

Evaluating the significance of impacts: Prediction provides factual information about what will happen to the environment. Evaluation is the activity of placing those effects in context by explaining their importance or significance for decision-making. An impact can be identified as significant if, in the view of those undertaking the evaluation, it is important enough to be taken into account in the development consent decision, including the identification of conditions to be attached to the consent. The weight to be attached to the impact in reaching a decision will depend on the degree of significance of the impact.

The evaluation made by the developer/EIA expert on the significance of impacts, is reviewed by NEA. While developer/EIA expert decides if an effect is significant and how significant it is, it is therefore important to explain the basis for this evaluation. Significance of the effects can be evaluated by reference to accepted criteria such as legal standards, policy guidance or good industry practice where these are available. The views of NEA, REAs, ministries and their structures, institutions and the public will also be relevant to the evaluation of significance.

Where there are no accepted criteria, it is still important to provide a context for judging the importance of an impact and this can be done by cross-referencing the importance or value of the affected receptors with the magnitude of change expected as a result of the development.

It is important that the basis for defining the magnitude of impact and the importance of the receptor be clearly explained in the EIA report. The magnitude of change is obtained from the predictions.

Mitigating impacts: Once the impact has been identified as significant, the developer/EIA expert should consider whether there are ways of mitigating the impact which would make the project more acceptable to NEA and other stakeholders. This will involve considering the feasibility and cost of different measures and deciding whether they are practical in the context of the specific proposal. This does not mean that all significant impacts must be mitigated, but where residual impacts remain after mitigation these will have to be weighed against the other costs and benefits of the project in deciding whether or not it should be given consent.

According to the Albanian EIA Law, information to be provided by the developer in the Description of the proposed project includes information about the alternatives taken into consideration in terms of the project sites and technology to be used.

The Annex 3 attached discusses the types of alternatives that may be relevant in the context of EIA, and sets out a framework for appraisal, comparison and choice between alternatives using Multi-Criteria Analysis techniques. Annex 3 provides further discussion of a particular subset of MCA methods, which use economic analysis to compare alternatives.

NEA, being responsible for evaluating the applications, has to ensure that it addresses all the relevant environmental issues.

During consultationswith other institutions on issues to be addressed in the profound EIA, NEA has to provide an effective consultation process. NEA has to clearly identify the parties and public to be consulted and seek their opinions and consult relevant institutions and identify any other important body which may be relevant for any specific project, whose opinion may be of great importance at this stage. Effective consultation means proper identification of bodies which really may influence in


19

the final decision, whose information/opinion may be necessary and important, institutions other than those mandatory to be consulted (ministries etc.). These institutions provide necessary environmental information needed, requested expertise, opinions, comments etc. assisting NEA in the decision making process. Important is the consultation with institutions which may give opinions on compliance of the proposed project with any approved plan or program in that area. Open dialogue improves the understanding of the project, the provision of any necessary information since the early stages of the EIA process, the consideration of the proper environmental issues, increases the effectiveness of the EIA process and better decision making.

6.1 PRELIMINARY EIA PROCESS

The preliminary EIA is the first stage of the EIA process. According to Article 8 of the EIA Law the purpose of preliminary EIA is to identify the proposals that require a profound EIA. The preliminary EIA excludes from the process those proposals (the majority) that have no significant impacts, or a few well understood, readily controllable impacts, and for which EIA is unnecessary. The following Tables and Checklists will assist in the process which decides whether EIA is required for a particular project or type of project.

The projects that are subject to preliminary EIA are:

a) projects listed in the Annex II of the EIA law; b) any change or extension of a project listed in Annex I or Annex II already authorized, executed

or in the process of being executed, which may have significant negative effects on the environment, and where that change or extension is not listed in Annex I;

c) projects listed in Annex I which are undertaken exclusively or mainly for the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than two years;

d) any project, whether listed in Annex I or II or not, which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Special Protected Areas, but which is likely to have significant effects on that site either on its own or in combination with other plans or projects. In such a case the preliminary environmental impact assessment report shall additionally assess the implications of that project on that site taking account of the conservation objectives of that site.

The preliminary EIA process is explained in the Flowchart below.


20

Figure 1 Flowchart of the preliminary EIA process

6.1.1. Phases

There are three phases to preliminary EIA as follows:

Stage 1 Submission of application and accompanying documentation by the developer to the National Licensing Centre (NLC), initial administrative compliance check by NLC and transfer from NLC to the National Environment Agency (NEA);

Stage 2 Initial technical check by NEA and consultation with other institutions and publication of the application;

Stage 3 NEA notifies for the decision taken the, Ministry of Environment (MoE), the NLC, the relevant involved parties and publishes the decision at NEA’s website.

6.1.2. Method

The Tables and Checklists below need to be completed to conclude on the preliminary EIA Process. The Tables and Stages can be colour shaded to indicate work progress.


21

Table 1 Detailed responsibilities of NEA during preliminary EIA process

Stage 1 Submission of preliminary EIA application and accompanying documentation

Activities Comments

NLC within 4 days from the date of application receipt has to submit the valid application to NEA

NEA assesses the application

NEA’s assessment and decision on the proposed project,if due to the potential significant impact on the environment, the proposed project should be subject to a profound EIA procedure or not

Deadline Met? Yes/No If No note reasons from NLC

NEA defines if the project is listed in the Annex II

of the EIA Law (Annex 2 attached to the Manual)

or:

Listed in a), b) or c) below?

See Annex I of the EIA Law (Annex 1 of the

Manual ), check against a), b) and c) below

Yes, next check EIA application in accordance with requirements (see below)

a)Any change or addition to the projects listed in

Annex I or II

Check & confirm EIA approval under the EIA Law


b)Annex I projects undertaken exclusively or

mainly for testing and development of new

methods or products not been used for more

than two years

Check EIA Law Annex I Check project status accords with requirements


c)Projects listed or not in Appendix I or II, who

have no direct impact or are not necessary for the

administration of special protection areas, but

that, singly or in conjunction with other plans and

projects, can cause significant adverse effects in

these areas, cumulative impacts

Check against “Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf


NEA defines if the application is in accordance with requirements of the DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure" Check against information to be provided for the preliminary EIA, Checklist below (Checklist 6.1.3)

Yes, proceed to Stage 2 below

No. Missing information?

Communicate with NLC to request missing information.

Stage 2 NEA consultations with Other Institutions & Publication of the Application

NEA within 5 days of EIA applicatiodn receipt from NLC, submits the application for consultations with:

Ministry of Planning,

Protection of Public Health,

Answers received: Yes/No If No provide reasons




22

Agriculture

Economic Development

Public Infrastructure Development

NEA consultations within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC, consultations with; other institutions which are responsible for

permitting/licensing or responsible for natural and civil emergencies


NEA consultations within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC with: Regional Environmental Agency (REA) in the district/qark where the project is proposed


Publication of the preliminary EIA Application

NEA within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC publishes on its website for 20 consecutive days the preliminary EIA application

Yes/No If No provide reasons

Stage 3 Decision taken by the NEA

Check based on the auxiliary criteria of the Annex l of the DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure" (Stage 3, Appendix I below), based on the following components:Characteristics of the Project

Environmental features of the project area (Environmental Sensitivity of the Location)

Characteristics of the Potential Impact

Opinions and requirements of the consulted institutions

Reference, Annex l of the DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure" (Annex I below)

Cumulation with other projects Reference ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions’

NEA’s Decision

NEA’s Decision: Project subject to profound EIA? No/ Yes

Within 5 Daysfrom the deadline NEA’s decision on the preliminary EIA will be notified to the NLC, the MoE, relevant involved parties and publication of the decision at NEA’s website

No, end of procedure Yes, proceed with profound EIA procedure below


23

6.1.3. Checklist

Stage 1 Checklist 1. Information to be Provided for Preliminary EIA

Checklist

Description of the proposed project

a. Description of the purpose of the proposed project Yes No

b. The location of the project layout to reflect the topographic map of the area of land required, the limits of the earth's surface required, and the data files for the existing use of the land area to be used temporarily or permanently from the project during the construction phase or operation of the project activity

Yes No

c. Information on residential areas in the area where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompany with the distance from where proposed project, photos and local government unit (Municipality / Commune) that manages territory the proposed project

Yes No

d. Sketches and plans of the related project facilities and project structures Yes No

e. Description of construction and technological processes involved, production capacity / processing, quantities of raw materials and final products of the project;

Yes No

f. Infrastructure necessary to connect to the electrical network, water supply, waste-water discharges and waste as well as information on existing roads or the need for new openings of access roads

Yes No

g. Program for the construction, the duration of the construction, the planned duration of the functioning of the project, appropriate time of termination of the functioning of the project and where appropriate planning phase of rehabilitation of area of the project after the termination of project operation

Yes No

h. Ways and methods to be used for construction of the project Yes No

i. Raw materials to be used for construction and ways of securing them (building materials, water and energy)

Yes No

j. Information for potential project links with other existing projects surrounding / nearby the project area

Yes No

k. Information about the alternatives taken in consideration in terms of the selection of project sites and technology to be used

Yes No

l. Use of raw materials during the operation, including the necessary quantities of water, electricity, fuel and manner of providing them

Yes No

m. Other activities that may be needed to implement the project, the construction of camps or residences, etc.

Yes No

n. Information on permits and licenses needed for the project, required by applicable legislation and competent institutions for permitting / licensing of the project

Yes No

Preliminary EIA Report where there are included

Yes No

a. A brief description of the plant coverage of the surface where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompanied by images

Yes No

b. Information on the presence of surface water resources, in the surface required by the project and in its vicinity

Yes No

c. An identification of potential negative impacts of the project on the environment including impacts on biodiversity, water, soil and air

Yes No

d. A brief description of the potential environmental emissions such as waste water, gases and dust, noise and waste generation

Yes No

e. Information on the likely duration of the negative impacts identified Yes No

f. Spatial extent of the potential negative impact on the environment, which means physical distance from the location of the project and the affected values contained in it

Yes No

g. The possibility of environmental remediation and the possibility to return the affected environment to the previous situation, including the return of agricultural land (in the event that such use is existing) and approximate financial costs for rehabilitation

Yes No

h. Possible measures to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts Yes No


24

i. Potential impacts on trans boundary environmental (if such a project nature) Yes No


25

Stage 3 Appendix I - The auxiliary criteria for taking the decision during the preliminary EIA procedure

1. Characteristics of the project

size of the project;

cumulative effects with other projects;

use of natural resources;

production of waste,

discharge volume and noise pollution in the environment;,

possibility of accidents with environmental consequences, particularly the substances or technologies used.

2. Characteristics of the environment in the project area:

a. existing land use required by the project; b. environmental situation in the area where the project is proposed paying special attention to the;

wetlands;

coastal areas;

forest areas;

natural protected areas with national and international importance and their distance from the area where is the proposed project;

local biodiversity and conservation status/protection;

areas where are exceeded the environmental quality standards (defined in other acts);

areas with high population density;

the existence of environmental infrastructure and the access of the project at the waste disposal areas and treatment plants of wastewater;

objects of historical, cultural or archaeological.

3. Characteristics of the potential impact on the environment

Potential environmental impacts of the proposed project should be considered in combination with the criteria set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, and taking into account in particular:

Type of potential negative impacts on the environment;

Spatial extent of possible negative impacts on the environment and their potential duration (geographical area and the size of the affected population);,

Scale and complexity of the impact;

The possibility of occurrence of impacts;

Transboundary nature of the project and transboundary environmental impact.

Opinions and requests of the institutions under Chapter I, by focusing on:

Existence and the land use plans and development in the project area;

Consistency of the project with local plans, regional and national development;

Specific requirements for the protection of public health from the environmental impacts of the project.


26

6.2 PROFOUND EIA PROCESS

Profound EIA ensures that EIA is carried out when projects may have significant effects on the environment. The intention is that developments will not be permitted to occur before a detailed technical investigation into their extent, nature and characteristics has been performed. A development consent decision can then be made that includes conditions to abate adverse effects and takes into account any residual consequences.

According to Article 9 of the EIA Law, the following projects are subject of profound EIA:

a) Projects listed in Annex I; b) Projects for which the decision of NEA foresees the need for a profound EIA procedure.

The developer, nevertheless the provisions of the EIA Law, may ask NEA’s opinion for a preliminary assessment if the project he intends to develop is subject to the EIA Law.

The profound EIA process is explainedin the Flowchart below.


27

Figure 2 Flowchart of the profound EIA Process


28

6.2.1. Phases

There are five distinct phases/stages to preliminary EIA as follows:

Stage 1 Notification by the developer of intention to submit a profound EIA;

Stage 2 NEA consultation with other institutions, the public and NGOs on the issues they would like to be addressed in the profound EIA report;

Stage 3 NEA communication with the developer on the issues the consulted parties require to be addressed in the profound EIA report;

Stage 4 Development of the profound EIA report by the developer, and public hearings;

Stage 5 NEA prepares the Environmental Declaration and submits to the Ministry. The Minister signs the Environmental Declaration for approval or a refusal. The Environmental Declaration is submitted to the NLC and parties involved in the EIA process and is published at NEA’s website.

6.2.2 Method

The Tables and Checklists below should be completed to conclude on the profound EIA process. Completed Tables and Stages can be colour shaded to indicate work progress.

Table 2 Detailed responsibilities of NEA during profound EIA process

Stage Activities Comments

Stage 1 Notification by developer of intention to submit profound EIA

NEA checks if the Project is listed in Annex I EIA

Law (Annex 1 hereto)

Check preliminary EIA decisions

NEA checks if the Application is in accordance with requirements against Stage 1, Checklist 1 (Checklist 6.2.3) below

Yes,proceed to Stage 2 below No, missing information: Request missing information

Stage 2 Consultations with Other Institutions & Publication on Issues to be addressed in the profound EIA

NEA within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC, submits the application for consultations with:

Ministry of Planning,

Protection of Public Health,

Agriculture

Economic Development

Public Infrastructure Development

Answers received within 15 days deadline: Yes/No If No provide reasons

NEA consultations within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC, consultations with; other institutions which are responsible for

permitting/licensing or responsible for natural and civil emergencies


NEA consultations within 5 days of EIA application receipt from NLC with: Regional Environmental Agency (REA) in the district where the project is proposed to be implemented


REA sends copy to relevant Qark and LGUs within 3 days from the receipt of application from NEA

Answers from Qark and LGU’ received within of 12 days deadline;


29

Within 3 days from the end of the deadline the the institutions opinions consulted by REA

REA forward the response, if any, to NEA within 15 days deadline

Yes/No

If No provide reasons

Publication of the profound EIA application NEA, within 5 days of EIA application receipt

publish profound EIA application on NEA website

for 20 consecutive days

Deadline met? Yes or No. If No provide reasons

Public Opinion: submissions during 20 days of application on NEA’s website

Responses received and date Yes/No Yes: Proceed to Stage 3 below

Stage 3 Communication with the developer on Issues to be Addressed

NEA to developer communication on issues to be addressed (identified in Stage 2 above) in profound EIA 5 days from the end of the deadline for receiving the opinion

See Stage 3, Annex 1 below

In case 1 above is completed continue at stage 4 below

Deadline met? Yes/No

If No provide reasons

Written communication with the developer on profound EIA requirements. See Stage 3 Annex 1 below

When 1 above completed proceed to Stage 4 below

Stage 4 Profound EIA

NEA to REA to LGU to organise public hearings following notification from developer for the preparation of profound EIA

Yes/No

REA forwards to NEA, within 5 days from the end of the public hearing, report on public hearing including record of opinions and requests at public hearing

Deadline met? Yes/No If No provide reasons

NEA publishes REA report on NEA website Immediately on receipt of REA report

Published immediately? Yes/No If No provide reasons

Stage 5 Review and Decision on profound EIA

Developer submits profound EIA and

accompanying documentation to NLC

NLC forwards to NEA Within 4 days of profound EIA and accompanying documentation receipt by NLC

Deadline met? Yes/No If no provide reasons

Stage 5 Annex 1 below

Documents to be submitted for the profound EIA

Profound EIA report to be prepred in compliance

with the Annex II of the DCM No. 13 dated

04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and

deadlines for the development of environment

impact assessment procedure"

Complete checklist in Annex 1 below

Missing information? Yes, request missing Information


30

Publication of the profound EIA Non Technical Summary NEA within 5 days of receipt of the application by the NLC

Deadline met? Yes/No If No provide reasons.

Publish profound EIA Non Technical Summary on

NEA’s website for 20 consecutive days

Deadline met? Yes/No If No provide reasons.

NEA reviews and determines on the Project.

See Stage 5 Annex 2 below (Complete the

Checklist in Annex 2 below – Stage 5)

Criteria to Assess the Completeness of the EIA Report and its Suitability for Decision Making - Based on EU best practice

NEA prepares the Environmental Declaration and

submits to the Ministry

The Minister signs the Environmental Declaration

for approval or a refusal.

The Environmental Declaration with approval or refusal is submitted to the parties involved in the EIA process

The Environmental Declaration is published in NEA’s website


31

6.2.3 Checklist

Stage 1 Checklist 1 Information to be Provided for Profound EIA

Checklist


o. Description of the purpose of the proposed project Yes No

p. The location of the project layout to reflect the topographic map of the area of land required, the limits of the earth's surface required, and the data files for the existing use of the land area to be used temporarily or permanently from the project during the construction phase or operation of the project activity

Yes No

q. Information on residential areas in the area where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompany with the distance from where proposed project, photos and local government unit (Municipality / Commune) that manages territory the proposed project

Yes No

r. Sketches and plans of the related project facilities and project structures Yes No

s. Description of construction and technological processes involved, production capacity / processing, quantities of raw materials and final products of the project;

Yes No

t. Infrastructure necessary to connect to the electrical network, water supply, waste-water discharges and waste as well as information on existing roads or the need for new openings of access roads

Yes No

u. Program for the construction, the duration of the construction, the planned duration of the functioning of the project, appropriate time of termination of the functioning of the project and where appropriate planning phase of rehabilitation of area of the project after the termination of project operation

Yes No

v. Ways and methods to be used for construction of the project Yes No

w. Raw materials to be used for construction and ways of securing them (building materials, water and energy)

Yes No

x. Information for potential project links with other existing projects surrounding / nearby the project area

Yes No

y. Information about the alternatives taken in consideration in terms of the selection of project sites and technology to be used

Yes No

z. Use of raw materials during the operation, including the necessary quantities of water, electricity, fuel and manner of providing them

Yes No

aa. Other activities that may be needed to implement the project, the construction of camps or residences, etc.

Yes No

bb. Information on permits and licenses needed for the project, required by applicable legislation and competent institutions for permitting / licensing of the project

Yes No

Information on the interaction of the project with the environment (as Annex to the point 1.1 aabove)

Yes No

j. A brief description of the plant coverage of the surface where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompanied by images

Yes No

k. Information on the presence of surface water resources, in the surface required by the project and in its vicinity

Yes No

l. An identification of potential negative impacts of the project on the environment including impacts on biodiversity, water, soil and air

Yes No

m. A brief description of the potential environmental emissions such as waste water, gases and dust, noise and waste generation

Yes No

n. Information on the likely duration of the negative impacts identified Yes No

o. Spatial extent of the potential negative impact on the environment, which means physical distance from the location of the project and the affected values contained in it

Yes No

p. The possibility of environmental remediation and the possibility to return the affected environment to the previous situation, including the return of agricultural land (in the event that such use is existing) and approximate financial costs for rehabilitation

Yes No


32

q. Possible measures to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts Yes No

r. Potential impacts on trans boundary environmental (if such a project nature) Yes No

Stage 3:

Annex 1 Issues to be Addressed in the profound EIA

Checklist

a. Its requirements, institutions, public and NGOs which needs to be considered and addressed in the profound report of the EIA;

Yes No

b. A summary explanation for the requirements of the profound procedure of EIA, until the presentation of the application and issuance of Environmental Statement by NLC

Yes No

c. The right to information, consultation and obedience with the public and NGOs of the profound report of EIA and consideration of the opinions contained in the report before it is presented in the NLC

Yes No

d. Analysis of at least two alternatives for the implementation of the project; Yes No

e. Instructions for studies and methods for providing environmental information and forecasting environmental impacts during the design of profound report of the EIA;

Yes No

f. Guidelines for environmental protection measures that should be taken into consideration when drafting the profound report of EIA;

Yes No

g. The Structure and order of information in the profound report of the EIA, in accordance with Annex II of the DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure"

Yes No

h. Where the project is subject to transboundary EIA procedure, the appropriate instructions in this case;

Yes No

Stage 5:

Annex 1. Documents to be Submitted for the profound EIA

Checklist

a. Profound EIA report in accordance with the requirements of Annex II of the DCM No. 13

dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of

environment impact assessment procedure"

Yes No

b. Non-technical summary of the EIA report Yes No

c. Technical project; Yes No

d. Information on the consultations with the public and other stakeholders conducted during

the drafting of the profound EIA report

Yes No

e. A copy of the fee payment invoice according to the definitions in the relevant legislation. Yes No

Stage 5: Annex 2. Criteria to Assess the Completeness of the EIA report and its Suitability for Decision Making The information should include:

· The need for and objectives of the project Yes No

· The programme for implementation (start and finish dates for construction, operation) Yes No

· All the main components of the project Yes No

· The location of each component using maps, plans and diagrams Yes No

· The layout of the site (or sites) occupied Yes No


33

· The activities involved in construction Yes No

· The activities involved in operation Yes No

· The activities involved in closing the project (dismantling, demolition, site restoration, etc) Yes No

· Any additional services required (e.g. access, water, sewerage, waste disposal, electricity, Yes No

telecoms) Yes No

· Any associated developments (e.g. roads, harbours, powerlines, pipelines) Yes No

· Any developments likely as a consequence of the project (e.g. new housing, roads,) Yes No

· Any existing activities which will alter or cease as a consequence of the project Yes No

· Any other existing or planned developments with potential for cumulative effects Yes No

Check that the size of the project is described fully. The information should include:

· The area of land to be permanently occupied (shown on a scaled map) Yes No

· The area of land required temporarily for construction (shown on a scaled map) Yes No

· The after use of land used (e.g. land used for mining or quarrying) Yes No

· The size of any structures (e.g. the floor area and height of buildings, the flow or depth of water) Yes No

· The form and appearance of any structures (e.g. architectural design, plant species, ground surfaces, etc)

Yes No

· The numbers and other characteristics of new communities (for urban or similar developments) Yes No

· The numbers and other characteristics of any people or businesses displaced Yes No

· The type, volume, and distribution of new traffic generated or diverted Yes No

Yes No

Check that the production processes and resources used by the project during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are described fully. The information should include:

· All manufacturing, engineering, material production, extraction processes Yes No

· Types and quantities of outputs produced (primary or manufactured products, goods, services) Yes No

· Types and quantities of raw materials and energy needed Yes No

· The environmental implications of the sourcing of raw materials Yes No

· A discussion of efficiency in use of energy and raw materials Yes No

· Any hazardous materials used, stored, handled or produced Yes No

· The transport of raw materials (including road, rail and sea transport): Yes No

· The access arrangements for workers and visitors Yes No

· A discussion of employment created or lost Yes No

Check that the types and quantities of residues and emissions of the project during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases are described fully. The information should include:

· A discussion of the methods used for generating the following information Yes No

· The types and quantities of solid waste generated Yes No

· A discussion of the composition and toxicity or other hazards of solid wastes Yes No

· A description of the methods for collecting, storing, treating and transporting solid wastes Yes No

· A discussion of the locations for final disposal of all solid wastes Yes No

· The types and quantities of liquid effluents generated (including site drainage and run-off, and Yes No

sewage): Yes No


34

· A discussion of the composition and toxicity or other hazards of all effluents Yes No

· The methods for collecting, storing, treating, transporting and disposing of effluents Yes No

· The types and quantities of gaseous and particulate emissions Yes No

· A discussion of the composition and toxicity or other hazards of all emissions to air Yes No

· The methods for collecting, treating and discharging emissions to air Yes No

· The locations for discharge of all emissions to air Yes No

· The characteristics of the discharges to air (e.g. height, velocity, temperature) Yes No

· A discussion of the potential for resource recovery from wastes Yes No

· Identification and quantification of any sources of noise, or energy (machinery, traffic, lighting, Yes No

etc) Yes No

· Risks from handling of hazardous materials Yes No

· Risks from spills fire, explosion Yes No

· Risks of traffic accidents Yes No

· Risks from breakdown or failure of processes or facilities Yes No

· Risks from exposure of the project to natural disasters (earthquake, flood, landslip, etc) Yes No

· Measures to prevent and respond to accidents Yes No

Check that there has been appropriate consideration of alternatives. The information should include:

· A description of the baseline situation in the No Project situation Yes No

· A discussion of considerations behind the choice of the project’s main characteristics (site, Yes No

technology etc) Yes No

· A description of the main alternatives available to the developer Yes No

· An explanation of the main environmental reasons for choice of the proposed variant Yes No

Check that the Environment likely to be affected by the Project is fully described. The information should include:

· Any significant features of the topography, geology and soils of the site(s) and the surrounding Yes No

Area Yes No

· The existing land uses of the sites(s) and the surrounding area Yes No

· Occupants and users of land (including any buildings, structures or other property) Yes No

· The conditions and use of soils (including soil quality, stability and erosion) Yes No

· The fauna and flora and habitats of the site(s) and the surrounding area Yes No

· Species populations and characteristics of habitats that may be affected Yes No

· A description of any designated or protected species or areas Yes No

· A description of the water environment (eg surface, underground, coastal, marine) Yes No

· The characteristics and use of water resources that may be affected Yes No

· Local climatic and meteorological conditions and existing air quality Yes No

· The existing noise climate Yes No

· The existing situation regarding light, heat and electromagnetic radiation Yes No

· Any material assets in the area (including buildings, structures, mineral and water resources) Yes No

· Any archaeological, architectural or culturally important features (including any designated or Yes No


35

protected sites) Yes No

· The landscape or townscape, including any designated landscapes or views Yes No

· Demographic, social and socio-economic conditions (e.g. employment) in the area Yes No

· Any future predicted change that may occur in the absence of the project (the “No Project Yes No

situation”) Yes No

Check that the data collection and survey methods are adequate. Factors to consider include:

· The study area is defined widely enough. Yes No

· Relevant national and local agencies have provided information, where appropriate. Yes No

· Sources of data are adequately referenced. Yes No

· The methods are used appropriate for the purpose. Yes No

· Any important gaps in the data are identified and the means used to deal with these are explained.

Yes No

Check that identification of impacts and prediction of their effects is adequate. Factors to confirminclude:

· It is evident that a systematic approach to impact identification was adopted. Yes No

· It is evident that the affected public were consulted about impact identification. Yes No

· There is a description and, where appropriate, quantification of direct, primary effects on Yes No

- geological features and characteristics of soils; Yes No

- fauna and flora and habitats; Yes No

- hydrology and water quality; Yes No

- uses of the water environment; Yes No

- air quality and climatic conditions; Yes No

- the acoustic environment (noise or vibration); Yes No

- heat, light or electromagnetic radiation; Yes No

- material assets and depletion of non-renewable natural resources; Yes No

- locations or features of cultural importance; Yes No

- the quality of the landscape and on views and viewpoints; Yes No

- demography, social and socio-economic condition in the area. Yes No

· There is a description and, where appropriate, quantification of secondary effects on any of the Yes No

above.2 Yes No

· Temporary, short term effects are described. Yes No

· Permanent effects on the environment are described. Yes No

· Long term effects caused over the lifetime of project operations or build up of pollutants are Yes No

described. Yes No

· Effects which could result from accidents or natural or man-made disasters are described. Yes No

· Effects of ancillary activities are described (e.g. construction of infrastructure, supply of power). Yes No

2Secondary impacts are those impacts that are caused by primary impacts on other aspects of the environment (e.g.effects on fauna, flora or habitats caused by soil, air or water pollution or noise; effects on uses of water caused by changes in hydrology or water quality; effects on archaeological remains caused by desiccation of soils)


36

· Indirect effects caused by consequential development are described.2 Yes No

· Cumulative effects of the project and other existing or planned developments are described. Yes No

· The factors affecting the significance of each effect are described (duration, frequency etc). Yes No

· Primary and secondary effects on human health and welfare are described. Yes No

· Impacts on issues such as biodiversity, global climate change and sustainable development are described.

Yes No

Check that the significance of effects has been adequately predicted and clearly explained. Information should include:

· The compliance of impacts with legal requirements and/or appropriate standards or guidance Yes No

· The number, importance and sensitivity of people, resources or other receptors affected Yes No

· Positive effects on the environment as well as negative effects

· Methods used to predict effects, the reasons for their choice and any uncertainties in the results Yes No

· Worst case predictions, where there is uncertainty about the precise impacts Yes No

· A discussion of difficulties in compiling the data needed Yes No

· The basis on which the significance or importance of impacts has been evaluated Yes No

· A description of impacts after basis for all proposed mitigation has been implemented Yes No

Check that mitigation and environmental management proposals are satisfactory. Information should include:

· The potential for mitigation of any significant adverse effects on the environment Yes No

· A description of the measures and effect of all proposed mitigation measures Yes No

· An explanation of any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of mitigation measures Yes No

· An explanation of how the developer will ensure that the mitigation will be funded and Yes No

Implemented Yes No

· The reasons for choosing the proposed mitigation Yes No

· An explanation of any case where significant adverse impacts are likely but no mitigation has been

Yes No

Proposed Yes No

· Evidence that the full range of approaches to mitigation has been considered Yes No

· Proposals to monitor and manage residual impacts. Yes No

Consequential development occurs when other developments, not part of the main project, are stimulated by

Yes No

implementation of the project e.g. to provide new goods or services needed for the project, to house new populations or businesses stimulated by the project.

Yes No

· A description of any adverse environmental impacts of the proposed mitigation Yes No

Check that the report has an adequate Non Technical Summary and is reasonably well presented. Factors to consider include:

· The information submitted should include a Non-Technical Summary that: Yes No

- provides a concise but comprehensive account of the information; Yes No

- highlights any significant uncertainties; Yes No

- explains the development consent process and the role of EIA; Yes No

- provides an overview of the approach to the assessment; Yes No

- avoid technical terms, detailed data and scientific discussion; Yes No

- is comprehensible to a lay member of the public. Yes No


37

· The EIA report should:

- comprise one or more clearly defined documents; Yes No

- be logically organised and clearly structured; Yes No

- have a table of contents at the beginning of the document(s); Yes No

- clearly describe the process that has been followed; Yes No

- avoid presenting irrelevant data and information; Yes No

- make effective use of tables, figures, maps, photographs and other graphics; Yes No

- makes effective use of annexes to present detailed data; Yes No

- present data and evidence to support analyses and conclusions; Yes No

- properly reference all sources of data; Yes No

- use consistent terminology used throughout the document(s); Yes No

- read as a single document with cross referencing as necessary; Yes No

- be presented as far as possible in an impartial and objective manner. Yes No


38

7 EIA REGISTRATION FORMAT

Department/sector/person responsible to coordinate the EIA process, keep a Register with records of all received applications and maintain the database, making sure that the Register is updated on weekly basis.

The Register enables NEA to quickly assess the current status, including any outstanding issue(s), of the preliminary and Profound EIA application in the system. The form displays all relevant details including the EIA Reference Number, the Name of developer and the Name of the Project. The Stage Progress Summary show what stage of the process the application has progressed to. Action and Comments allow the official responsible for processing the application to indicate any outstanding issues relevant to the assessment. For example, have deadlines been meet, has the required information being submitted, have the procedures being undertaken etc.

The purpose of the Table below is to show at a glance key data and the current status and numbers of all EIA Applications in the system. This provides an overview of the number and progress of all application both preliminary and profound applications in the EIA system. The form should be completed on a weekly basis to provide management information to the Head of NEA through NEA’s Environmental Assessment Director.

Below there is the Format for the Database of each EIA procedure

Proposed Project Comments

Title of the Project

File Ref. No./Application ID Number

Natural/Legal Person

Authorized representative/Contact personName and Surname

Position in the Company

Tel/ Fax

E-mail

EIA expert/s Certified EIA experts Name and Surname

Tel/Fax

E-mail

Date of receiving application from NLC

Assessment if profound EIA Procedure is needed

Preliminary EIA Procedure

Results of consultations with other institutions


39

Decision taken by NEA

Notification by the developer to submit a profound EIA

Results of consultations with other institutions, the public and NGOs

Development of the profound EIA report

Publication in the website

Public hearings

Submission of Environmental Declaration Number, date

Publication at NEA’ s website

Appeal of the decision, if any Date, appealing person Decision/justification of the court

Control over implementation of the decision on EIA Data submitted by the developer Inspections of implementation Sanctions imposed, if any


40

REFERENCES

Law No. 10431, dated 9.6.2011 “On Environmental Protection;

Law No.10440, dated 7.7. 2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment”;

Law No. 10081, dated 23.2.2009 “On licenses, consents and permits in the Republic of Albania;

Law no 8053 dated 30.06.1999 “On the right to access to official documents”;

DCM No. 13 dated 04.01.2013 "On the rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure";


41

ANNEX 1–PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PROFOUND EIA PROCEDURES

Law No. 10 440 dated 7.7. 2011 On “Environmental Impact Assessment”

ANNEX I

PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PROFOUND EIA PROCEDURES

1. Crude-oil refineries (excluding undertakings manufacturing only lubricants from crude oil) and installations for the gasification and liquefaction of 500 tonnes or more of coal or bituminous shale per day. 2. — Thermal power stations and other combustion installations with a heat output of 30 megawatts or more, and — nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors including the dismantling or decommissioning of such power stations or reactors (*) (except research installations for the production and conversion of fissionable and fertile materials, whose maximum power does not exceed 1 kilowatt continuous thermal load). 3. (a) Installations for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel. (b) Installations designed: — for the production or enrichment of nuclear fuel, — for the processing of irradiated nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste, — for the final disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel, — solely for the final disposal of radioactive waste, — solely for the storage (planned for more than 10 years) of irradiated nuclear fuels or radioactive waste in a different site than the production site. 4. — Integrated works for the initial smelting of cast-iron and steel; — Installations for the production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes. 5. Installations for the extraction of asbestos and for the processing and transformation of asbestos and products containing asbestos: for asbestos-cement products, with an annual production of more than 20 000 tonnes of finished products, for friction material, with an annual production of more than 50 tonnes of finished products, and for other uses of asbestos, utilization of more than 200 tonnes per year. 6. Integrated chemical installations, i.e. those installations for the manufacture on an industrial scale of substances using chemical conversion processes, in which several units are juxtaposed and are functionally linked to one another and which are: (i) for the production of basic organic chemicals; (ii) for the production of basic inorganic chemicals; (iii) for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or potassium-based fertilizers (simple or compound fertilizers); (iv) for the production of basic plant health products and of biocides; (v) for the production of basic pharmaceutical products using a chemical or biological process; (vi) for the production of explosives. 7. (a) Construction of lines for long-distance railway traffic and of airports (1) with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more; (b) Construction of motorways and express roads (2); (*) Nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors cease to be such an installation when all nuclear fuel and other radioactively contaminated elements have been removed permanently from the installation site. (1) For the purposes of this Directive, ‘airport’ means airports which comply with the definition in the 1944 Chicago Convention setting up the International Civil Aviation Organization (Annex 14).


42

(2) For the purposes of the Directive, ‘express road’ means a road which complies with the definition in the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975. (c) Construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road would be 10 km or more in a continuous length. 8. (a) Inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1 350 tonnes; (b) Trading ports, piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside ports (excluding ferry piers) which can take vessels of over 1 350 tonnes. 9. Waste disposal installations for the incineration, chemical treatment as defined in Annex IIA to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) under heading D9, or landfill of hazardous waste (i.e. waste to which Directive 91/689/EEC (2) applies). 10. Waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment as defined in Annex IIA to Directive 75/442/EEC under heading D9 of nonhazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day. 11. Groundwater abstraction or artificial groundwater recharge schemes where the annual volume of water abstracted or recharged is equivalent to or exceeds 10 million cubic metres. 12. (a) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where this transfer aims at preventing possible shortages of water and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 100 million cubic metres/year; (b) In all other cases, works for the transfer of water resources between river basins where the multi-annual average flow of the basin of abstraction exceeds 2 000 million cubic metres/year and where the amount of water transferred exceeds 5 % of this flow. In both cases transfers of piped drinking water are excluded. 13. Waste water treatment plants with a capacity exceeding 150 000 population equivalent as defined in Article 2 point (6) of Directive 91/271/EEC (3). 14. Extraction of petroleum and natural gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 tonnes/day in the case of petroleum and 500 000 m3/day in the case of gas. 15. Dams and other installations designed for the holding back or permanent storage of water, where a new or additional amount of water held back or stored exceeds 10 million cubic metres. 16. Pipelines with a diameter of more than 800 mm and a length of more than 10 km: — for the transport of gas, oil, chemicals, and, — for the transport of carbon dioxide (CO2) streams for the purposes of geological storage, including associated booster stations. 17. Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than: (a) 20 000 places for broilers, 10 000 places for hens; (b) 3 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg); or (c) 900 places for sows. 18. Industrial plants for the (a) production of pulp from timber or similar fibrous materials; (b) production of paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 30 tonnes per day.


43

19. Quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat extraction, where the surface of the site exceeds 5 hectares. 20. Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km. 21. Installations for storage of petroleum, petrochemical, or chemical products with a capacity of 200 000 tonnes or more. 22. Any change to or extension of projects listed in this Annex where such a change or extension in itself meets the thresholds, if any, set out in this Annex. 23. Storage sites pursuant to Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (1). 24. Installations for the capture of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage pursuant to Directive 2009/31/EC from installations covered by this Annex, or where the total yearly capture of CO2 is 1,5 megatonnes or more.


44

ANNEX 2 - PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PRELIMINARY EIA PROCEDURES

Law No. 10 440 dated 7.7. 2011 On “Environmental Impact Assessment”

ANNEX II

PROJECTS SUBJECT TO PRELIMINARY EIA PROCEDURES

1. Agriculture, silviculture and aquaculture (a) Projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings; (b) Projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes; (c) Water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage projects; (d) Initial afforestation and deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use; (e) Intensive livestock installations (projects not included in Annex I); (f) Intensive fish farming; (g) Reclamation of land from the sea. 2. Extractive industry (a) Quarries, open-cast mining and peat extraction (projects not included in Annex I); (b) Underground mining; (c) Extraction of minerals by marine or fluvial dredging; (d) Deep drillings, in particular: — geothermal drilling, — drilling for the storage of nuclear waste material, — drilling for water supplies, with the exception of drillings for investigating the stability of the soil; (e) Surface industrial installations for the extraction of coal, petroleum, natural gas and ores, as well as bituminous shale. 3. Energy industry (a) Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water (projects not included in Annex I); (b) Industrial installations for carrying gas, steam and hot water; transmision of electrical energy by overhead cables (projects not included in Annex I); (c) Surface storage of natural gas; (d) Underground storage of combustible gases; (e) Surface storage of fossil fuels; (f) Industrial briquetting of coal and lignite; (g) Installations for the processing and storage of radioactive waste (unless included in Annex I); (h) Installations for hydroelectric energy production; (i) Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms); (j) Installations for the capture of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage pursuant to Directive 2009/31/EC from installations not covered by Annex I to this Directive. 4. Production and processing of metals (a) Installations for the production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary fusion) including continuous casting; (b) Installations for the processing of ferrous metals: (i) hot-rolling mills;


45

(ii) smitheries with hammers; (iii) application of protective fused metal coats; (c) Ferrous metal foundries; (d) Installations for the smelting, including the alloyage, of non-ferrous metals, excluding precious metals, including recovered products (refining, foundry casting, etc.); (e) Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process; (f) Manufacture and assembly of motor vehicles and manufacture of motorvehicle engines; (g) Shipyards; (h) Installations for the construction and repair of aircraft; (i) Manufacture of railway equipment; (j) Swaging by explosives; (k) Installations for the roasting and sintering of metallic ores. 5. Mineral industry (a) Coke ovens (dry coal distillation); (b) Installations for the manufacture of cement; (c) Installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-products (projects not included in Annex I); (d) Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre; (e) Installations for smelting mineral substances including the production of mineral fibres; (f) Manufacture of ceramic products by burning, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain. 6. Chemical industry (Projects not included in Annex I) (a) Treatment of intermediate products and production of chemicals; (b) Production of pesticides and pharmaceutical products, paint and varnishes, elastomers and peroxides; (c) Storage facilities for petroleum, petrochemical and chemical products. 7. Food industry (a) Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats; (b) Packing and canning of animal and vegetable products; (c) Manufacture of dairy products; (d) Brewing and malting; (e) Confectionery and syrup manufacture; (f) Installations for the slaughter of animals; (g) Industrial starch manufacturing installations; (h) Fish-meal and fish-oil factories; (i) Sugar factories. 8. Textile, leather, wood and paper industries (a) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board (projects not included in Annex I); (b) Plants for the pretreatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles; (c) Plants for the tanning of hides and skins; (d) Cellulose-processing and production installations. 9. Rubber industry Manufacture and treatment of elastomer-based products. 10. Infrastructure projects


46

(a) Industrial estate development projects; (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks; (c) Construction of railways and intermodal transshipment facilities, and of intermodal terminals (projects not included in Annex I); (d) Construction of airfields (projects not included in Annex I); (e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I); (f) Inland-waterway construction not included in Annex I, canalization and flood-relief works; (g) Dams and other installations designed to hold water or store it on a long-term basis (projects not included in Annex I); (h) Tramways, elevated and underground railways, suspended lines or similar lines of a particular type, used exclusively or mainly for passenger transport; (i) Oil and gas pipeline installations and pipelines for the transport of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage (projects not included in Annex I); (j) Installations of long-distance aqueducts; (k) Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works; (l) Groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge schemes not included in Annex I; (m) Works for the transfer of water resources between river basins not included in Annex I. 11. Other projects (a) Permanent racing and test tracks for motorized vehicles; (b) Installations for the disposal of waste (projects not included in Annex I); (c) Waste-water treatment plants (projects not included in Annex I); (d) Sludge-deposition sites; (e) Storage of scrap iron, including scrap vehicles; (f) Test benches for engines, turbines or reactors; (g) Installations for the manufacture of artificial mineral fibres; (h) Installations for the recovery or destruction of explosive substances; (i) Knackers' yards. 12. Tourism and leisure (a) Ski-runs, ski-lifts and cable-cars and associated developments; (b) Marinas; (c) Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments; (d) Permanent camp sites and caravan sites; (e) Theme parks.


47

Annex 3 – CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES AND APPLICATION OF MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS IN EIA

KEY MESSAGES FROM THIS CHAPTER

1. It is good practice to consider project alternatives and their associated environmental impacts during project planning.

2. The examination of alternatives may be prompted by the EIA process but it should involve the whole project team and consider all the different factors affecting the choice between options, not just the environment.

3. Only those alternatives that are relevant and reasonable in terms of the project context should be appraised. The range of alternatives that will be relevant and reasonable will depend on the project context, but can include strategic, location-related and design-related alternatives.

4. Options may need to be considered at different stages in the development of aproject and at each stage there may be several iterations from a rapid appraisal of long list of options, through a more detailed investigation of a short list, toselection of the preferred option. At each stage the identified option or options should be subject to review and refinement before being taken forward to the next stage.

5. Multi-Criteria Analysis tools can be used to help sort and distil information about a number of alternative options but the preferred option should alwaysbe selected by a process of debate and consensus within the decision group.

6. This may be a group internal to the project team or it can involve external stakeholders, depending on the project context. If external stakeholders are not directly involved, it is still important to consider what their views are likely tobe.

7. Methods to appraise options against appraisal criteria should not be more complicated than necessary; begin with very simple, “rough and ready”techniques to eliminate “no-hopers” and move on to more sophisticated approaches only when needed to distinguish between options.

INTRODUCTION

EU Requirements for Consideration of Alternatives in EIA Article 5(3) of the EIA Directive requires the environmental information a developer submits with an application for development consent (2) to include, “…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”. According to the EIA Law Albania information to be provided by the developer in the Description of the proposed project includes information about the alternatives taken in consideration in terms of the project sites and technology to be used. This Annex discusses the types of alternatives that may be relevant in the context of EIA, and sets out a framework for appraisal, comparison and choice between alternatives using Multi-Criteria Analysis techniques. Below is provided further discussion of a particular subset of MCA methods, which use economic analysis to compare alternatives.

It is important to note that Article 5(3) does not mean, either that a developer must consider alternatives during the planning of a project, or that every alternative has to be subject to full EIA, but it does mean that, where a developer has considered alternatives during project planning, they must explain what these alternatives were and the reasons why they chose the selected proposal,


48

including any environmental reasons, in the EIS. This requirement for discussion of alternatives within an EIS is important for a number of reasons:

• It encourages developers to think carefully about what their objectives are inputting forward a project for approval and whether there are different waysof meeting those objectives with less impact on the environment.

• The discussion of alternatives provides useful background on the history of the project and how the proposals have evolved during their development.

• In setting out their rationale for selection of the proposed project, the developers are encouraged to provide an explanation of the need for the project and how it fits with policy, regulatory and economic drivers.

• It provides the competent authority with an indication of the extent to which there might be options (3) available which could be used to avoid or reduce adverse impacts.

• It allows other stakeholders to understand the developer’s reasons for proposing the selected project.

Member states vary in how they have transposed this part of the European Directive. Some have made consideration of alternatives a more formal part of the process, whilst others take a more discretionary approach, allowing the developer to decide if alternatives are relevant for the project. A summary of current Member State practice is contained in the IMPEL Study on the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment.3

Consideration of alternatives is, however, widely accepted as good practice. A good quality EIS will:

• explain why the developer is planning to develop the project; • describe the process a developer has gone through to arrive at the selected proposal; • describe all the alternatives considered along the way; • summarise the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, including any

environmental issues; • explain how these have been taken into account in reaching a decision on the selected

proposal, and; • if environmentally better alternatives have been rejected, explain why other factors have

outweighed their environmental advantages.

The types of alternative, which are relevant for a specific project, should be considered during the scoping stage so that appropriate work can be programmed into the EIA studies.

THE ROLE OF MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS (MCA)

Consideration of different alternatives is one of the fundamental requirements of both Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedures. The analysis and comparison of different alternatives (both at the strategic and project level) implies balancing different impact types, reaching an understanding of the merits of each option, and eventually establishing a preferability ranking. This calls for a framework to integrate factual information on effects and impacts, with values and preferences of decision-makers and stakeholders.

Multicriteria analysis (MCA) techniques offer such a framework, and for this reason they are increasingly used in EIA and SEA. Various methods are available to assist developers and their project teams in investigating the pros and cons of alternatives and choosing between them. MCA can be defined as any structured approach used to compare alternatives and help select a preferred

3The implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment on the basis of precise examples Final Report: 12.11.2012

see 6.3.3 Alternatives. content/uploads/2013/01/IMPEL-EIA-Report-final.pdf. Assessed 16th August 2013.


49

option or options, where the choice must take into account a range of different (i.e. multiple) decision criteria.

The range of decision criteria which may be considered using MCA will vary depending on the interests of the developer. These will usually include factors of primary importance to the organisation, such as commercial and economic criteria and fit with policy and or business objectives. They will also include other factors such as the ease of implementation of the project. Responsible developers will however, also take into account wider societal objectives such as minimising social and environmental impacts. The aim of Article 5(3) of the EIA Directive is to ensure that this is done in relation to environmental concerns. The emerging development of social and health impact assessment follows this lead by introducing these other factors into project planning and decision making, although they are not required by law in most countries yet.

MCA approaches provide methods for taking into account multiple decision criteria in the appraisal of alternatives. They can be used to select between alternatives at many different stages in the development of a project, from early decisions on strategic options, through choices on siting and technology, to detailed consideration of design options. At each of these stages MCA approaches can be used to identify a single preferred option, to short-list a sub-set of better options from a more extensive list, or just to eliminate unacceptable possibilities. In each case it is important to recognise that MCA methods are useful in helping to sort and distil information about a number of alternatives into a more manageable format, but they can rarely be used to provide a definitive answer on the “best option”. MCA methods are useful as inputs to decision-making but should no replace the proper exercise of judgement by the relevant decision-makers.

TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives are essentially, different ways in which the developer can feasibly meet the project’s objectives. There may be alternatives open to the developer at many different levels from, for example, carrying out a completely different type of project development, through choosing a different location, to adopting a different technology or project layout. Alternatives can also be considered at a more detailed level, for example choosing between different elements of a particular design or between alternative construction or operating methods. In practice, alternatives form a continuous spectrum with mitigating measures, and it is important that they are considered as such within the EIA process. Mitigating measures are discussed further in Annex 5.At the “alternatives” end of the spectrum we can think about three broad tiers of alternatives: strategic alternatives, location-related alternatives and design related alternatives. The decision to “Do Nothing” is also an option open to some developers. These different types of alternatives are discussed below.

STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES

Some projects have objectives that can be met in fundamentally different ways and we can think of these as “strategic” alternatives. The relevance of strategic alternatives to a particular project will depend on the context. For many projects strategic alternatives will have already been considered at a higher level of decision making such as government policy or planning and there will be no requirement for further consideration at the project level. Where this is not the case, it may be necessary to consider strategic alternatives at the project level.

This is most likely to be the case for public sector investments, in for example infrastructure or utilities. In these cases it may be possible to meet the public need – for example for mobility and access, water, energy services, waste management –in different ways. At the highest level, it may be possible to avoid the need for new development altogether by managing the demand for the service; alternatively it may be possible to meet the demand in fundamentally different ways. Where


50

this has not been addressed at a higher level of decision-making EIA may need to examine these options.

Two examples are outlined below:

• In the transport sector, the objective may be to improve journey times between two cities. The most obvious solution may be to build a new road. However, a number of alternative strategies could be pursued: perhaps by changes in land use to reduce the need for travel, or providing a new or improved bus or rail link rather than a road. Congestion could also be reduced by increasing costs for drivers (e.g. by road pricing or increased parking charges) to encourage them to use public transport. These are all strategic alternatives to new road building.

A similar spectrum of strategic alternatives might be relevant in the area of water supply: instead of building a new reservoir, a water authority could consider first, whether consumers could be encouraged to save water, for example by metering and education campaigns, or by offering them low cost water saving appliances. They could then investigate options for reducing losses by controlling leaks in existing pipes before deciding that a new source of supply is needed. If a new source is needed, then various approaches could be used to provide this, for example, groundwater abstraction, surface water impoundment, inter-basin transfer, or even desalination.

The range of strategic options open to private developers is usually more restricted than for public sector projects. For example, it would be unreasonable to expect a mining company to consider the alternative of building methods which use less aggregates, or a housing developer to consider the use of an area of land for agriculture rather than housing, as these are outside their normal business objectives. There are situations, however, in particular in privatised utilities such as electricity and water, where there may be statutory obligations on private companies to consider efficiency and demand management within their business planning. These options may need to be considered in making investment decisions and should therefore be described in an EIS. More often however, the high level strategic alternatives in these sectors are addressed through government policy and legislation rather than project level decision-making.

Strategic Environmental Assessment for government plans and programmes has been introduced specifically to ensure environment is taken into account at this level. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC295 lay down the procedure for undertaking an environmental assessment of plans and programmes. The integration of environmental concerns at this stage is generally considered to contribute to sustainability. The SEA Directive implements the idea that the environmental effects of certain actions should be identified in advance at an even earlier stage than under the EIA Directive. It therefore takes place much earlier in the decision-making process than EIA and allows for the identification and possible prevention of adverse environmental impacts throughout the formal decision-making process. In this context a draft Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) Law has been prepared.

ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS

The EIA Law No. 10440, dated 07.07.2011 in Albania requires information to be provided by the developer about the alternatives taken in consideration in terms of the project site location. This is in keeping with the fact the most frequent type of alternatives considered in EIA are location related. Where a specific site has not been allocated in the physical plan or where the developer wishes to propose a new site, it may be appropriate to consider options in the project EIA.

Some developers, for example a private company that has acquired a plot of land for a particular purpose such as housing or industry, are unlikely to consider alternative sites, but for some


51

developments siting is not so constrained. This is most often the case in public sector development such as roads, but it can also be so for private developments where a number of sites may be available to the developer. Sometimes it may not be possible to consider alternative sites for the whole of a development but there may be options for parts of a project rather than the whole,for example the water abstraction point for a new factory or the junctions on a new motorway. This can even be the case where part of the development is fixed, for example in mining where, although the underground mineral resource is in a fixed location, the surface mine could be located at a number of different sites.

Where alternative sites are considered during project planning, the EIS should discuss them and explain the reasoning behind choosing the selected location. Often this will involve a number of stages leading to selection of the preferred alternative, starting with identification of all the possible sites in a broad area of search, then examining this long list of possible sites to select a short list, and finally choosing the best site from the short list. Constraint mapping is a useful tool to help in identifying possible sites and Geographical Information Systems provide useful tools for this process.. For linear developments such as transport links, power lines and pipelines, it is usual to start with an area of search, select a number of broad corridors within this, choose one or more preferred corridors, examine alternative routes within these, then refine these into more detailed horizontal and vertical alignments. The term “optioneering” is sometimes used to describe this process of progressive refinement of project proposals.

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The widest diversity of possible alternatives arises in relation to the design of the project. If the project entails a production process, it may be possible to consider alternative technologies or raw materials that have less impact, for example, construction of a combined cycle gas turbine rather than a coal fired power station. Design alternatives can also include different site boundaries or internal layouts, larger or smaller sizes of facility or numbers of units such as wind turbines or houses, different heights for buildings or chimneys, different external finishes for structures, and so on.

At some point on the spectrum, these types of alternatives merge into detailed mitigation. However, as a general principle, where there are explicit options available to a developer for any aspect of a project and these are compared during the planning of the project, it is good practice to discuss and report these in the EIS as alternatives.

TO DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE

The Do Nothing option is often referred to as an alternative in EIA. In practice for many developments, and certainly for most private sector projects, the option of doing nothing is not a real alternative; the private developer’s aim is to obtain consent for development and it is for the competent authority granting development consent to decide whether development is preferred to the Do Nothing situation.

In this sense it is more useful to consider the Do Nothing situation as the baseline for impact assessment rather than as an alternative in its own right. The impact of the project is described in terms of the difference between the environmental situation with and without the project. In looking at the Do Nothing baseline, it is important to remember that the environment will change even if the project does not go ahead as a result of other developments and wider trends. This “moving baseline” must be considered as part of the assessment. Depending on the type of development, it may be necessary to predict the Do Nothing baseline at various stages, for example during the planned construction period, at the time of opening of the project, during different phases of its operation, and possibly after its completion.


52

There are however, some circumstances where “doing nothing” is a real option for a developer. The main examples are in public infrastructure investment where the option of not building a new road or sewage treatment works may be a reasonable option for the relevant authority. As with the Do Nothing baseline, the Do Nothing alternative must take into account other actions and environmental changes that will arise in the absence of the project. This is often referred as the Do Minimum alternative, because the public authority will continue to do the minimum needed to maintain the system but will not make the major new project investment. The impacts of the Do Minimum alternative will therefore include any impacts of those other actions.

CHECKLIST OF ALTERNATIVES

A useful checklist of the types of alternatives that may need to be considered during development of a project is provided below. Any or all of these may be relevant for different projects and it is important for an EIA Team to consider and advise the developer on whether or not it would be appropriate and good practice to consider them in the context of a particular project. Where a developer has not thought about possible alternatives, the EIA team should discuss with them whether there is some other reasonable way of proceeding with the development that would have less impact on the environment which ought to be considered. This should be done at the profound EIA (scoping) stage.

The checklist of types of alternatives presented below is not comprehensive and the developer and the EIA team should always consider the specific options that might be relevant to the particular project, taking into account the developer’s objectives in promoting the development.

Types of Alternatives:

• Measures to manage demand for goods or services (e.g. energy efficiency actions) • Measures to conserve or reduce wastage of resources (e.g. leakage control) • Different approaches to meeting demand (e.g. road use pricing) • Locations or routes • Processes or technologies • Working methods (e.g. manual or automated handling of materials) • Site plans and layouts • Design of structures (e.g. building size, shape or appearance; chimney height) • Types and sources of materials (e.g. local or imported sources of aggregates) • Construction, operation and decommissioning timetable including any phasing • Start and finish dates (e.g. summer or winter construction start) • Size of the site or facility (e.g. m2 of office or retail space; area of open space) • Numbers of units (e.g. houses, turbines, parking spaces) • Level of production (e.g. MW generation capacity, production rate) • Access arrangements and routes for traffic to and from the site • Provision and location of ancillary facilities (e.g. waste disposal, borrow pits, electricity supply,

housing) • Decommissioning arrangements, site restoration and after-use • Do Nothing or Do Minimum

RELEVANCE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

When assessing alternatives, it is important that only options that are relevant and reasonable in terms of the project context are considered. The types of alternatives that can be realistically considered by the developer will vary. For example:


53

• A mineral extraction company that has purchased a parcel of land in the hope of extracting sand and gravel from it, will not consider the option of using it for housing development or wind generation, but it would be reasonable to consider the scale and phasing of the extraction operation, its layout and alternative processes for extraction and waste disposal, and alternative plans for restoration of the site aftermining is complete.

• In contrast, a privatised water company could be expected to consider strategic demand management options such as metering and supply of water saving appliances and actions to control leakage, before considering development of a newsupply. It could then consider different options for providing the supply, including inter-basin transfer, groundwater abstraction, a new reservoir or even desalination, as well as options for siting and design of any new facilities that are identified asneeded, and finally options for water treatment technology and distribution.

The important point to consider is what is and what is not in the normal business/public sector responsibility of the project proponent so that a decision can be made on what alternatives are relevant or reasonable. It is only these that the developer needs to discuss in an EIS. This does not prevent the competent authority from considering whether there are other alternatives outside the business of the developer, which it wants to take into account in making its development consent decision, but these may need to be explored through some route other than the developer’s EIS.

It is also important to remember that project choices are made taking into account a whole range of different factors, not just the environment. The EIA team will therefore be part of the process, but the decision on what alternatives to consider and the choice between those alternatives is for the developer to make, taking into account all the different factors relevant to the business.

APPRAISING AND COMPARING ALTERNATIVES

Choosing the best project alternative at any point in the planning of a project requires systematic consideration of the range of options available at that stage of the design, comparing their advantages and disadvantages and, through iteration and refinement, homing in on the one that best addresses the developer’s objectives.

In most projects there will be several stages at which options can be considered. The choices at each stage are likely to depend on many different factors – cost, risk, engineering feasibility, operational complexity, availability of skilled workers, local economic impacts, employment generation, and of course impact on the environment. All of these must be weighed against each other in deciding on the best option. Decisions like this, which involve many different factors are known as multi-attribute or multi-criteria decisions and various Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) methods have been developed to help with this type of problem.

In the context of project planning and EIA, MCA methods are used to help choose the option (or options), which achieve the best balance between all the different factors relevant to the decision. Usually these will include both adverse and beneficial economic, environmental and social impacts (often referred to as costs and benefits) and these can affect different stakeholders and occur in the short and long term. MCA methods provide tools for sorting out this information and for using it to arrive at informed choices.

There is considerable theoretical and practical literature on MCA and there is a wide range of methods available from simple to complex. A literature review, “The use of multi-criteria in Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment”, was carried out by the Thule Institute, University of Oulu in 2012 (research was updated and widened in spring 2013) gives


54

a complete overview of literature in the field of MCA in EIA4. The literature review introduced in the report was conducted as a part of the tasks in the IMPERIA project (LIFE11 ENV/FI/905). The aim of the review was to find out international articles and experiences on the use of MCDA in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in order to survey good practices and benefits of supporting EIA process with MCA methodologies.

As a general rule the aim should be to use the simplest method that allows a robust choice to be made. If a simple method is not enough to allow alternatives to be distinguished, then more complex methods can be used until a choice is possible. This Annex describes how a range of tools could be used in a step-by-step process to appraise, compare and choose between alternatives for a typical project. As noted above, this process could be repeated several times during project planning for different types of alternatives.

Step 1: Define the initial set of options

The first stage in consideration of alternatives is to identify the range of reasonable options available for the decision in question (e.g. size, location, technology etc). The options should all achieve the developer’s objectives and must be relevant and reasonable in terms of the project context. For the location related alternatives the identification of alternatives usually involves a first stage of defining an”area of search” within which the project could be located. Possible sites within this area can be identified by mapping constraints such as physical, land use, engineering, environmental and other factors as well as policy constraints such as designations and future development plans. Some constraints may be absolute, so for example it is not possible to build a factory on a very steep slope or where there is existing housing, and such areas can therefore be excluded. Others are relative and must be considered as imposing different degrees of limitation on the suitability of sites.

Once the different degrees of constraints are mapped, feasible alternatives can be selected by identifying the least constrained areas. This can be done using manual methods of overlaying maps or using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology. The process of overlaying constraints is in itself a form of multi-criteria analysis and should follow the principles outlined here.

For both the location related and the other types of alternatives there will often be a huge number of possible options available to developers. An example would be in water supply, where a water authority could choose from a very wide range of types and sizes of facilities to meet a given supply requirement (e.g. one large or several smaller reservoirs of different sizes, combined with different levels of investment in metering and in leakage control). It is clearly not practical or even possible to investigate all of these and the approach that is usually taken in such cases is to select a representative range of options to illustrate the choices that have to be made and then to use a process of appraisal, short listing and refinement to focus on the best solution. The final choice may well not be one of the options that were originally considered but some combination between them. This is discussed further under Step 5. In order to reach the right solution at the end of the process, it is, however, important to think carefully when defining the initial range of options to ensure that these do not preclude sensible solutions being identified later in the process.

Step 2: Define the appraisal criteria

In order to compare alternatives, it is important to identify the factors that are relevant to the decision that has to be made. These are usually referred to as decision or appraisal criteria. Usually, these are grouped under a small number of broad headings such as economic, engineering feasibility, environmental, safety, social, project risk and expressed as objectives (e.g. to minimise cost, maximise local employment, minimise impact on nature conservation etc.). Because the

4http://imperia.jyu.fi/tuotokset/Annex7.2.5ReportontheuseofMCDAinEIAandSEA.pdf. Assessed 16th August 2013

http://imperia.jyu.fi/tuotokset/Annex7.2.5ReportontheuseofMCDAinEIAandSEA.pdf


55

decision factors are framed as objectives (minimise, maximise, avoid, achieve), this type of approach is sometimes called “objectives-led appraisal”. Under each objective, specific criteria will be defined and alternatives will be measured or appraised against these.

An example of the types of objectives and appraisal criteria that might be relevant for a project in the water sector is set out in Table 3.

Table 3 Example: Objectives and Criteria for Water Resource Development Alternatives

Minimise the cost of development

• Cost of construction • Annual cost of operation • Whole life cost • Affordability

Maximise ease of construction and operation

• Ease of connection to existing supply system • Ease of construction • Ease of operation

Minimise impact on the environment

• Impact on people o Noise o Visual o Impact of traffic o Impact on recreation

• Impact on natural and cultural heritage o Ecology o Water o Soils o Agriculture o Historical features

• Energy consumption and CO2 emissions

Minimise project risk

• Reliability and security of supply • Uncertainty in cost estimates – risk of cost over-runs • Geological risk – seismic and slope stability

Indicators of performance for each criterion and methods for appraising these must also be defined. Table 3 gives some examples of indicators that could be used for environmental criteria and the types of appraisal methods that might be used for each.

Indicators of performance for each criterion and methods for appraising these must also be defined. Table 3 gives some examples of indicators that could be used for environmental criteria and the types of appraisal methods that might be used for each.


56

Example: Appraisal Criteria for Alternative Sites

Objective Appraisal criterion

Indicators and appraisal methods

Minimise impacts on people

Impact on residents

Estimated no. of residents affected by loss of houses or parts of residental property (gardens) as a result of the works.

Calculate noise levels from construction traffic, using simple predicitve model (decibels).

Expert assessment of dust and other disturbance during construction and operation affecting residents, taking into account numbers of homes within 50, 100 and 500 metres of each alternative site.

Impact on commercial or other property

As above but for commercial property.

Impact on recreation facilities and other community land uses

Distance of site from nearast recreation facilities or other community land uses (parks and country parks, rights of way, cycle paths, bridleways, sports facilities) (km) and estimated number of users

Impact of construction traffic

Length of access route to site from main roads (metres) and numbers of houses along each route

Visual Impact Visibility of the area from places where people may be present (high/medium/low) and estimate of numbers of people affected

Severance and disruption

Expert assessment of likely disruption to traffic during construction (high/medium/low)

Minimise impacts on the natural environment and cultural heritage

Impact on agriculture resources and farming

Area of high quality agricultural land lost (hectares) Number of farms affected by land take, severance and fragmentation

Risk from ground contamination

Presence of contaminated ground in or close to the area; expert assessment of risk to construction workers and long term operation from presence of contamination (high/medium/low)

Impact on acquatic environment

Length of streams (metres) and area of other water bodies (m2) affected by discharges from construction

Extent of construction within floodplain (hectares) Presence of aquifers used for water supply beneath the site and level of abstraction (m3/day)

Impact on ecological

Presence or proximity (metres) of designated sites (international, national, local) or other sites of known


57

resources ecological value or sites used by protected species

Impact on landscape resources

Loss of designated landscape features and expert assessment of impact on the character and quality of the landscape, based on the sensitivity of the landscape and its capacity to accommodate change of the type envisaged (high/med/low)

Impact on historical and cultural and cultural resources

Expert assessment of impact on sites or features of archaeological, historical or other cultural importance, based on presence or proximity to designated sites or other sites of known importance

Minimise impacts on resources and global climate

Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in operation

kWh per annum of energy required to operate the system expressed in equivalent number of households based on average household electricity consumption. Estimate of CO2 emissions from operations based on average power supply mix

Step 3: Appraise options

The aim of this step in the process is to appraise the options defined in Step 1 against the appraisal criteria using the indicators and methods identified in Step 2.

Appraisal Methods

A variety of different appraisal methods can be used which provide quantitative and/ or qualitative information about the positive and negative effects of each option. As illustrated in Table 2, indicators can be quite simple and require only straightforward methods for appraisal such as measurements from maps, estimates by experts, simple calculation methods. The aim is to choose indicators that are only as detailed as are needed to distinguish between alternatives. At this stage it is often not necessary to actually predict impacts but only to provide a basis for comparison of options. So for example, sites can be compared for their potential to affect the people in terms of numbers and distance to nearby houses, rather than actual calculation of the levels of noise or air quality. Only if it proves impossible to select a preferred alternative, using this information, it will be necessary to use more complex appraisal methods.

Examples of different approaches to appraisal

As an example, options can be appraised in terms of their impact on global climate change by:

• making a qualitative assessment by asking experts to estimate whether an option is likely to cause greenhouse gas emissions to increase or decrease compared to the existing situation and by what degree (large/moderate/small; increase/decrease);

• or calculating emissions of greenhouse gases in tonnes of CO2 equivalent, using standard factors for electricity generation and other sources of emissions.*

Appraisal of the impact of alternatives on the local economy could be done by asking local development agencies to consider whether options will generate more or less opportunities for the existing local businesses or for new business start-ups. For example construction of a new business park would be likely to attract more people to some areas than to others. It may be possible to quantify the level of businesses that could be created (or lost), but if actual numbers cannot be predicted, it should be possible to gauge the direction and scale of the impact - positive or


58

negative, small, medium or large - of different options relative to each other.

When expert judgement is used as the appraisal method, it may be reasonable to rely on just one expert to provide an opinion, but it is worth considering whether a number of different experts could be consulted to obtain a range of views. This could be done individually or by bringing the experts together to debate the issue and arrive at an agreed view on the options.

When using local knowledge for appraisal, the views of a wide stakeholder group could be sought. Local surveys or focus group meetings may be useful in eliciting information, exploring contrasting views and developing consensus on the merits of different options.

* See also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf© European Union, 2013. Assessed 10 th July 2013

The employed appraisal method should depend on the level of detail and accuracy needed for each case. Factors to be considered in making the choice about which method to use will include:

• whether the difference between the options is expected to be crucial in choosing between them - if two options are very similar on all criteria except one, then a more detailed method may be needed to appraise options against that key criterion to make sure a robust conclusion is reached;

• the importance of the criterion in the local area - more effort may be needed to increase the detail and accuracy of the results for a criterion dealing with an important local issue;

• whether the results of the appraisal are likely to be contentious - if they are, it may be appropriate to use more detailed methods or to involve stakeholders in the appraisal to gain understanding and buy-in to the findings;

• whether the information, time, resources and level of expertise available to carry out the appraisal are available;

• the nature of the appraisal criterion and whether performance against it can be expressed quantitatively or only qualitatively.

Again it is important to remember that methods should not be more sophisticated (and therefore time and resource intensive) than needed to distinguish between the options.

Presenting the information

The information on the performance of each option against the appraisal criteria can be recorded in an Option Appraisal Table (see Table 4 for an example format).

Example Option Appraisal Table

Option

Brief description of the Option

Insert Option number

Use this space to give a brief description of the main components of the option being appraised

Objective Criterion Objective Criterion


Impact on ecological resources


Impact on ecological resources

Economics Construction cost

Economics Construction cost

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf


59

Risk Operational reliability

Risk Operational reliability

If there are only a few options, it may be possible to collate the information about all the options together in one table of Alternatives vs. Appraisal Criteria. This type of table is commonly referred to as “matrix”. An example is illustrated in Table 5.

Extract from example Appraisal Matrix

Criterion Option A Option B Option C Option C

Whole life cost $10m $9.5m $7m $9m Impact on 40 homes 60 homes No

displacement 20 houses

property and displaced displaced displaced people

Noise High High Medium Low Technical risk Low Low Low Medium Etc.

Whether single option appraisal tables or the multi-option matrix is used, it is important at this stage to record as much real information as possible about the performance of options rather than summarising at this stage into grades or scores – see Step 4. For this reason matrix should not be used at this stage if it involves summarising information too much, as this will restrict the information that is available for the next step. The appraisal should also highlight any uncertainties about the results so that those using it for decision-making understand the reliability of the information.

Step 4: Comparing, choosing and short listing of preferred options

Once the appraisal is complete for all options, the information can be used to compare them and to choose one. This stage is the key to the multi-criteria analysis. There are a number of ways of doing this. To begin with, simple methods such as ranking or grading may be sufficient to identify obviously better or worse performing options. If not, more complex approaches such as scoring and weighting, monetary evaluation or pair wise comparison can be used, as options become more difficult to choose between. Brief guidance on various possible methods is provided below.

Whichever method is used, it is recommended that the choices are made by a multidisciplinary group so that all parts of the project team are represented – the developers, designers, engineers, economists, operators, and the EIA team. For some types of decisions it may also be appropriate or helpful to involve external stakeholders such as the competent authority, environmental regulators or the local community. Through its involvement in consultations, the EIA team can play an important role in helping the developer think about who should be involved and acting as a facilitator for the optioneering process.

Step 5: Refine selected options

The key final stage in the process of option selection must always be to review the selected option to see if it can be further improved before taking it forward into the next stage of development or the detailed EIA. This is especially important when there is a very large number of possible options


60

available and the appraisal has considered only a representative group rather than the full range. In these cases it is important to consider whether the preferred option can be improved by including positive elements of options that have been discarded.

Where an appraisal has been used to choose a shortlist of options rather than one preferred option, refinement is also an important stage before undertaking more detailed appraisal of the short-list, as illustrated by the cycling back to Step 1 in Figure 1.

Stakeholder Consultation

A central aspect of every step in the process must also be consideration of the views of relevant stakeholders. If the optioneering process is taking pace in private, within a project organisation (say at the early stages of planning a commercial development) it may not be appropriate to consult external stakeholders, but it is always worth considering what their concerns are likely to be and taking these into account in the appraisal, as this will make it easier to obtain agreement to the selected option when an application is made for development consent.

In many projects it will be appropriate to consult the competent authority, the environmental authorities or even the public, either at the beginning to help define possible options and appraisal criteria, or later on to appraise the options and choose between them. The extent of consultation required and its timing will depend on the project context and the type of alternatives being appraised. If consultees suggest new or amended options, these may also need to be appraised and compared to other options (by returning to Steps 3 and 4).

METHODS FOR COMPARING AND CHOOSING BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES

A number of different approaches can be used to distil the information about how alternatives perform against appraisal criteria so that the preferred option or options can be selected. These are introduced below:

1. RANKING

2. GRADING

3. SCORING AND WEIGHTING

4. MONETARY VALUATION

5. PAIRWISE COMPARISON

A1 RANKING

Ranking involves simply the ordering of options from best to worst (i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) on each criterion using information from the Appraisal Tables. The results can be presented as illustrated in Table A1; shading can be used to help with interpretation. In simple cases this may be sufficient to identify the best option, if for example the same option comes first against all or nearly all criteria.

Table A1 Example: Options ranking table Appraisal Option

Criterion A B C

1. 1st 2nd 3rd 2. 1st 2nd 3rd 3. 1st 3rd 2nd 4. =1st =1st 3rd 5. 2nd 1st 3rd


61

In the example, A has been ranked as best (1st) on all but two criteria on which it comes equal first and second. It is therefore, probably safe to conclude that A is the best option. However, it is important to be careful when using ranking, as it tells the decision maker nothing about the degree of difference between the options. If for example, A was very much worse than B on Criterion 5 and only slightly better than B on all the others and 5 was very important, this might be enough to make B the preferred option. This can be checked by referring back to the detailed information in the Appraisal Tables. Ranking is therefore only recommended as a first quick check to see if there is an obvious front-runner.

6. 1st 2nd 3rd


62

A2 GRADING

Additional information is available if options are graded rather than ranked for their performance against each criterion. Unlike the rankings, the grading says something about the actual performance and the degree of difference between options. Many different grading systems can be employed, using colours (e.g. red, orange, green), symbols (e.g. +++/++/+/0/-/--/---) or letters (e.g. A-E). Grades can also be used in different ways, for example the best option could be graded A, the worst E, and the others in between according to their relative performance, or they could be used to represent a real scale, say A = excellent and E = very poor.

It is important not to mix up these two different approaches in the same appraisal as an option that receives an A-grade for being the best on one criterion may still only be a very poor performer in comparison to one that gets a B-grade for being good on another criterion. In both cases it is also important to remember that a top grade for one criterion does not mean the same in terms of relative merit as the top grade for another criterion.

An example of A = best/E=worst grading is illustrated in Table A2. It can be seen that not all grades are used for each criterion and more than one option can be graded the same.

Example: Options grading table

The shading system helps the reader to see quickly whether options are generally better or worse performers than others for each criterion. This can be useful for determining obvious ‘front-runners’ and vice-versa.

In this example Options II, III and V have been graded less well on most criteria suggesting that I and IV are probably the front runners, but as before it is important to check back to the Appraisal Tables to see why II and III got A ratings and whether these criteria are particularly important to the decision.

The alternative grading approach (A = excellent / E = very poor) can be more useful but is often difficult to apply to some criteria where the merits of options can only be judged in relative terms, for example on cost or CO2 emissions.

A3 SCORING AND WEIGHTING

A further development of grading is to use numerical scores to represent performance. This type of approach can be useful where there are a larger number of alternatives and where rankings and gradings vary greatly between options and no clear pattern can be seen. Scores can be used like

Appraisal Options

Criterion I II III IV V

1. A C C D E 2. C D D A E 3. B B B A E 4. E D C A B

5. A E B B D 6. B A E C C

7. C D C A E 8. B D A B E 9. A E B B B

10. A B D A D


63

grades, to represent relative performance between options (0=worst, 10=best) or to represent a real scale (e.g. 1 point = 10 tonnes CO2). The advantage of scores is that they can be added together to give an overall score for each option, either directly, or after weighting to represent the importance of each criterion to the decision. However, this is also a disadvantage in that it can suggest an easy answer, which may be misleading.

In most examples, scales extending from 0 to 10 or 100 are used for each criterion, where 0 represents a real or hypothetical least preferred option, and 10 or 100 is associated with a real or hypothetical most preferred option. Each option is assigned a numerical score on strength of preference scale for each criterion. Numerical weights are then assigned to each criterion according to the relative importance of a shift between the top and bottom of the scale for each. The scores are multiplied by the weights to give comparative scores across all criteria and then added together to give a total for each option, with the option getting the highest score being the best. This is illustrated in Table A3.

Example: Scoring and weighting

This indicates that Option C has the highest score and is therefore preferred.

These approaches are sometimes referred to as compensatory MCA techniques, since low scores on one criterion may be compensated by high scores on another.

Scoring and weighting has the superficial advantage of apparent simplicity and producing a clear-cut answer, but in reality its proper use involves some very complex theoretical considerations about the type of scoring scale used and the way weights are derived. There is a considerable literature on scales and derivation of weights and robust methods tend to involve very complex, costly and time-consuming research and analysis. In practice, however, scales and weights are often decided by the decision group. Scoring and weighting should therefore always be used carefully and, like all these methods, the decision group should refer back to the real information about the performance of the options to check that the answer makes sense.

A4 MONETARY VALUATION

A particular form of “scoring and weighting” is the use of monetary valuation to describe the performance of alternatives. In this approach – sometimes referred to as cost benefit analysis – the scores for all criteria are converted to monetary units (e.g. $), so that these can be added together to give a total economic value for each alternative. There are various methods for deriving monetary values for different appraisal criteria and as with simpler scoring and weighting methods, these

Criterion Weight Option

(W)

A

B

C

S x S x S x

Score (S) W Score (S) W Score (S) W

1 0.1 4 0.4 6 0.6 10 1.0

2 0.5 8 4.0 3 1.5 2 1.0

3 0.4 10 4.0 5 2.0 5 2.0

4 0.8 5 4.0 7 5.6 8 6.4

5 1 1 1.0 4 4.0 5 5.0

Total weighted score 13.4

13.7 15.4


64

involve some sophisticated methodological issues and must be used with care. A particular point to watch out for is that monetary values may be reasonably readily obtained for some criteria but not for others. In such cases it is important not to forget the non-monetised criteria in making the decision.

A5 PAIRWISE COMPARISON

A significant disadvantage of scoring and weighting methods, including monetary valuation, is that it can be difficult to explain and justify the scores and weights or values, and therefore the conclusions reached from them, to external stakeholders, especially where rigorous and theoretically sound methods for their derivation have not been used.

An alternative approach that allows the decision group to explain their reasoning more easily is “pair wise comparison” i.e. comparing options in pairs (two at a time). Using the information in Appraisal Tables, options are compared two at a time until each option has been compared with enough of all the others for an overall ranking to emerge.

The process usually involves two main stages. First it may be possible to discard some options because they perform worse than and no better than at least one other option on all the appraisal criteria. This is illustrated in Table A4 where seven options B to H are compared with option A. For six of the seven alternatives to Option A there is a mix of some preferences for A and some for the other options, but for Option F, A is either always worse than or equal to F. Given the choice between A and F, F would therefore always be preferred to A and A can be rejected.

The next stage involves using the Appraisal Tables to establish preferences between the remaining options by looking at them in pairs, until a ranking emerges across all the options. An example is illustrated in Table A5. B would be compared with C, then D, then E, etc.; then C with D, E, F, and so on until enough comparisons were done for a ranking to appear, for example, that D>B>G>C=E>H=F.

Pair wise comparison of options B and C

Criterion Option B Option C Preference

Cost $100m +/- 5% $90m +/- 10% C – moderate

preference

Employment Provides 200 jobs in area of Provides 200 jobs in area B – strong

high unemployment with of low unemployment preference

potential for skills upgrading

Impact on Loss of 15 houses. 100 houses Loss of 12 houses. 10 C – moderate

people potentially affected by houses potentially preference

moderate noise impact. affected by high noise

Diversion of well-used footpath impact.

to local town.

Impact on No impact Significant risk of loss of B – strong

marine local population of preference

environment endangered seabirds

(European protected

species)

Impact on Requires demolition of locally No impact C – moderate

historical and important historical site – preference

cultural several other local examples.

interests

Etc.

Etc.

Overall On balance, the threat to the seabird population and the lower Option B is

preference potential for local employment benefit in Option C is preferred


65

considered to outweigh the slightly greater impact on local

residents and the local historical impact of Option B.

ANNEX 4 - ECONOMIC VALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IN EIA


The prediction stage of an EIA involves an objective statement of what the impacts of the project under consideration are anticipated to be. But before this information can be used in decision-making, it is important to understand how important the impact is. The next stage is therefore toevaluate the significance of the impact.

One way of evaluating significance is to translate the impacts into monetary values, which explain how much society wishes to gain the benefits or avoid the adverse effect of the project.

Assigning monetary values to the positive impacts (benefits) and to the negative impacts (costs) in order to determine economic values can only be done if there is a positive or negative change in the human well-being.

Deriving the economic value of the environmental resource involves looking at direct, indirect and option use values as well as to existence and bequest non-use values.

‘Goods and services’ arising from the environmental resource often suffer from ‘market failure’ as the full social costs and benefits of environmental resources are not reflected. It is therefore necessary to use tools, which establish these values indirectly. These can look at real world markets (revealed preference methods) or construct hypothetical markets (stated preference methods).

Using these methods properly can involve considerable cost and time and requires very careful design and implementation of the necessary studies. This is often not practical for a single project. Benefit transfer is therefore often used. This involves the transfer of economic values from a ‘study’ site to a ‘recipient’ site. Care must be taken in transferring values to manage against inaccuracy.

If benefits and costs are forecast to occur at some point in the future, the discounting can be used to present the impacts in present day prices.

INTRODUCTION

This Annex provides guidance on how economic analysis can contribute to the assessment of the negative and positive impacts of a project on the environment i.e. its environmental costs and benefits. Economic analysis can be used either to help in the appraisal of options or in evaluating the significance of impacts.

Economic analysis is most often used where it is possible to express the environmental costs and benefits of a project in monetary terms so that these can be compared with non-environmental costs and benefits. A key area where this technique is quite often used is in the transport planning. Methods have been developed for expressing the impacts of road and rail projects on noise, air quality, land use, ecology etc. in monetary terms, so they can be compared directly with the capital and operating costs of a project and with savings in the cost of travel, the value of time saved and the value of accidents avoided, over the project lifetime, to give an overall economic value for the project.

In the last decade or so, cost-benefit analysis has been substantially developed both in terms of the underlying theory and in terms of sophisticated applications, and the OECD has long championed


66

efficient decision-making using economic analysis5. Many of those developments have been generated by the special challenges that environmental problems and environmental policy pose for cost-benefit analysis. Cost benefit analysis has been used for major investment projects, including transport, in EU Cohesion policy since the 1990s and is embodied in the regulations of the Structural Funds (SF) and Cohesion Fund (CF), and Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). For major projects an EU Guide6 on cost benefit has been developed with a view to meeting the needs of a wide range of users, including desk officers in the European Commission, civil servants in the Member States and in Candidate Countries, staff of financial institutions and consultants involved in the preparation or evaluation of investment projects. It should be noted that major projects are defined by a monetary threshold, and the majority of EIA fall below this threshold.

Large scale projects are also the subject of the EU ‘Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-scale Transboundary Projects’.7This guidance document, while useful has limited application in Albania as it has to be seen in conjunction with Regulation EU/347/2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure ('the new TEN-E Regulation'). It sets out a number of legal requirements designed to streamline, i.e., to speed up and improve, permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects of common interest (PCI) contained in a Union list established pursuant to the Regulation.8

Economics is also relevant to the consideration of options for mitigation as discussed in Annex 5, where estimation of the costs of avoiding impacts can contribute to decisions on what is reasonable and practicable for the developer. Economic valuation can also assist when decisions are being made about compensatory actions to be taken to mitigate environmental impacts (for example, to gauge the value of habitats lost and therefore the type and extent of new habitat to be created as a replacement).

It is important to note that economic valuation of environmental impacts is not required by EU or domestic law in Albania, however, where it is feasible to estimate monetary values this can provide useful additional information for decision makers. It must however, be appreciated that robust calculation of monetary values is a time-consuming and costly exercise. It is also a theoretically complexarea in which it is easy to misuse methods and results. Considerable caution must therefore be adopted in pursuing this approach in EIA.

BACKGROUND TO MONETARY EVALUATION

Economic Welfare

Assigning monetary values to the positive impacts (benefits) and negative impacts (costs) of a project to determine economic values can only be done if there is a positive or negative change in the human well-being (also known as welfare or utility), regardless of who secures that gain or loss. It is said, therefore, that economic values are anthropocentric. Placing a monetary value on the impacts of a project can inform the decision making process by providing a guide to societalpreferences. Those preferences are expressed in terms of society’s “willingness to pay” (WTP) to obtain a benefit or avoid an adverse effect andwillingness to accept compensation (WTA). Willingness to pay can be determined in several different ways described below.

5http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/cost-benefitanalysisandtheenvironmentrecentdevelopments.htmAssessed

19th August 2013. 6http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf Assessed 17th July 2013.

7http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf Assessed 20

th July 2013

8Streamlining environmentalassessment procedures forenergyinfrastructureProjects of Common Interest

(PCIs).http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf Assessed 21st

July 2013

http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/cost-benefitanalysisandtheenvironmentrecentdevelopments.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/PCI_guidance.pdf


67

First, however, it is important to understand why societal willingness to pay (WTP) is important and to explain some of the economic concepts that explain societal preferences. Individuals display their preferences for changes in their welfare every day through the market place. The decisions that individuals make to purchase goods or services (or not to purchase) tell us that the benefit the individual perceives he or she will get from purchasing the good or service is greater than the benefit he or she would derive from having the opportunity to purchase an alternative. The market place has two features that are of importance to the economic valuation of impacts.

1. The stronger the preference for something, the greater is the willingness to pay (WTP). By expressing their WTP, the purchasing decisions made by individuals reflect the intensity of their preferences.

2. WTP is constrained by income. If an individual displays a high WTP through the market place for one purchase, the funds allocated to that purchase necessarily preclude other purchases being made.

Market Failure

Many of the goods and services arising from an environmental resource such as clean air or valued ecosystems are not traded in the market place. While the analysis of the total economic value (TEV) of biodiversity and ecosystems services have developed significantly in recent years these do not have an obvious price or commercial value and the market does not reflect their full social cost and/or benefit. In other words there is a “market failure”. Hence, the value of adverse or beneficial impacts on these resources cannot be taken into account in decisions. Examples would be the public “good” provided by increased carbon sequestration from afforestation, or the public “bad” resulting from deterioration in air quality. A good (or its negative – a bad) is public if the benefit that one person obtains from its services is not at the exclusion of another person’s consumption. For example, an individual deriving welfare (a good) from the knowledge that the Amazonian rainforest exists and will be preserved for future generations does not preclude others from also deriving benefit from its existence.

Using economic tools can help to understand society’s preferences for environmental resources and thus the value of positive and negative impacts arising from a project.

Sources of Economic Welfare

So far, we have explained that understanding the economic costs and benefits of a project’s impacts can help assess the significance of the impacts through the changes that they yield in societal welfare. Before describing the tools that can be used to elicit this economic value, it is worth breaking down the components of economic value. The two main categories of economic welfare are termed “use” and “non-use” values.

Use values relate to the actual use of the environmental resource under consideration. For example, use value could arise directly from the pleasure derived from a walk in a national park, or indirectly from the ecosystem services that an environmental resource provides, such as carbon sequestration in forests and flood defences from mangrove swamps.

Use values also arise from the knowledge that a resource is available to use even though it is not actually used; these are called option values. Option values are important as individuals may be willing to pay to maintain the environmental resource in existence, thus maintaining the option to use it at some point in the future, even if no actual or planned use exists at present.

Non-use values can be split into two categories:


68

Existence Values: these refer to the welfare derived from the knowledge thatthe environmental resource exists for present generations even though thereis no intention of ever using that value oneself.

Bequest Values refer to the benefit derived by society from the knowledge that the resource in question will be available for future generations.

These different types of Economic are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Categories of Economic Value

The Economic The Economic Value of a Project Environmental impact

Use values Non Use Values Direct use Values Indirect Use Values Option and Quasi Existence & Bequest

TOOLS FOR MONETARY VALUATION

Introduction

Economic approaches to valuing project impacts fall into two categories:

Market based approaches, where the value of an environmental resource is“revealed” by investigating the market for a surrogate good or service“revealed preference”.

Non-market based approaches, where a hypothetical market for the actual environmental resource is presented to individuals and they are asked whatthey would be willing to pay or willing to accept for an incremental change inthe environmental resource – “stated preference”.

These techniques are described below. Both, however, can be time consuming and demanding on resources. In practice, therefore, the “benefit transfer” approach is often adopted. This approach is explained below.

Revealed Preference Techniques

In some circumstances market data are available for goods and services that are in some specific way related to the environmental resource being valued. From these the market values can be inferred for the environmental resource’s goods and services. A range of revealed preference techniques exists.


69

The most commonly used revealed preference technique is the travel cost method. This is used to value environmental resources such as national parks, where the benefit arises from visits to the resource. Using this technique a demand curve for a natural resource can be inferred from an estimated relationship between visitation rates and the cost of travelling to the site. By understanding how much people are willing to pay to get to the environmental resource it is possible to understand the value they enjoy from that resource.

The value of an environmental resource can also be inferred from the amount of money people are willing to spend to avoid or mitigate the consequences of its loss. For example, if a species is under threat of extinction, the cost of a captive breeding programme may be used to estimate the benefit provided by its continued survival. This is known as the preventative or averting behaviour approach.

Alternatively, the cost of replacing the lost biodiversity with a substitute can be estimated. Averting behaviour and substitute value revealed preference techniques do not strictly measure the value of environmental resource benefits as they only measure the costs associated with providing substitutes or avoiding loss.

Other revealed preference techniques observe people’s actions in markets that are specifically related to environmental change. Hedonic pricing techniques use the relationship between the price of a marketed good or service and an environmental resource factor to derive estimates of the valueof the change in the environment. For example, the price of land for farming activities will be affected by the quality of the soil. In theory, if there is sufficient data, the relationship between price and the quality of soil may be disaggregated from the price of land and hence the value derived. However, given the high number of factors that influence a product’s final price this disaggregation is very difficult in practice.

Stated Preference Techniques

Stated preference techniques have been developed to address the limitations in the range of environmental resource values that can be derived from revealed preferences. The key advantage of stated preference is that it allows non-use as well as use values to be derived; revealed preference can only be used for resources which are or might be used by society. Stated preference techniques can uncover the value of an environmental resource even if the respondent does not currently use it or intend to use it in the future. Non-use values are particularly important when the environmental resource in question has few substitutes.

The dominant stated preference technique is the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Various sub-techniques exist but, in essence, CVM involves asking a sample of people what they would be willing to pay to secure an improvement in a particular aspect of the environment. Alternatively, the sample may be asked what payment they would be willing to accept to allow a level of environmentaldegradation. The technique involves constructing a hypothetical market in which the change in the environment is “sold” to individuals or households.

A simple CVM question could take the following format: “How much would you be willing to pay, in the form of a local tax increase, to have continued access to National Park X?”

There are however, many difficult issues to address in planning and designing CVM surveys. OECD Guidance identifies a number of these.9

9OECDPaying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services, 2010 and “Handbook

of Biodiversity Valuation, A Guide for Policy Makers”, 2002

http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/payingforbiodiversityenhancingthecost-effectivenessofpaymentsforecosystemservicespes.htm


70

Questions to Consider in the Preparation of a CVM Study

1. What change in environmental quality should respondents be asked to value, and how should this change be described to them?

2. What type of interview format should be used in the survey (i.e. face to face, telephone or mail)? 3. What type of questions should be used to elicit respondent’s valuation of the changein environmental

quality? 4. Exactly how should respondents be told that they would have to pay for the change in environmental

quality? 5. How can there be confidence that the survey respondents are actually valuing thespecific change in

environmental quality described and not some other environmental quality change, and that the values found are correct?

Source: OECD

In recent years an adaptation of the Contingent Valuation Method has gained popularity. Choice Modelling presents the individual with a series of hypothetical choices, with predetermined values. Thus, the crucial difference from CVM is that Choice Modelling infers willingness topay (WTP) from rankings or ratings of choice sets whilst CVM asks directly for the respondent’s WTP.

An example of choice modelling is illustrated in Table 1 in which a Choice Set is used to understand the benefits of having more agriculture (e.g. greater yield productivity and employment) versus lower environmental quality (e.g. lower river flows, lower incidence of bird species) in the Macquarie Valley in Australia. The analysis allowed the economic, environmental and social trade offs to berevealed and quantified in monetary terms

Figure 4 Example of Choice Set from the Macquarie Marshes Questionnaire

Option 1: Continue Option 2: Increase Option 3: Increase current situation water to Macquarie water to Macquarie

Marshes Marshes

Your water rates No change $20 increase $50 increase

(one off increase)

Irrigation related 4,400 jobs 4,350 jobs 4,350 jobs

employment

Wetlands area 1,000 km2 1,250 km2 1,650 km2

Water birds breeding

Every 4 years Every 3 years Every year

Endangered and 12 species 25 species 15 species

protected species

present

Benefits Transfer

The benefit transfer method involves “borrowing” the WTP value derived from one site and applying it to another site, for example borrowing the valuation from an academic study and applying it to the EIA of a project. The transfer could be of a mean value from a number of studies and this could be modified as needed to suit the new site. In most cases modification of the original studies’ WTP values will increase the accuracy of the transferred value.


71

Where monetary valuation is used for EIA it is most often done using Benefit Transfer because it is rarely feasible to commit the cost and time needed for direct monetary valuation of environmental impacts for a single project. Benefit transfer has the advantage of being low-cost as it avoids the need to undertake the detailed site-specific primary research outlined above.

However, there are a number of risks with the benefit transfer approach, mainly arising from the inevitable differences between the original study site(s) and the recipient site. Differences in site characteristics arise from the following:

Socio-economic characteristics of the relevant populations: If the recipient population has a lower income level to the study population, an un adjusted transfer is likely to over-estimate WTP at the recipient site.

The physical, ecological and/or aesthetic characteristics of the original study site are likely to be different to the recipient site.

The details of the predicted change in the environmental resource may differ between the sites being valued. For example, the original study population may have been asked to offer a WTP for the ongoing preservation of national park of 100,000 hectares. The recipient site could be smaller or largerin size and have different recreational opportunities and ecological importance. The nature of the effects on recreation and ecological featuresmay also differ.

There may be differences in market conditions between the study and recipient sites, for example there may be a difference in the availability of substitutes. Using the national park example, transfer of WTP values could result in an over-estimation if the study site had fewer alternative sources of recreational amenity compared to the recipient site.

Care is also needed to ensure that the original values are good primary data. It is possible for values to be transferred repeatedly from one study to another and in this process to lose their validity as useful sources.

PROBLEMS WITH ASSIGNING MONETARY VALUES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Monetary values should be used to evaluate the significance of environmental impacts with great care and attention. Various criticisms can be leveled against monetisation and it is important to be aware of these so that methods can be tailored to address limitations as far as possible. The main difficulties in placing monetary values on the environment are as follows:

There are many technical issues to address in using the economic tools described above if they are to deliver accurate estimates of the value of the environmental resource. In particular, there are difficulties in providing sufficient information to enable survey respondents to make informed decisions, particularly in relation to the complex scientific issues such as biodiversity or climate change. Respondents may also deliberately misrepresent their preferences in an attempt to manipulate the outcomes of the decision making process in their favour (so called ‘protest votes’). Stated willingness to pay values may also be much greater than actual willingness topay, largely due to the hypothetical nature of the question and the fact that actual payment is not required.

Economic valuation studies must be very carefully designed and implemented in order to produce good results and they tend therefore to be very costly.

In particular, when using CVM, the relationships between resource use decisions and impacts on ecological systems need to be thoroughly understood and explained in simple terms to the survey respondents so that they can make informed decisions as to their willingness to pay.

It can be argued that the environment should be preserved indefinitely and that reducing the environment to a commodity that can be bought or sold in some way devalues its worth.


72

These arguments are becoming less significant as the value of using economic information to inform policy choices becomes clear, and provided that use monetary values to help inform but not to dictate their decisions. Because policy decisions are largely informed by their financial implications, it is useful to be able to express non-monetary costs and benefits in the same terms. If a monetary value cannot be placed on the environment impacts there is a risk that the impact will simply be ignored.

Alongside this, there is also the danger that, if some impacts are translated into monetary terms whilst others are not, those that cannot be converted into money will be left out of the decision. It is therefore always important to remember that there are likely factors to consider in addition to thosecaptured in the economic analysis. Despite these difficulties, the economic tools outlined can still be useful in helping decision makers understand society’s preference for changes in the environmentand may therefore be a useful adjunct to conventional EIA. Where this is the case, benefit transfer approaches are generally the most practical but even these must be applied carefully so that appropriate transfer values are used.

The application of economic methods can be particularly helpful when environmental impacts are likely to occur over time or at some point in the future. Economists use a tool known as ‘discounting’ to describe and compare the value of future costs and benefits in present day prices. If environmental impacts have been converted to monetary values, discounting can be applied to them to allow comparison with other types of costs and benefits which occur at different timese.g. capital and operating costs, time savings, accident savings. Selection of an appropriate discount rate is crucial and presents its own difficult challenge. In some countries a standard discount rate is established by the government for application to the public sector decision making, so for example in the United Kingdom (UK) the current discount rate is 3.5 percent.

If all the costs and benefits of the project can be converted into money and discounted to current prices, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project can be determined. In theory, if the Net Present Value is positive, it will be to the benefit of the society to allow the project to go ahead and consent should therefore be granted. If NPV is negative, consent should be refused. Where alternatives arebeing compared, the option with the highest positive NPV would be chosen. As with any economic analysis, NPV is rarely the complete picture and other factors not amenable to monetisation also need to be taken into account. Many environmental impacts are likely to fall into this group and the usefulness of the Cost Benefit Analysis in the context of development consent decision-making and EIA is therefore limited.


73

ANNEX 5 - DEALING WITH MITIGATION AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES IN EIA


1. Environmental mitigation is considered to include any feature of the proposed project, which avoids, reduces, remedies or compensates for its adverse effect on the environment or provides environmental benefits.

2. Mitigation includes not only technological solutions such as pollution controls but also project design, working methods and management measures during all phases of the development.

3. Options for mitigation should be considered as a ‘mitigation hierarchy’, to help identify those measures which should be considered first. This hierarchy is based on the principle that it is better to prevent the generation of the impact at source than to try to counteract its effects once it has occurred.

4. Mitigation needs to be considered at all phases in the project cycle, and in subsidiary stages within each of these phases.

5. The development of mitigation measures should start early and continue as an iterative process throughout the project development. It should not be limited to one point in the assessment or ‘bolted on’ to the end of the EIA.

6. The EIA report should consider a full range of mitigation measures, and should present them clearly so that the non-experts and the experts alike can understand them.

7. The EIA report should also demonstrate the developer’s commitment to implementing the mitigation measures, for example through the inclusion of a Mitigation Schedule or an Environmental Management Plan.

8. If the design of the project is not sufficiently advanced to allow the details of the mitigation to be finalised, the EIA report can set out commitments either to the achievement of specific environmental standards or to submission of details for approval by the relevant authority at a later stage.

9. The competent authority should remember that the EIA report itself may not be a binding document, and that it may be necessary to include mitigation measures as specific condition on the development consent if they are to be enforceable.

10. The final set of mitigation measures to be implemented is often defined following the submission of the EIA report.

11. Development consent conditions should specify what monitoring should be carried out, by whom, and what should be done with the results. The monitoring results should be used to inform the enforcement process.

12. For major projects the implementation of the formal Environmental Management System can provide a useful back up to the mitigation commitments, providing the competent authority with reassurance that the mitigation proposals will be implemented.

INTRODUCTION

Scope

A key aim of EIA is to identify ways in which projects can be altered to mitigate their effects on the environment. At its simplest, environmental mitigation is considered to include any feature of a proposed project, which avoids, reduces or remedies its adverse effect on the environment or provides environmental benefits.Mitigation measures can include physical aspects of the project design or ways in which it is constructed or operated. They can also include the exclusion orinclusion


74

of features of the project, for example, project components that are removed to reduce its impact or extra features that are added to enhance its environmental benefits.

Both Appendix I and II of the EIA Law No 10048 have requirements in relation to migration in EIA. In this context this Annex discusses the different types of mitigation in EIA, including the concept of ‘best available techniques’ for mitigation, sets out how to address mitigation during the EIA process and considers the means by which mitigation requirements are delivered through the development consent system.

The Importance of Mitigation in EIA

EIA is sometimes thought of as a way of stopping projects that have unacceptable impacts on the environment, but a much more positive and useful view is to think of EIA as a way of helping developers and decision makers design projects to have the least possible impact on the environment, so that they can be permitted to go ahead and provide the other benefits that development creates for the economy and society. EIA does this by identifying environmental mitigation during the assessment studies.

The EIA team have a vital role in this process. Their job is to identify when a project could have significant impacts on the environment and work with the developer to identify ways in which that impact could be reduced. This should be an iterative process starting at an early stage and continuing throughout project development. It should not be limited to one point in the assessment or ‘bolted on’ to the end of the EIA report.

It must be recognised that it is usually not possible to mitigate every impact of a project, but the job of the EIA team is to work with the developer to decide what is possible and affordable in the context of the proposed development. These measures can then be taken into account in the impact assessment so that the impacts described in the EIA report are those remaining after the mitigation agreed upon is implemented (residual impacts).

Once the assessment of residual impacts is complete, the EIA report should describe the measures that the developer is prepared to adopt and the residual impacts remaining after mitigation. The mitigation measures should be presented as commitments so that the competent authority knows what it can take into account in deciding whether to grant consent. If necessary, the commitments can be translated into consent conditions so that they can be enforced. If the competent authority decides that the mitigation offered by the developer is insufficient, additional requirements can be added as further consent conditions. The developer will then need to decide whether the project is still technically and commercially feasible before going ahead with implementation.

Mitigation measures important from the point of view of biodiversity and climate change are detailed in the EU Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment which aims to help Member States improve the way in which climate change and biodiversity are integrated in EIAs carried out across the EU.10 The Guidance notes that many alternatives and mitigation should be addressed at strategic level, in a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). For example, to avoid problems associated with flood risk, planners should prevent projects from being developed on flood plains or areas of flood risk, or promote land management to increase water retention capacity. For climate change mitigation, it is important to investigate and use options to eliminate Green House Gases (GHG) emissions as a precautionary approach in the first place, rather than having to deal with mitigating their effects after they have been released. For biodiversity, EIA should focus on ensuring ‘no-net-loss’ and avoiding effects from the start, before considering mitigation, with compensation being used as a last resort.

10

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf© European Union, 2013. Assessed 21 August 2013

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf


75

BAT AND IPPC/IED

What is BAT?

When considering what mitigation is possible and practical in the context of EIA for a particular project, it is often appropriate to consider what constitutes BAT or the ‘best available techniques’. These will be the highest standard of environmental protection that is available for that type of project. The term Best Available Techniques (BAT) is best known in relation to the European Union Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).The IPPC framework was replaced by the new Industrial Emission Directive (IED) on 24 November 2010, strengthening the legislation that implements IPPC and six other directives on industrial emissions. The IED aims to improve and clarify the concept and use of BAT and increases transparency by requiring that the use of flexibility must be justified and documented leading to a more coherent and EU-wide application of BAT.

IPPC is principally concerned with pollution impacts such as air, water and soil pollution, with wastes and noise and with resource efficiency. The IPPC Directive aims at fostering the best available techniques (BAT) and many types of industrial installations must be permitted on the basis of the best available techniques. In order to give guidance as to what is considered BAT, an information exchange process has been established at the European level to identify BAT. This process also raises awareness of best available techniques and results in publicly accessible documents describing BAT (Best available techniques Reference Documents, BREFs) concerning the different types of installations, which are coordinated and disseminated by the European IPPC Bureau11.

The IPPC Directive, on which the Permitting Law, LawNo 10048, dated 14.7.2011, is based, sets out common rules for permitting certain types of industrial installations covered by Annex I of the IPPC Directive. Operators of Annex I installations in EU member states are required to obtain an IPPC permit from the relevant authorities before they can operate the installation. In Albania as in most EU member states IPPC permitting is separate from the development consent process and the associated EIA procedure.

According to the Permitting LawIPPC permit conditions must include emission limit values (ELVs) and these must be based on application of Best Available Techniques (BAT). These are defined as:

“…the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and theirmethods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniquesfor providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and,where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and impact on the environmentas a whole. ”

o ‘Techniques’ include both the technology and the ways in which an installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned.

o A technique is ‘available’ if it has been developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions. The evaluation of techniques takes into account costs and advantages whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Albanian Republic, as long as they are accessible to the operator.

o The ‘best’ available technique means most effective techniques for achieving a high level of protection of the environment as a whole.

Best Available Techniques in the Context of EIA

The term Best Available Techniques was developed specifically for IPPC, but it is also relevant to EIA if the project requires both EIA and IPPC permit. There is a large degree of overlap in the categories

11

Visit the European IPPC Bureau web-site to download BREFs: http://eippcb.jrc.es/


76

of projects to which IPPC and EIA apply, in such cases; the mitigating measures described in the EIA report will include the BAT for that sector.

For other types of projects where IPPC consent is not required, BAT has no statutory force, but the concept is still useful as it reminds us that it is legitimate to consider whether the costs of mitigation are proportionate to the benefits that the mitigation will provide. So it would not be reasonable for the developer to spend large amounts of money on mitigation if the amount of environmental impact that is avoided is very small. Equally, if a substantial environmental improvement could be achieved at a small cost, the developer should include it in their proposal unless it would make the project impossible for other reasons. The use of the word ‘techniques’ is also useful, in that it reminds us that mitigation includes construction practices, operating methods, management systems, training and monitoring, as well as technological solutions such as end of pipe pollution control.

Linkage between EIA and IPPC/IED

There are several areas of potential interface between EIA and IPPC and an overview of these is provided below.


77

Linkages between IPPC/IED and EIA

New plants that are covered by the IPPC Directive may also fall under the jurisdiction of the EIA Directive. There are two main ways in which the two Directives are connected.

Firstly, both Directives require the collection and analysis of information concerning the emission of pollutants, nuisances and waste streams from the proposed project.

The EIA Directive is focussed on providing information to help decisions about development consent and includes design, construction, operation and possible decommissioning and restoration. The assessment will cover all aspects of the environment, including physical impacts on land use, ecology, landscapes, cultural heritage etc., as well as pollution and waste. The competent authority will use this information, weighing it upagainst a wide range of other factors including economic and social impacts, to decide whether a development should be given consent.

IPPC permits relate primarily to the operation of installations and are of narrower focus - mainly the environmental pollution – emissions, discharges, wastes, etc. The purpose of the IPPC application is to provide the competent authority with the information demonstrating that the proposed plant will be operated to reduce pollution, using BAT. IPPC consent can only be granted if this is the case. As regards IPPC, the environmental impacts are not balanced against other costs and benefits in decision-making.

Development consent and IPPC permit applications can be applied for at the same time or one following the other. In most cases the development consent application comes first as this establishes the principle of allowing the use of land for the project. The IPPC application often needs much more detail about the technical aspects of the project than is required for EIA, and is therefore often applied for later in the development of the design. If the project is subject to both EIA and IPPC, some of the information collected for EIA will be useful for IPPC and vice versa.

The second connection between the two Directives is revealed when the development consent authority wishes to impose consent conditions in order to control the matters which are covered in the IPPC consent, such as emissions to air. It is important that development consent authorities do not try to duplicate the powers available to IPPC authorities as this can introduce conflicts between the two permits. IPPC authorities have to ensure compliance with absolute standards through the IPPC permit. These are designed to provide the best possible level of environmental protection. Hence it is necessary that the development consent authorities can rely on the IPPC permit to achieve acceptable levels of environmental protection rather than having to impose standards of their own.

Adapted from “EC Study on Indirect & Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions within the EIA process”, Hyder (1999) and from “The Interaction between Land Use Planning and Environmental Regulation”, Scottish Executive, 2004.

TYPES OF MITIGATION

There are usually many different ways in which the impact of the project can be mitigated and it is important that all of these are considered in deciding on the most cost-effective approach. A useful starting point when considering options is the mitigation hierarchy.

The Mitigation Hierarchy

The ‘mitigation hierarchy’ is useful in identifying the order in which measures should be considered. The hierarchy is based on the principle that it is better to prevent the impact generation at source, than to try to counteract its effects once the impact has occurred:

1. The preferred approach to mitigation is to design a project, avoiding the feature, which leads to the impact.


78

2. If the impact cannot be avoided, the next step is to minimise it, i.e. to reduce it to become as low as possible (9) by abatement on site.

3. Once the impact has been reduced as far as possible at source, it may be possible to achieve further reductions by abatement at the receptor.

4. If the unwanted effect still remains, the next option will be to consider whether there are ways of repairing the damage after it has occurred.

5. If the impact cannot be repaired, the option of compensating for it by replacement for what is lost should be considered. This compensation may be either in kind (i.e. providing a similar resource to one that is lost) or by providing a different environmental benefit.

The hierarchy of possible mitigation measures is summarised below.

Hierarchy of mitigation measures

Avoid at source

Minimise by abatement on site

Minimise by abatement at the receptor

Repair the damage

Compensate in kind

Other compensation and enhancement

In good practice, measures at the top of the list should be explored before those lower down, as they offer greater efficiency and effectiveness in the use of limited resources for environmental mitigation.

Mitigation Options

There may be a very wide range of mitigation options available within this hierarchy for a specific project and impact. As discussed in relation to BAT, these will include not just technological solutions, but also working methods and management measures.

Mitigation through design may relate to pollution controls but also to site layout, architectural design of structures, design of production processes, landscaping, access arrangements and many other aspects of the project. It can also include measures remote from the source (abatement at receptor) such as offsite landscaping, noise barriers or insulation of properties.

Mitigation through working methods and management can include measures such as scheduling of activities, sourcing of materials, routeing of traffic to and from the site, staffing, staff training, reporting, and control of pollution incidents etc. They may also include monitoring regimes to check actual levels of impact once the project is underway and contingency measures to respond if impacts are greater than predicted.

Mitigation can also include the types of strategic options discussed in Annex 3 in which impacts are avoided or reduced by adopting a different approach to meeting the project’s objectives or using the demand management to reduce the need for development, and siting alternatives which involve moving the project to a different location. In these cases, mitigation starts to merge with treatment of alternatives in EIA as discussed in Annex 3. If alternatives have been properly considered at the start of the project planning, the best strategic and siting options should have already been identified, but it is always possible that new options emerge as the project develops, so these should still be kept under consideration as possible ways of mitigating major adverse impacts.


79

A checklist of the types of measures that may be used to mitigate impacts is provided below. This is not comprehensive and it is emphasised that whilst only a few of these may be relevant to a particular project there may equally be other possibilities available in the context of the specific project and impact.

Checklist of Mitigation Options

Alterations to the layout of sites or the design of structures

On and off site landscaping (earthworks and planting)

Alternative operating processes or raw materials

Alternative sources of energy and materials

Energy and other resource saving measures

Changes to the design of products

Reduced scale of activity, smaller size

Alterations to or omission of ancillary facilities

Controls over knock-on developments

Inclusion of pollution control techniques such as emissions control or effluent treatment

technologies

Methods to reduce noise, vibration, light, radiation energy release at source

Barriers and screens to hide the project or attenuate noise

Measures taken at the receptor to reduce exposure to impacts e.g. temporary or permanent

relocation, noise insulation, screening

Waste reduction, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal arrangements

Alterations to working methods and practices, for example, alternative construction methods

Emergency procedures and contingency plans for accidents, breakdowns, spills, etc.

Restrictions on working hours

Timing of project activities to avoid particular times of year

Access restrictions or control of routes

Decommissioning arrangements, site restoration and after-use

Provision of compensation (in kind or financial), creation of replacement facilities or habitats,

replacement of lost resources, provision of new community benefits, improvements to

property

Research into and preservation of historical features in situ or by excavation and recording

Environmental management systems

Employment policies – e.g. local employment and skills development

Staff training

Monitoring and auditing


80

Community information

Plus

Strategic alternatives

Location related alternatives

Do nothing

Project Phases

Finally, as with the identification and prediction of impacts, mitigation must be considered for all phases of the development. The main phases, which may need to be considered, are:

construction (including any advance works);

commissioning;

operation;

decommissioning; and

restoration, aftercare and after use.

Subsidiary stages within each of these phases may also need to be considered. For example, construction may involve site clearance, earthmoving, the installation of services, building the main structures, fitting out, etc.

Operations may also be carried out in phases with new units coming on stream or different areas of the site being worked on over a period of time. Different mitigation measures may need to be considered at each stage.

DEALING WITH MITIGATION DURING THE EIA STUDIES AND THE EIA REPORT

In the introduction to the Manual the basic process of EIA studies was described as involving:

1. initial assessment to identify potentially significant impacts; 2. investigations and agreement on mitigation proposals; and 3. final assessment to define the residual impacts after mitigation.

In practice the development of mitigation should be an iterative process, involving the developer, the design team and the EIA team in regular exchange of information and ideas about the impacts and the ways of reducing them throughout the project planning and EIA. This interaction between the EIA process and the project design process should start as early as possible in the project design in order to maximise the opportunity to integrate the cost-effective mitigation into the design rather than adding it on at the end. Early attention to the mitigation brings various benefits, namely:

The early attention to the mitigation means that measures can be built into projects from the early stage on;

The mitigation that is integrated into the design of projects rather than added-on later is usually cheaper;

Including the mitigation in projects before they are submitted for consent can avoid delays in obtaining approvals;

Offering the mitigation that the developer knows is feasible, reduces the risk of impractical measures being imposed by the competent authority.


81

As the EIA studies proceed, the EIA team will revise the assessment to take into account mitigation that has been agreed upon by the developer. At the end a final assessment of residual impacts will be carried out, taking into account all the mitigation agreed upon and the results presented in the EIA report.

During this process, external stakeholders such as the competent authority, other environmental authorities, local communities and NGOS should be involved if possible, as this can help in selection of the best mitigation options. It also provides an opportunity to explain why measures are and are not practical for the developer and external involvement can be valuable in identifying mitigation that will prevent objections later in the process.

PRESENTATION OF MITIGATION IN THE EIA REPORT

Once the EIA studies are complete the EIA report should clearly identify all the proposed mitigation and the residual impacts. These should be presented as commitments rather than recommendations or vague proposals, as only then can the decision maker get a clear picture of what will happen to the environment with the project. To support the mitigation proposals, it is also important to describe the mitigation options that have been considered and the reasons for choosing theproposed mitigation. These may include technical and commercial as well as environmental reasons. By discussing the range of possible mitigation options, the EIA report will demonstrate the developer’s understanding of and commitment to the importance of mitigation while the competent authority will be able to understand what the developer considers to be feasible or not feasible be for the project.

The clarity of description of the mitigation in the EIA report is critical. The EIA report is meant to inform and facilitate decision-making. The competent authority must therefore be clear about what is and what is not included. The EIA report should include:

clear description of the mitigation measures, including the nature of the mitigated effect, the location and design of the measure, the effectiveness of mitigation as well as the monitoring and the evaluation arrangements;

clear description of the residual impact after the mitigation, and the explanation of why further mitigation could not be implemented if significant adverse effects remain;

description of the mechanisms by which the mitigation will be implemented, monitored and enforced.

The descriptions should allow both the non-expert and the expert readers alike to understand what is proposed and what the resulting impacts are.

In some cases it may not be possible to define mitigation measures in detail in the EIA report, because the project has not been designed in sufficient detail at the EIA stage. In these cases, the developer and the EIA team may instead define and commit to standards of environmental performance that will be achieved by the project – for example, that the extent of habitat loss will not exceed a certain level, that the project buildings will not be visible from a given location, or that the project will be designed to ensure that pollution levels are bellow the specified level. Through this the developer is committed to implementing whatever mitigation is needed to achieve compliance with the standards.

If mitigation cannot be specified in detail at the EIA and development consent stage, a process for approving the details at a later stage can be agreed upon. For example, the developer could commit to submitting a detailed landscaping plan to the competent authority for approval before starting the construction. Arrangements could also be made for later approvals to be obtained from other


82

environmental authorities; for example, the developer could undertake to obtain approval to a detailed plan for species relocation from the Nature Conservation Agency once the construction programme is worked out.

Although it is not required by law, it can be helpful to provide a Mitigation Schedule in the EIA report in order to provide for the explicit record of the mitigation commitments made by the developer. The Schedule can include integral and ‘add-on’ measures, commitments to environmental performance, and any areas where mitigation will be agreed upon at a later stage. It can also explain proposals for monitoring (see below).

An example of extracts from a Mitigation Schedule

Impact

Mitigation Residual impact

Impact of effluent discharges on water

All process effluents will be discharged to sewer.There will be no routine discharges of effluents direct to surface waters

Sewage treatment will provide adequate treatment for process effluents.No significant impact

Pollution of soil and water by oil spills

All fuel tanks and loading areas will be bounded to prevent releases to the environment. Bunds will be impermeable and sized to contain 110% of contents. Spill response kits will be kept on site and staff trained in their use

Very low risk of adverse Impact

Pollution from construction Waste Remaining waste will be disposed of at an appropriately licensed site.

All toxic waste will be segregated and disposed of to an appropriately licensed disposal site. Demolition materials will be recycled as far as possible on site

Disposal of all wastes at suitably licensed sites will avoid any significant impact

Loss of public footpath

The public footpath through the site will be re-routed around the site

The amenity of the footpath will be reduced by loss of attractive views from the existing route and an increase in length by 500m

Loss of trees

All tree felling will be carried out by qualified professional staff. All trees felled will be replaced by new planting with local indigenous species. This will be managed to ensure long term achievement of one-for -one replacement

Local biodiversity will be improved by replacement of non-native species with locally indigenous stock

Loss of breeding area for species X

A new area of breeding habitat will be created adjacent to the project site and the local population will be moved to this

Short-term disruption to breeding is likely to occur but the population should recover within 3 years


83

site at the appropriate time of year The new site will be monitored for 5 years after construction.

Impact of project buildings on views from X

The highest point of the building will not exceed 12.5 metres above ground level

The building will not be visible from X – no significant Impact

Impact of project buildings on local landscape character

Detailed proposals for the design, materials and external treatment of all buildings and other structures will be submitted to the local authority for approval prior to construction. Construction shall not commence until approval is obtained in writing.

Should avoid any significant adverse impact

Impact of construction traffic on noise

Construction vehicles will not be permitted to travel along roads X Y Z to and from the site

The number of houses affected by construction traffic noise will decrease from 20 to 5

Impact of dust from construction on neighbouring houses

In dry weather water will be sprayed on site to prevent dust. A speed limit of 15 km/hour will be operated on site. All vehicles leaving the site will be required to pass through a wheel wash and dusty loads will be covered

Construction dust levels will be typical of a well-managed construction site

Impact of noise from operation on nearby houses

A noise barrier will be erected adjacent to the site so that noise levels at the nearest house will not increase more than 4 dB (12 Hour LAeq)

Nearby properties will experience a slight increase in noise

The alternative to the Mitigation Schedule is to prepare a full Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Again, this is not required by law but it can be helpful for the developer and the competent authority. EMP will set out all the proposed measures, the programme and resources for implementation, responsibilities, measures of success, who is responsible for monitoring, and what will be done if the measure is not successful, including any reporting to external stakeholders (see below).


84

DELIVERING MITIGATION – DECISION MAKING AND CONSENT CONDITIONS

Enforcing mitigation

As explained above, it is good practice to make it clear in the EIA Report that the developer is committed to adopting the proposed mitigation and, where appropriate, to monitoring its effect during the project implementation. However, mitigation measures will only be successful if implemented and it is therefore essential that mitigation measures be enforced by the competent authority if the developer omits to carry them out. The enforcement powers available to competent authorities vary around Europe but in most systems some mechanism is provided to allow the competent authority to enforce the measures set out in the EIA Report. This can be done either by reference to the EIA Report, or by providing details elsewhere in the development consent application documents, or in the consent document. In Albania in accordance with the EIA Law the developer has the responsibility to carry out monitoring of the environmental impact of the project in accordance with the Environmental Statement. Often the EIA report itself is not a binding document, and in this case the most common approach is to set out the requirements and responsibilities for mitigation as conditions in the development consent. If the mitigation is not implemented, the competent authority can then take enforcement action against the breach of the consent under procedures provided in the development consent regime.

Agreeing mitigation measures and developing consent conditions

The final set of mitigation measures to be implemented is usually defined following the submission of the EIA Report and set out in the Environment Statement. Mitigation measures can also be set out in conditions attached to the development consent. For many developments, this would require a large number of individual conditions to ensure that all the measures described in the EIA report were covered. In these circumstances the competent authority may impose a general condition, requiring the developer to implement all the measures proposed in the EIA report. For legal enforcement purposes, however, the wording of requirements and responsibilities must be very precise and since EIA reports are sometimes not very precise, it is usually sensible to add specific conditions for the important mitigation measures just to make sure they are clearly and enforceably defined.

Monitoring and Management

Development consent conditions can require monitoring, in order to check that the mitigation is being implemented and that the residual impact is not bigger than was predicted in the EIA report. In Albania this is likely to be the responsibility of the organisations responsible for building or operational permit inspections, but however addressed it is important to recognise that monitoring is only as useful as the action taken in response to the results.

Monitoring conditions should therefore also specify what should be done with the results (e.g. they should be sent to the competent authority once a month) and what should be done if the impact turns out to be greater than predicted. An alternative approach to establishing specific conditions is to require the developer to establish Environmental Management System, which offers a more structured and comprehensive means of managing the environmental impact of the development. EMS will list all the legal and other environmental requirements, including the consent conditions, and establish responsibilities and procedures for ensuring their implementation, monitoring, reporting, the audit and the review. The international standard for Environmental Management Systems ISO1400112 and the EU EMAS Directive13 both provide a useful basis for the establishment

12

International Standardisation Organisation; ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems.


85

of such systems. Some key aspects of the good practice in the environmental management are summarised below.

Good practice in environmental management

Good practice in the environmental management involves the development of explicit policies, plans and procedures for identifying and managing the environmental impacts of an activity, allocating specific responsibilities for action, ensuring the staff know what to do and are competent to do what is required, establishing monitoring and response systems, and auditing the system.

A comprehensive management system will include procedures to ensure that mitigation measures incorporated into the project design are properly implemented and that the project is operated in ways that control its impacts. Operational controls may include:

systems for controlling activities (e.g. operating procedures and instructions);

systems for monitoring the effects of the project and associated response mechanisms;

systems for managing information and communications (record-keeping, internal and external

communications, etc.).

External communications can be valuable adjuncts to the mitigation and can include:

· provision of information about the project’s performance to stakeholders;

· establishment of local liaison groups;

· establishment of procedures for dealing with complaints.

In general the more complex the project, the more useful this is likely to be for both the developer and the competent authority and many EIA reports for major projects now offer a commitment to adoption of the certified EMS as a part of the mitigation proposal.

13

Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in aCommunity eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). This regulation was published in the Official Journal L 114.1 24 April 2001.


86

Environmental component Major potential negative impacts Proposed mitigation

Use of space (in relation to zoning plans)

Lack of harmonization Harmonise the project with relevant physical plans.

Use of other resources (renewable and non-renewable)

Excessive use of resources that are rare in a certain area or globally (raw materials, energy), especially in relation to positive effects of the project

a) Technical alternatives; b) Alternative location in which a resource in question is less rare or valuable; c) Reduce the project size/capacity

Generation of all types and categories of waste

a) Generation of construction waste during project construction; b) Generation of industrial (especially hazardous) waste during project operation; c) Lack of facilities for proper waste management in the immediate project surrounding; d) Generation of potentially hazardous construction waste during project decommissioning

a) Define disposal sites and/or construction waste management methods in advance; b) Conduct frequent and controlled municipal and industrial waste management actions in line with regulations, or ban all temporary and permanent disposal of such wastes in the surrounding area and set up impermeable waste containers; c) Develop a waste management plan if waste quantities are substantial or would exceed the capacities of existing waste management infrastructure on site

Generation of environmental emissions as defined by the IPPC Directive

Excessive environmental emissions of any type a) BAT; b) Reducing the project size/capacity

Water (inland surface water, groundwater)

a) Pollution of surface water and groundwater during project construction; b) Point source discharges of wastewater into the recipient during operation; c) Surface (diffuse) water pollution

a) Vehicle and machinery parking areas should be made waterproof, while precipitation should be treated in separators prior to discharging into the ground b) prior to discharging into the recipient, the waste water should be treated to a degree corresponding to the water quality category of the recipient. all wastewater treatment units should be regularly controlled and properly maintained; c) Apply BAT in order to reduce diffuse pollution or, alternatively, reduce the project size

Marine environment a) Eutrophication; b)Threats to protected areas (Posidonia) ; c) Preventing sea circulation; d) Introduction of non-native species; e) Threats to navigation safety

a) If the risk of sea eutrophication existed before the start of the project , an alternative project location should be selected; b) An alternative project location should be selected, where protected species and areas would not be endangered; c) Change the project geometry/ technical design/proportions in the way that would ensure satisfactory sea circulation;


87


d) Apply BAT to reduce threats to native species likely to arise by introducing non-native species; e) Apply the prescribed method of project area marking; alternatively, select a more appropriate location or reduce the project size.

Soil and agriculture land (occupied by the project) Agriculture activity

a) Occupied land surface; b) Land use change; c) Emission of harmful substances into the soil; d) Erosion; e) Fragmentation

a) Avoid the use of areas with high-quality soil for project development purposes; b)During earthworks, dispose of the humus layer in the fashion that allows for its later use in the landscaping of slopes and green buffers for roads, or for other purposes in line with the regulations; c) Ensure that soil in the predicted impact zones (especially the high-quality agricultural soil) is adequately protected against solid particle emissions, by setting up vegetation buffer zones; d) If a major risk of soil erosion by action of water has been established, take adequate measures to prevent it; e) Provide for adequate access to substitute roads or paths from every plot (or the parts thereof, created after the project) or, alternatively, buy off entire plots in order to consolidate the land or change its use, and thus prevent creation of waste dumps.

Flora and vegetation a) Habitat loss; b) Changes in floral composition of communities and reduced populations of plant species; c) Threats to protected plant species; d) Introduction of non-native species

a) Dispose of excess waste material on landfills, instead of "levelling" it with the terrain; b) Avoid vulnerable and rare habitats and species.

Fauna a) Habitat loss and/or destruction (including speleological ones); b) Intersecting of migratory routes; c) Obstruction of communication among individuals within the same population; d) Threats to protected animal species; e) Road kills

a) During construction of facilities, carefully define the machinery movement routes, in order to minimise habitat destruction; b) Preserve the existing wildlife migration corridors by constructing tunnels, large viaducts (compliant with certain requirements) or specific facilities (wildlife crossings), as well as by setting up adequate smaller structures for small animals (including amphibians); c) The works involving construction of cuttings larger than 10m and/or tunnels should be monitored by a biospeleologist; d) In the case of coming across certain underground structures, the project


88


works should be suspended until a team of biospeleologists has determined the situation on site and defined the necessary protection measures for underground fauna and habitats; e) It is necessary to ensure permanent monitoring of underground fauna and habitats (deemed significant by biospeleologists) that have been discovered during construction of cuttings and/or tunnels, both during the road construction and the road operation; f) Regularly control the buffer zone, especially at tunnel and viaduct exit points.

Forests and forestry(occupied surface, accessibility)

a) Occupied land surface; b) Forest fire hazards: c) Wood margin

a) During project design, plan for adequate tending of slopes, to prevent uprooting of stands at newly created edges and soil sliding; b) During construction, avoid damage to border strips of stands and their roots, by careful handling and adherence to prescribed construction measures and procedures; c) Immediately after opening of a forest strip, establish and maintain the forest order, i.e. remove stumps, and log and haul all felled timber. Ensure that all damaged stands and broken trunks are cut down and logged, so they wouldn't get infested; d) Special attention during construction should be paid to handling of highly flammable materials and naked flames, while complying with all relevant fire fighting regulations and procedures.

Game and hunting a) Habitat fregmentation; b) Intersecting of migratory routes; c) Game disturbances; d) Loss of productive hunting ground

a) Protect the land area against unnecessary and uncontrolled entries and movements in the hunting ground, by designating specific corridors and forest paths for humans and vehicles; b) In cooperation with hunting-ground users, relocate or replace the existing hunting management facilities (feeding and watering sites, shooting stands)

Noise and vibrations Increased noise and vibration levels a) Reduce noise and vibration levels at source by applying the best available techniques (BAT). b) Ensure adequate distance between the project and the vulnerable facilities, in order to maintain the noise and vibration levels within the acceptable limits. c) Should it be impossible to maintain a big enough distance, use the noise barriers.


89


d) If the barriers of adequate dimensions are not sufficient to decrease the noise levels, use noise protection instruments in the place of emission (double-glazed windows etc.) or make arrangements with the owner(s) of noise-affected structures.

(Local) air quality a) Increased air concentrations of harmful substances; b) Increased air concentrationas of suspended particles

a) Reduce air emissions of pollutants at source by applying best available techniques (BAT); b) Ensure big enough distance between the project and the vulnerable facilities, in order to maintain the emission levels within the acceptable limits, taking into account the existing emission levels as well (no-project situation); c) Should it be impossible to maintain a big enough distance, limit the production capacity or move the project to another location.

(Global) air quality Emissions of CO2 and ozone killers (tentatively SO2 and Nox) a) At the strategic level (SEA), define the ways to reduce emissions of globally active components (alternative energy sources, alternative technological processes in industry) and apply them in concrete cases if possible. b) Reduce air emissions of pollutants at source by applying best available techniques (BAT).

Population (health aspects) Cumulative effects of several harmful impacts which, individually, do not exceed the limit values, but it is reasonable to expect that the sum of such individual impacts is likely to cause a negative impact

a) Should the toxicological analyses indicate an actual risk of harmful cumulative effects, modify the project to avoid that cumulative effect or, alternatively, reject the project; b) Alternatively, limit the project capacity, if it can be reasonably expected that this would prevent creation of negative cumulative effects; c) Alternatively, at the strategic level, consider possibilities of reducing emissions of another dominant source, if feasible

Bilogical diversity Reduced biodiversity, as a result of: a) destruction and fragmentation of surface and underground habitats; b) intersections in migration corridors, i.e. creating barriers to the free flow of genes; c) water pollution; d) road kills; e) changes in floral composition of communities and reduction in plant species populations.

a) Avoid contact with vulnerable and rare habitats and species; b) Prior to the project start it is necessary to determine migration corridors of certain animal taxa; c) Preserve the existing wildlife migration corridors by constructing tunnels and viaducts compliant with the prescribed requirements, and artificial tunnels - wildlife crossings and passages for small animals (including amphibians and reptiles); d) During construction of facilities, carefully define the machinery movement routes, in order to minimise habitat destruction;


90


e) The works involving construction of tunnels and cuttings larger than 10m should be monitored by a biospeleologist; f) In the case of coming across certain underground structures, the project works should be suspended until a team of biospeleologists has determined the situation on site and defined the necessary protection measures for underground fauna and habitats; g) If necessary, use an enclosed discharge system for polluted water; h) Regularly control the buffer zones, especially at viaduct and tunnel exit points.

Landscape a) Uneven and environmentally disproportionate urban sprawl; b) Large infrastructure projects; c) Waterworks projects; d) Construction and changes in valuable landscapes; e) Visual changes of the area.

a) Prior to the project's conceptual design phase, develop inventories and undertake evaluation of landscapes for the areas for which no landscape management documentation has been developed; b) Avoid siting of projects in valuable landscapes; c) In the design phase, take due care that the construction components (materials, shapes etc.) are harmonised with the landscape characteristics/features; d) During the main project development phase, develop a corresponding landscaping project, taking due care of the basic features of the surroundings; e) In landscaping, use only those plant species that are native to the vegetation communities found in the larger project area; f) In the planning and designing phases, adhere to the landscape management regulations and measures anticipated in the zoning plans.

Protected natural heritage (incl. land occupancy)

Threats to protected areas and taxonomic groups a) Given the ecological vulnerability of protected areas, should the project threaten their basic phenomena, it is necessary to relocate it outside boundaries of the protected area in question, at least by a distance equal to that of the estimated project impact zone.

Protected cultural heritage a) Destruction of physical objects; b) Disturbance of the overall cultural heritage integrity

a) Route relocation; b) Relocation of a cultural heritage structure; c) In situ protection of the cultural heritage structure; d) Research and documenting of the cultural heritage structures; e) Supervision by experts.

Socio-economic relations and a) Exploitation of resources that are important for the local a) Harmonise the project approach with the existing economic capacities and


91


economy economy (land, aquatic environment, drinking water, energy, mineral reserves); b) Engagement of workforce, including the extra workers brought in from outside of the location and the related effects thereof; c) Excessive pressure on the existing municipal infrastructure (roads, waste disposal, wastewater discharge, water supply); d) Reduced availability of existing facilities due to impacts on air quality, noise levels and landscape

technologies; b) Expand the infrastructure capacities at the expense of the project and above the level of utility charges, if justified; - c) One-off, interim or permanent compensation to commercial entities affected by the project; d) Other protection measures, depending on the project specifics.

Safety in emergency situations

Environmental effects of various accidents, depending on the project type

Develop an operative plan of action for emergency cases, harmonised with the local/regional emergency plan.


92

ANNEX 6 - DEALING WITH HAZARDS AND OTHER ‘ABNORMAL EVENTS’ IN EIA

KEY MESSAGES FROM THIS CHAPTER 1. It is good practice to consider the risks to the environment and to human health

arising from accidents and other abnormal events in at least a qualitative manner within EIA.

2. Risk Assessments should start at a simple level and can become more sophisticated, subject to the nature and complexity of the risks under assessment.

3. A number of essential activities are involved in the Risk Assessment. These fall into five main steps: Hazard Identification; Hazard Analysis; Consequence Analysis; Risk Determination, and; Evaluation and Mitigation.

4. The ALARP principle specifies the level, usually known as the maximum tolerable criterion, above which the risk is regarded as intolerable. Below this level, risks should be made ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ (ALARP). This principle can be applied to evaluation and mitigation of risks.

INTRODUCTION

Impact prediction in EIA generally deals with uncertainties relating to impacts that are relatively certain to occur – they are the consequences of routine operations of the project. However, there is always a risk that an ‘abnormal’ event can cause severe environmental problems during the life cycle of a project.

Identification of hazards requires the systematic examination of all elements in the project’s design and their interactions with people and the environment to determine how harm (to health or to the environment) might arise. Examples include:

natural hazards such as land instability, flooding and earthquakes;

failure of engineered structures under stress such as dams;

malfunctioning of plants and equipment, causing accidental release of toxic, inflammable or explosive chemicals;

spills or accidental releases of substances such as oil.

A hazard can be defined as a property or situation that in particular circumstances could lead to harm. The level of risk is calculated by combining the probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence. Whilst the EIA Directive does not explicitly refer to risk as part of the scope of EIA, it is good practice for EIS to describe the environmental and human health risks arising from projects where these are significant. This would typically be the case for projects which are subject to the provisions of the Seveso II Directive which applies to large installations using dangerous substances, and to projects in areas subject to a level of natural hazard risks, warranting special policies and measures (e.g. in flood or earthquake protection zones). These projects may be subject to a separate Quantitative Risk Assessment and the results of this should be summarised in the EIS. Where a formal QRA has not been conducted, it may still be appropriate to provide a qualitative discussion of risks in EIA. This Annex deals with methods for assessing the risk from abnormal events and accidents14.

14A useful general guide to risk management is available from the Institute of Environmental Management and

Assessment; IEMA; "Risk Management for the Environmental Practitioner”; Lincoln UK May 2006 (www.iema.net)


93

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk Assessment (RA) is the scientific method of determining uncertainty about future events of this type. Techniques can be either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative techniques are generally used to assess simpler systems where the consequences of events are less severe. Quantitative risk assessment is used for more complex systems and for hazards that can lead to severe consequences such as death of people (fatalities).

Risk assessment addresses three basic questions:

1. What can go wrong? 2. How often will it happen? 3. What are the consequences for people and the environment? 4. Combines the answers into measures of risk.

Assessments should start at a simple level and can become more sophisticated, depending on the nature and complexity of the risk and the needs of the decision-maker (in risk management this is known as a ‘tiered approach’). Using a tiered approach should ensure that the resources applied to risk assessment are proportionate to the risk.

A number of essential activities are involved in risk assessment. These fall into five main steps:

hazard identification;

hazard analysis;

consequence analysis;

risk determination;

evaluation and mitigation.

This section gives an overview of these steps.

Step 1: Hazard identification

This step includes the identification of any hazardous materials or hazardous events that may be associated with the project. One common pitfall in establishing potential hazards is to overlook secondary hazards that may arise. For example, during a river flood, sediments may be deposited on agricultural land in the flood plain. If these sediments were to be contaminated, they may pose a hazard to crops grown on the land after the flood as well as the hazard to people and property arising from the flood itself. It is important that the full range of potential hazards is identified initially, even if it is to clarify why some potential hazards are rejected as not requiring further assessment.

Step 2: Hazard analysis

This is the estimation of the frequency or probability of occurrence of the hazardous incident that could cause harm. This entails:

specifying the sequence of events that could lead to occurrence of the hazardous incident by either fault or event tree analysis;

quantifying the likelihood of the incident.

Fault tree analysis begins with the incident that causes the effect on people of the environment (e.g. the fire or spill) and works back through the failures or events that could have led to it. Event tree analysis works from the starting events through to the incidents that could harm people and the environment. Both can be used to provide a graphical representation of the relationships between specific events and the ultimate undesired incident (sometimes referred to as the ‘top event’). For example, if the hazardous incident is a large fire then the precursor events may be a leaking valve


94

leading to a large spill of flammable liquid and an electrical spark. Event and fault tree analyses are sufficiently general to allow incorporation of both qualitative and quantitative estimates offailure probabilities.

Hazard and Operability Studies (HazOps) are a particular approach to event tree analysis often used in studies of major hazard installations. The HazOps approach is to examine small segments of the process, plant or operation in a systematic manner to identify all credible accident scenarios. Detailed design information, operating characteristics and historical data on failure frequenciesfrom similar plants or equipment are used to carry out the analysis. Once the various initiating events have been identified, event trees are traced through to hazardous incidents affecting people or the environment and their probability of occurrence is quantified if possible. The source of each item of data used in the calculations must be referenced to provide an indication of reliability.

Step 3: Consequence analysis

This stage in the process involves predicting the consequences for people and the environment (the impacts) that may arise from a given hazard. It can be broken into three main stages as follows:

defining possible consequences or impacts of the hazard, including the sequence of events from hazardous incident to impact;

predicting the magnitude of the potential consequences;

estimating the probability of the consequence occurring.

Examining the impacts/ consequences

It is important that the full range of possible consequences is considered at this stage. Some consequences are clearly linked to the particular hazard being analysed, such as the wildlife and human health impacts of discharging toxic chemicals into a watercourse. Others are less obvious, such as pollution arising from a flood that has caused a sewerage system to overflow.

Examination of the sequence of events from the hazardous incident to the impact will vary in complexity, depending on the nature of the hazard being considered. For example, it is relatively simple to analyse the impacts on human health of an explosion of a known quantity of chemicals. The explosion will release energy that can be expressed in terms of an equivalent explosion of TNT(the source term). The associated pressure wave that moves out radially from the explosion will impact certain targets in the vicinity. Conversely, it is more difficult to analyse the impacts of the release of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, as it will involve the consideration of possible meteorological conditions, affecting dispersion.

Predicting the magnitude of the consequences

Predicting the magnitude of consequences will also vary in complexity depending on the hazardous event being assessed. Several key features should be considered at this stage:

The spatial scale of the consequences. The geographical scale of harm resulting from an environmental impact will often extend considerably beyond the boundaries of the source of the hazard. It is important that the risk assessment is not too limited in this respect.

The temporal scale of the consequences. It is important to consider the duration of an impact as it could cause damage that extends far into the future. For example, the potential consequences of a major oil spill affecting beaches could have long-term impacts on the tourism industry in the area; a solvent spilling on permeable ground may result in an impact on the underlying aquifer many years later.

For quantitative assessments, robust and long-term modelling, using tools similar to those used in conventional impact prediction, can be used to forecast and quantify the degree, time-scale and


95

extent of the environmental impact.

Estimating the probability of the consequences

The purpose of this step is to assess the likelihood of the consequences occurring and consists of three components: the probability of the hazardous incident occurring, the probability of the receptors being exposed to the hazard and the probability of harm resulting from exposure to the hazard. ‘Event trees’ similar to those used to relate initiating events to hazardous incidents, as described above, can be used to undertake the analysis.

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the hazardous incident, assigning probabilities may be relatively straight forward or may require a more sophisticated approach. For example, at a screening level, it may be sufficient to grade probability of a scale of 1 – 5 on the basis of expert experience. In other situations it may be necessary to assign a probability distribution as opposed to a discrete value to the likelihood of the event occurring. For example, the probability of human harm due to ingestion of a non-volatile carcinogenic soil contaminant will depend on the level of soil contamination and the amount of soil consumed and there may be uncertainty or variability in these values. Monte Carlo simulation can be used to determine the impact probabilistically (see Annex 7). A method for determining and presenting the probability of exposure of receptors to an oil spill is illustrated in the example below.

Determining probability of exposure of receptors to an oil spill

The Probability of Exposure of each identified resource (e.g. bird nesting area, tourist amenity etc.) is calculated by multiplying the Probability of Surface Oiling for the relevant location bythe Spill Probability for each scenario, and then summing the results for each resource across all scenarios.

Where:

PE = overall Probability of Exposure

Pe= probability of surface oiling under Scenario n

Ps = probability of a spill reaching a resource for Scenario n

Expert judgement should be used to estimate into which probability envelope mobile/moveable resources should be placed. The judgement must be conservative to ensurethat worst case scenarios are covered. This will mean that the resource will typically be assessed as being located in the highest Probability of Exposure band that it passes through. An example of the output from this step is shown below. Example Calculation of the Probability of Exposure for one Resource

Step 4: Risk determination

Once the probability and magnitude of the consequences that may arise as a result of the hazardous incident have been determined, it is important that they are placed in context (evaluated). This stage usually entails using judgement to assign significance to the potential risks, usually through reference to a pre-existing measure, standard or threshold.

The following factors should be considered when determining if a risk is significant:

the likelihood (probability and/or frequency) of occurrence of the impact;

the severity of the impact in terms of for example: o environment: e.g. geographic extent, reversibility; o health and safety: e.g. severity of injuries; number of injuries;


96

o public implications: e.g. damage to public image and reputation; loss of stakeholder confidence; regulatory penalty.

Evaluation of environmental and human health risks as a consequence of new projects is usually done using an impact or consequence analysis ranking or screening system which considers the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the impact.

Step 5: Evaluation and mitigation

This stage of the process involves evaluating the acceptability or tolerability of the risks identified, and where risks are not acceptable identifying appropriate mitigation measures.

In essence, the theory of tolerability of risk is based on the simple fact that risk is tolerated in proportion to the benefits gained. Whenever we do something that involves taking a risk - even stepping off a pavement when there is traffic - we usually do so because we believe we can see some benefit that outweighs it. It is generally perceived that voluntary exposure to risk is more tolerable than involuntary exposure. When we choose to drive a car on a motorway, we are exposed to a risk of death in a traffic accident of 1 in 10,000 per annum. We are not, however, prepared to tolerate this level of risk of death due to an accident in a chemical plant near where we live because the risk is involuntary; it is imposed upon us.

The basic objective in mitigating risks is to make them ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ or ALARP. The ALARP principle originated in legislation on occupational health and safety and is the basis of the approach adopted by certain EU countries, such as the UK, in the regulation of major hazards in industry. A maximum tolerable level is defined as the criterion above which risk is regarded as intolerable whatever the benefits, and must be reduced. Below this level, the risks should be made ‘as low as reasonably practicable’. In deciding what risk reducing measures are reasonably practicable, the cost and benefit of the measures can be taken into account - the higher the risks, the more it is worth spending to reduce them. If the risks are low enough, it may not be worth spending anything, and the risks are then regarded as acceptable. This approach can be interpreted as dividing risks into three tiers, illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Levels of Risk and ALARP

The ALARP principles of risk reduction have been developed in relation to risks to human life, either to the life of an identified individual (individual risk) or to people in general (societal risk). When the ALARP principle is applied to environmental risks e.g. to ecosystems or historical features, it is important to understand the origin of intolerable and acceptable risk values. An annual risk ofone in a million is broadly the same as that of being electrocuted at home, or dying from background (natural) radiation. The lower tolerability limit can therefore be equated to the level of ‘natural hazard’ that most people experience in everyday life. Hence the risks associated with the project can be placed in context by reference to these levels of everyday risk.

If appropriate to the project being assessed, acceptability criteria can be developed using ALARP-derived individual and societal risk values, and used to evaluate the risks in terms of tolerability and determine appropriate mitigation measures.


97


98

ANNEX 7 - MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN EIA

INTRODUCTION

This Annex of the Manual discusses the importance of considering uncertainty in EIA. Uncertainty is important as it can affect the quality of information available to the decision-maker. There are two main ways in which uncertainty is relevant in EIA:

Uncertainty in prediction of impacts: Predictions are by their nature uncertain as they deal with the future. Uncertainty is mainly due to our lack of knowledge about how the project and the environment will behave in future. So for example, the effect of project emissions on air quality will depend crucially on the exact position, flow rate, temperature and composition of emissions and on future weather conditions and all of these are uncertain. But uncertainty can also arise because our knowledge of the baseline environment is only ever based on sampling, and the methods we use to predict impacts (models etc) are always a simplification of the real world. There may also, of course, be errors in the data and in the application of the methods but hopefully these can be avoided by careful checks.

Uncertainty about the occurrence of ‘abnormal events’ during project implementation

Unforeseen hazards may cause risks to human health or the environment:

either from malfunctioning of plants and equipment, taking place within the project and causing accidents such as fires, spills or explosions;

or caused by natural hazards such as land instability and flooding.

Annex 6 deals with methods for assessing the risk from abnormal events and accidents.

Various methods can be employed to manage the uncertainty in prediction and these are discussed in Annex 7.

KEY MESSAGES FROM THIS CHAPTER 1. Two types of uncertainty may need to be addressed in EIA: uncertainties in

prediction of impacts and uncertainties concerned with abnormal events associated with the project (accidents and natural hazards).

2. The process of prediction comprises a number of stages, including the decision on how to describe an impact, the data collection, relating to the project and the environment, and the selection and application of the prediction method. Uncertainty can be introduced at any of these stages.

3. Managing uncertainty in prediction should include (i) assessing and clearly stating the level of uncertainty and (ii) reducing the uncertainty to a level that is acceptable for decision-making, using appropriate tools.

4. It is important not to try to collect more data or to use the method that is more accurate than is needed to make an adequate prediction. The ‘adequate’ prediction is one that allows the evaluation judgement to be made about significance and provides the decision-maker and other stakeholders with enough information for them to make their own judgements.

5. Methods should always be as simple as possible. Do not use the method that is more complex, and therefore costly and time-consuming, than is necessary to obtain a reasonable prediction of the impact.


99

UNCERTAINTY IN PREDICTION OF IMPACTS

The process of prediction comprises a number of stages, including the decision on how to describe the impact, the data collection, relating to the project and the environment, and the selection and application of the predictive method. Uncertainty can be introduced at any of these stages.

Description of the impact

There are a number of criteria for making the decision about how to describe an impact. These include:

the nature of the impact itself, e.g. location and extent, timing and other relevant characteristics;

the type of standards or other criteria against which the predictions will be evaluated;

the availability and feasibility of methods for making different types of predictions (averages/peaks, short/long term, near/far, etc.).

The decision to describe the impact using one measure rather than another may lead to a different conclusion about the impact. For example, the predicted annual average pollutant concentration may be within the legal limit, but the maximum concentration could be sufficient to cause significant damage. Because of this, there will always be a degree of uncertainty about whether the way in which an impact has been described has affected the decision about its significance.

Data collection

There will always be uncertainties in the data required to make predictions. This can be in the data about the activity itself; for example, how much waste will be disposed of at the proposed site? What is its chemical composition? It can also relate to the baseline environment that will be affected: what is the local population of an affected species? What proportion of the regional of national population does this comprise? What pathways are available for pollutant dispersion? What are the local dispersion conditions in air, soils or water? How many people live within view of the site?

The data are subject to two types of uncertainty:

Inaccuracy in measurement and sampling – the precision of the instrument, the technique and the user as well as the frequency of sampling or sample size;

Natural and inevitable variability in the environment – for example, average weather

conditions will vary through the year and between years; river flows and soil moisture levels

will vary over time, as will populations and productivity of species; the different genetic

make-up of individuals in a population of micro-organisms will result in a variability of their

response to soil pollution.

Selection and application of the prediction method

All prediction methods, whether using scientific modelling or expert judgement, involve some model of the environment: mathematical, physical, experimental or conceptual (verbal/ mental). Uncertainties arise because none of these models can exactly represent what will happen in the real environment. The model is only ever an approximation of the real world and its outputs can never provide a totally accurate and precise representation of what will happen.

Approaches for Managing Uncertainty in Prediction

Managing uncertainty in prediction has two components: assessing and clearly stating the level of uncertainty, and reducing the uncertainty to a level that is acceptable for decision-making.


100

Assessing the level of uncertainty

Where possible, assumptions underpinning the prediction of impacts, and our confidence in predictions should be clearly stated. Where there is a significant level of uncertainty, predictions should always be expressed as ranges either qualitatively (e.g. lowest to highest and most likely values) or statistically (e.g. 95% confidence limits). For example, statistical analysis may indicate that the 95% confidence interval for the noise associated with a new industrial project is 65 – 70 dBA. This means that there is a 95% probability that the actual noise level will be within this noise range. There are various statistical methods that can be used to define the level of uncertainty in predictions and where there is considerable uncertainty, it may be appropriate to use these. An example is Monte Carlo analysis, where ranges of values are specified for input variables (e.g. means and standard deviations, or full probability distributions) and these yield similar ranges in values for outputs.

Monte-Carlo Analysis is a computational simulation technique that can be applied to any system that has variables with uncertainties. The simulation investigates the effect of those uncertainties on the final outcome by using probabilities analysis, fluctuating each variable according to the distribution and limits of its uncertainty (e.g. the average effluent flow rate might be normally distributed around 1.6m3/hr but not less than 1.2m3/hr and not greater than 2m3/hr). Many repeat calculations are carried out using values for input variables randomly selected according to their distribution and the final outcomes are logged. The process may be repeated hundreds of thousands of times, to produce a histogram of the results. This histogram provides the total spread of possible outcomes and an indication of the probability of occurrence of the best, worst and most likely outcomes.

Reducing the level of uncertainty

Uncertainty can be reduced by improving the quality of input data, either by increasing the sample size or using a more accurate measurement method, or by using a more accurate prediction method such as a more sophisticated model. It is important, however, not to try to collect more data or to use a method which is more accurate than is needed to make an adequate prediction. The ‘adequate’ prediction is one that allows the evaluation judgement to be made about significance and provides the decision-maker and other stakeholders with enough information for them to make their own judgements. A great deal of time and money is often wasted in EIA, collecting huge amounts of data and using very sophisticated tools, when a simple method and a simple description of the impacts would be perfectly adequate. For many assessments qualitative approaches are suitable, for example asking an expert or extrapolating from experience elsewhere, and in these cases uncertainty can be managed by checking with another expert or using more than one comparison. Reducing uncertainty in these cases is more a case of ‘common sense’ than complex methodology.

When previous experience is used to predict the likely effects of a proposed development, the assessor should ensure that the other site or activity is reasonably comparable with the current proposal in terms of project design and the environment. If differences do exist, they must be taken into consideration when interpreting the predicted impacts.

If expert judgement is used, the expert selected should be as unbiased as possible. If bias or controversy is unavoidable, views should be sought from other experts and any differences in opinion clearly stated to the decision-maker.

Sensitivity Analysis

Where there is uncertainty, sensitivity analysis can be a useful tool. Formal sensitivity analysis is an analytical method used to assess the consistency of relationships between variables: in simple terms, how much does x increase if y increases. A factor called the partial derivative calculated for each input is known as the sensitivity coefficient. Inputs with the highest sensitivity coefficient have


101

the greatest influence on uncertainty in outputs.

In its simpler form sensitivity analysis involves asking “what if” questions. “What would happen to the air quality impact if weather conditions became progressively hotter over time?” “What would happen to the fishery if development upstream caused river levels to decline?” “What would happen to waste generation if the factory production increased?” This type of analysis can be used to test how the outcome might vary under different future scenarios and how sensitive the impact is to uncertainty about the future. If the result is very sensitive, then it may be necessary to do further work to reduce the uncertainty or to impose limits on the project to prevent the impact becoming too high, e.g. by imposing consent conditions limiting production levels. The technique allows resources to be focused on the key variables affecting uncertainty so that the overall uncertainty of the final result is reduced. The method also promotes a better understanding of the workings of the system and the importance of the variables that are driving the result.


102

8 ANNEX 8 – EIA APPLICATION FORMAT


103

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY

No. _____Prot. Date________

Environmental Impact Assessment

Application

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY

Application ID Number _____________

1. Name of developer:

Legal Person__________________________________________________________ (Company, Address) Natural Person___________________________________________________________ (Name, Surname, Address)

1. Project:___________________________________________________________ Title of project proposal referred to the annexes I and II of the Law No. 10440, dated 7.7.

2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment”

2. Location__________________________________________________________ Qark/Municipality/Comune________________________________________________ Name, title of authorized person ___________________________________________ (Signature, Official stamp) Date __________________ Administrative fee paid on (date) ________________


104

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Application Format should be completed by the developer for obtaining an environmental approval for new development projects, assessed to minimize or avoid potential environmental impacts. In case the information provided by the developer is considered inadequate or not in compliance with this Application Format and the relevant EIA legislation, National Environmental Agency (NEA) may require additional information. For further information, reference should be done to the following:

Law No. 10431, dated 9.6.2011 “On Environmental Protection

Law No. 10440, dated 7.7. 2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment”

DCM No. 13, dated 04.01.2013 "On rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the

development of environment impact assessment procedure"


105

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 Information on the developer

Natural/Legal Person

Authorized representative/Contact person Name and Surname

Position in the company

Address

Telephone

Fax

E-mail

1.2 Information on the EIA expert

EIA expert/s that have prepared the EIA Report: Name and Surname

Address

Tel

Fax

E-mail

Number and date of issued Certificate of Expert/s

Natural/Legal Person licensed from the National Licensing Centre for the activity III.2.A

1.3 Information on Project

Project title

Note: Please include the project/activity name (as officially registered) in case any change or extension of a project listed in Annex I or Annex II of the EIA Law, already authorized, executed or in the process of being

executed, which may have significant negative effects on the environment

Location/Address of the designated project

Coordinates of the site According to GAUSS KRÜGER: 1942_GK_ZONE_4, accompanied by a georeferenced topographic


106

map

1.4 Obtained permits

List consents/permits obtained, if any in case any change or extension of a project listed in Annex I

or II of the EIA Law, already authorized, which may have significant negative effects on the

environment, projects executed or in the process of being executed

Consent/Permit

Ref No. Date of Issuance Period of validity

Note: Include all permits, licenses attched to this Application Format

1.5 Land ownership

Name and address of the owner/s of land where the project activities are/will be carried out (if different than the developer) in case any change or extension of a project listed in Annex I or Annex II of the EIA Law, already authorized, executed/in the process of being executed, which may have significant negative effects on the environment

Name and Surname of the of owner:

Data on land ownership/lease contract according to the document released by Immovable Property Registration Office

Note: Include a copy of the leasing contract attched to this Application Format

1.6 Facility/activity ownership

Name and address of owner of project/facility in which the activity is carried out, in case any change or extension of a project listed in Annex I or Annex II of the EIA Law, already authorized, executed/in the process of being executed, which may have significant negative effects on the environment, as well as the information on contract of lease if the developer is not the owner

Name and surname

Address

Contract information (Leaser/borrower, term of contract, ways of termination, period of validity)

Note: Include all permits, licenses attched to this Application Format


107

2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS

2.1 Information on the proposed projects

Describe briefly the proposed project in the respective tables below and indicate the location of the detailed information in the Technical Project (Chapter, Page, Annex) as per respective Note of each table below:

The purpose of the proposed project

List the activities applied for: 1. 2. 3……

List the alternatives taken into consideration, project alternatives and their associated environmental impacts during project planning, including “Do Nothing” option

Note: Provide in the Technical Project information about the considered alternatives during project planning in terms of the selection of project sites and technology to be used explaining the reasons why it is chosen the selected proposal, including any environmental reasons

The location of the project

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the location of the project layout to reflect in the georeferenced

topographic map of the area of land required, the limits of the earth's surface required, and the data files for the

existing use of the land area to be used temporarily or permanently from the project during the construction phase

or operation of the project activity

Brief information on residential areas and distance from the proposed project area, reflected in a in a georeferenced topographic map

Note: Detailed information in the Technical Project on residential areas in the area where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompany with the distance from where proposed project, photos and local government unit (Municipality/ Commune) that manages territory the proposed project

Indicate in the Technical Project sketches and plans of the related project facilities and project structure

List the construction and technological processes


108

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the construction and technological processes involved, production capacity/processing, quantities of raw materials and final products of the project

List the infrastructure needed and/or existing

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the infrastructure necessary to connect to the electrical network, water supply, waste-water discharges and waste as well as information on existing roads or the need for new openings of access roads

Program for the construction

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the Program for the construction, the duration of the construction, the planned duration of the functioning of the project, appropriate time of termination of the functioning of the project and where appropriate planning phase of rehabilitation of area of the project after the termination of project operation

List the ways and methods to be used for construction of the project

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the ways and methods to be used for construction of the project

List the raw materials to be used for construction

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the raw materials to be used for construction and ways of securing them (building materials, water and energy)

List the potential project links with other existing projects close to the project area

Note: In case of potential project links with other existing projects surrounding/nearby the project area, provide information and describe in the Technical Project.

List the raw materials to be used during the operation

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the raw materials to be used during the operation, including the necessary quantities of water, electricity, fuel and manner of providing them

List the other activities that may be needed to implement the project


109

Note: Describe in the Technical Project the other activities that may be needed to implement the project, the construction of camps or residences, etc.

List the permits and licenses needed for the project, in compliance with the requirements of the legislation in force and the competent institutions for project license/consent

2.2 Information on the interaction of the project with the environment

Describe briefly the interaction of the project with the environment in the respective tables below and indicate the location of the detailed information in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report (Chapter, Page, Annex) as per respective Note of each table below:

List the plant coverage of the surface where the project is proposed to be implemented

Note: Detailed description in the EIA Report of the plant coverage of the surface where the project is proposed to be implemented, accompanied by images

Indicate the presence of surface water resources

Note: Provide detailed information in the EIA Report on the presence of surface water resources, in the surface required by the project and in its vicinity

List the potential negative impacts of the project on the environment

Note: Describe in the EIA Report the identified potential negative impacts of the project on the environment including impacts on biodiversity, water, soil and air

List the potential environmental emissions

Note: Describe in the EIA Report the potential environmental emissions such as waste water, gases and dust, noise and waste generation

Brief information on the likely duration of the identified negative impacts

Note: Provide detailed information in the EIA Report on the likely duration of the negative impacts identified

Brief information on the spatial extent of the potential negative impact on the environment

Note: Describe in the EIA Report the spatial extent of the potential negative impact on the environment, which means physical distance from the location of the project and the affected values contained in it

Brief information on the possibility of environmental remediation


110

Note: Describe in the EIA Report the possibility of environmental remediation and the possibility to return the affected environment to the previous situation, including the return of agricultural land (in the event that such use is existing) and approximate financial costs for rehabilitation

List the main possible measures to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts

Note: Describe in the EIA Report the possible measures to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts

Indicate if there is any potential transboundary environmental impact

Note: If there is any potential transboundary environmental impact (in case the project has this characteristic), describe in the EIA Report

2.3 Documents to be submitted together with this Application Format


Preliminary EIA report

A copy of the fee payment invoice according to the definitions in the relevant legislation


111

3 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IN CASE OF PROFOUND EIA

3.1 Issues to be Addressed in the Profound EIA

Please confirm in the table that the respective issues are addressed in the Profound EIA and indicate the location in the Profound EIA Report (Chapter, Page, Annex):

Requirements, institutions, public and NGOs which need to be considered and addressed in the profound EIA Report

YES NO

A summary explanation for the requirements of the profound procedure of EIA, until the presentation of the application and issuance of Environmental Declaration

The right to information, consultation and obedience with the public and NGOs of the profound report of EIA and consideration of the opinions contained in the report before it is presented in the NLC

Analysis of at least two alternatives for the implementation of the project

Instructions for studies and methods for providing environmental information and forecasting environmental impacts during the design of profound report of the EIA

Guidelines for environmental protection measures that should be taken into consideration when drafting the profound f EIA Report

The Structure and order of information in the profound EIA report, in accordance with Annex II to the DCM No. 13, dated 04.01.2013 “On rules responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure"

Where the project is subject to transboundary EIA procedure, the appropriate instructions in this case

3.2 Documents to be Submitted with this Application Form (In case of profound EIA)

Profound EIA report in accordance with the requirements of Annex II DCM No. 13, dated 04.01.2013 “On rules responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure"

Non-technical summary of the EIA Report

Technical project

Information on the consultations with the public and other stakeholders conducted during the drafting of the profound EIA Report

A copy of the fee payment invoice according to the definitions in the relevant legislation


112

4 STATEMENT

STATEMENT

By signing this statement, in accordance with the provisions of the Law “On Environmental Protection”, Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment” and related secondary legislation, I hereby confirm that information given in this application is true, correct and complete. I have no objections to copying of applications for the purpose of public presentation to the extent of not being in conflict with the provisions of the legislation on personal data protection and commercial confidentiality. Name of the signatory: Position within organization: Signature: Date: _____________ (for the organization)

Stamp of Company/Developer


113

ANNEX 9 - FORMATS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION AND DECLARATION


114

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA


No. _____Prot. Date_____________

Decison ID Number _________________

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY EIA

Based on the Law No. 10440, dated 7.7.2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment” and DCM No. 13, dated 4.1.2013 “On rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure“, NEA at the end of preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure, For the project:______________________________________________________________ Title of the proposed project (reference in compliance with the article 8 and 11 of the EIA Law)

With developer: Legal Person_____________________________________________________________ (Company, Address) Natural Person____________________________________________________________ (Name, Surname, Address)

DECIDED

Approval of the preliminary EIA Refusal of the preliminary EIA The project should be subject to the profound EIA 1. The main reasons and considerations that underpin this decision:

a. ____________________________________________________________________ b. ____________________________________________________________________

2. Measures that should be undertaken in order to avoid, reduce or remedy potential

adverse impacts on the environment (in case of preliminary EIA approval):


115

a. ___________________________________________________________________ b. ___________________________________________________________________

This Decison is published at NEA’s website.

NEA GENERAL DIRECTOR (Name, Surname, Sign,Seal)


116

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA


No. ____Prot. Date_____________


DECISION

ON ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION

Based on the Law No. 10440, dated 7.7.2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment” and DCM No. 13, dated 4.1.2013 “On rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure“, NEA at the end of profound Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure for the, Project: ___________________________________________________________________ Title of the proposed project (reference in compliance with the article 9 and 12 of the EIA Law)

With developer: Legal Person_____________________________________________________________ (Company, Address) Natural Person____________________________________________________________ (Name, Surname, Address)

DECIDED

To suggest to the Minister the issuance of the Environmental Declaration with: Approval Refusal 1. The main reasons and considerations that underpin this decision:

(in case of approval) a. _____________________________________________________________________ b. _____________________________________________________________________


117

2. Confirmation for consideration of the opinions expressed by the public and relevant institutions, their degree of reflection and information on the public consultation carried out (in case of approval):

___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

3. Conditions that should be met by the developer to prevent, minimize and manage

adverse impacts on the environment and measures to be taken to avoid, reduce or remedy potential negative impacts on the environment (in case of approval):

a. ____________________________________________________________________ b. ____________________________________________________________________

4. Refusal of the application due to the adverse significant environmental impacts with long term effects, that harm the quality of environment and do not provide compliance with relevant environmental standards, as following:

a. ___________________________________________________________________ b. ___________________________________________________________________

5. Relevant arguments for the request refusal: __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

NEA GENERAL DIRECTOR (Name, Surname, Sign,Seal)


118

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

No. ___Prot. Date_____________


ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION

Based on the Law No. 10440, dated 7.7.2011 “On Environmental Impact Assessment” and DCM No. 13, dated 4.1.2013 “On rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the development of environment impact assessment procedure“, referred to the Decison of NEA No.___________, dated __________at the end of profound Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure, the Minister,

DECIDED

To suggest to the planning authority: Approval of the development permit/license Refusal of the request for development permit/license For the Project: _____________________________________________________________ Title of the proposed project (reference in compliance with the article 9 and 12 of the EIA Law)

With developer: Legal Person______________________________________________________________ (Company, Address) Natural Person____________________________________________________________ (Name, Surname, Address) 1. The main reasons and considerations that underpin this decision:

(in case of approval) a. ___________________________________________________________________


119

b. ___________________________________________________________________

2. Conditions that should be met by the developer to prevent, minimize and manage adverse impacts on the environment and measures to be taken to avoid, reduce or remedy potential negative impacts on the environment (in case of approval):

a. ___________________________________________________________________ b. ___________________________________________________________________

3. Refusal of the application for development permit/license due to the adverse significant environmental impacts with long term effects, that harm the quality of environment and do not provide compliance with relevant environmental standards. Relevant arguments for request refusal:

__________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MINISTER

( Name, Surname, Sign, Seal)


120

ANNEX 10–TERMINOLOGY

Term Definition

Article 6(3) on appropriate assessment

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires an appropriate assessment (also referred to as ‘Habitats Directive assessment’ or ‘Natura 2000 assessment’) to be carried out where any plans or projects that are not directly linked to the management of that site may have a significant effect on the conservation objectives and would ultimately affect the integrity of the site. Integrity can be defined as the ability of the site to fulfil its function to continue to support protected habitats or species. Annex I to the Habitats Directive includes a full list of protected habitats and Annex II of protected species.

Baseline A description of the present and future state if the project is not implemented, taking into

account changes resulting from natural events and other human activities.

Biodiversity ‘ The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine

and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’ (Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Biodiversity offsets Measurable project outcomes designed to compensate for significant residual adverse impacts

of development plans or projects on biodiversity, after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures are taken.

Climate change IPCC defines climate change as ‘... any change in climate over time, whether due to natural

variability or as a result of human activity.’ The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines it specifically in relation to human influence, as ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.

CO2 equivalent A metric measure used to compare emissions of various greenhouse gases (GHGs) based upon

their global warming potential (GWP). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as ‘million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCDE)’.

Cumulative effects The incremental effects of an action when added to the effects of past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Direct effects

Environmental effects directly caused by the preparation, construction or operation of a project in a particular location

Ecosystem services Ecosystems serve a number of basic functions that are essential for using the Earth’s resources sustainably. The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity (TEEB) study defines ecosystem services as: ‘the benefits people receive from ecosystems’. TEEB also sets out the basis of human dependence on the natural environment. The European-led study builds on the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which defined four categories of ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being:

• provisioning services e.g. wild foods, crops, fresh water and plant-derived medicines; • regulating services e.g. filtration of pollutants by wetlands, climate regulation through carbon storage and water cycling, pollination and protection from disasters; • cultural services e.g. recreation, spiritual and aesthetic values, education; • supporting services e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling. (TEEB, 2010)

EIA Directive Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on


121

the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [codification], OJ L 26, 28.1.2012. The EIA Directive requires Member States to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment because of their nature, size or location are subject to an assessment of their environmental effects, before development consent is given.

Greenhouse gas (GHG)

Any atmospheric gas (either natural or anthropogenic in origin) which absorbs thermal radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. This traps heat in the atmosphere and keeps the surface at a warmer temperature than would otherwise be possible.

Habitats Directive Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild

fauna and flora, as amended, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7.

Hazard Can be defined as a property or situation that in particular circumstances could lead to harm.

Mitigation (climate change)

A term used to describe the process of reducing GHG emissions that are contributing to climate change. It includes strategies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance GHG sinks.

Mitigation (EIA)

Measures to ‘prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment’. (EIA Directive)

Residual effects Effects that remain after mitigation action. Project for the purposes of EIA. Article 1(2) of the EIA Directive states that for the purposes of the

Directive ‘project’ means: - the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes, - other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving theextraction of mineral resources.

Risk

The probability that something will cause injury or harm.

Risk Assessment Risk Assessment (RA) is the scientific method of determining uncertainty about future events of this type. Techniques can be either qualitative or quantitative.

Scoping The process of determining the scope and level of detail of an EIA, including the environmental effects and alternatives which need to be considered, the assessment methods to be used, and the structure and contents of the environmental report.

Screening

The process of deciding whether a project requires an EIA.

SEA Directive

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p.30. The SEADirective requires that the environmental effects of a broad range of plans and programmes (PPs) are assessed and taken into account while PPs are still being developed. The public must be consulted on the draft PP and environmental assessment, and their views must be taken into account.

Significant effects

Effects that are significant in the context of the project, i.e. a function not just of magnitude or size of effect, but of the nature, sensitivity and scale of the receptor.