Environmental Assessments in the EU’s environmental policy

Similarly, the SEA is required for plans and programmes that would require an assessment under Article 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive. With regard to the appropriate assessment under Articles 6 and 7 of the Habitats Directive referred to in point (b) of Article 3(2) of the SEA Directive, the CJEU has ruled in Case C-177/11 Syllogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai chorotakton, that the scope of those articles must be examined in order to determine the scope of Article 3(2)(b). Therefore, Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under the Habitats Directive, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.

Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive provides details of the derogatory regime from the general obligation to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is the result of new sustainable human development activities and to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or, where relevant, good ecological potential or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater. As the first step of the process to grant the exception, an applicability assessment is required. Its purpose is to assess how a proposed project is expected to affect the environmental objectives of the affected water bodies. If the project may cause deterioration / compromising the achievement of good status/potential, then it can only be authorised in case the conditions as outlined under Article 4(7) (a) to (d) are fulfilled.

There are several potentials for synergies and streamlining of assessments required under the EIA and the Water Framework Directive which may lead the Member States to establish an EIA procedure/approach investigating all requirements of Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive, even if the projects fall outside the scope of Annex I & II of the EIA Directive: 1) The assessment whether the project may lead to deterioration of the status/potential of a water body or relevant quality element might be part of the assessment of the factor water (EIA); 2) Data collection for the relevant assessments might be joint/coordinated; 2) Mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects might be mitigated jointly; 3) The project specific component of the assessment of better environmental options according to Article 4(7)(d) of the Water Framework Directive and Article 5(1)(d) and the EIA Directive; 4) Synergies in terms of consultation prior to a project’s approval by using the EIA process for public consultation.

There are also some differences: The level of detail in the EIA environmental report may be less than what would be required for assessments in relation to the Water Framework Directive Article 4(7). Furthermore, the EIA does not require (but also does not prevent) an assessment on quality element level but rather the likely significant impact of the project on water.

Whilst there is no specific requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering practicable steps to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the water body in the context of the Water Framework Directive, it is nonetheless recommended that good practice is applied and that all practicable measures that avoid, minimise or reduce effects at source are implemented before other, off site measures.