On May 23-24, the University of Wroclaw hosted the annual conference of the Environmental Law Network International – EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive – challenges and perspectives in the light of the past experiences and the recent proposal for amendment. Legal experts from EPL and many other organizations, including governmental bodies, throughout Europe and outside traveled to Poland for the event. The focus of the two-day conference was on proposals by the European Commission (the executive body of the European Union) to mend the procedures for conducting “environmental impact assessments” (or “EIAs”). EIAs are prepared before the construction of new projects and other forms of development. The purpose of EIAs is to allow both developers and government officials to understand the impacts of a project and to choose better alternatives when problems are found. One of the impediments of the current directive being triggered by the proposed amendments is the quality of EIA reports, which varies drastically within the Union.
John Bonine, the president of Environment-People-Law (EPL), made a presentation with a rather provocative title “Mythology, Deception, and Secrecy – How to Reform Some Unacceptable EIA Practices in Europe and Beyond”. He stated, “At present, when fraudulent documents about impacts to the environment are produced in connection with development projects, no effective legal controls exist to prevent such fraud”. During his presentation, EPL’s president provided examples from around the world, including Ukraine, in support of his argument.
One environmental document in Ukraine claimed that only “low emissions” would occur in the event of an accident at one of Ukraine’s nuclear plants — a surprising statement in a country still experiencing the effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 27 years ago.
Another document that supposedly analyzed the environmental effects of a possible medical waste incinerator actually contained pages written about such a project in Kyiv. “They didn’t even change the name from Kyiv to Lviv in the report,” said EPL lawyer Olha Melen-Zabramna.
Other examples provided by professor Bonine included environmental consultants in Poland removing negative environmental impacts from the reports of experts, fraudulent testing of pesticides and pharmaceutical products in the USA, and an expert in Romania denying that sensitive species of wildlife existed in the area of a proposed coal-fired power plant despite his own studies on such species in the area just a few years earlier.
In India, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for a proposed dam included 65 pages copied from an EIA about a previous dam project. “They didn’t even correct our spelling mistakes,” said one of the authors of the original EIA, when he looked at the later EIA. Similarly, an EIA for a bauxite mine in India talked about the birch forests, when no such trees exist in India. The pages had been copied from an EIA on a mining project in Russia.
Unfortunately, there are no effective legal sanctions to prevent such fraud, EPL’s president noted. He showed the example of the EIA law in Estonia, which provides that if an EIA consultant prepares false documents, the penalty in the law is simply 40 hours of training.
“Despite the problems that exist with some EIAs, it is a tool that can help protect our environment,” commented EPL lawyer Aleksyeyeva. “But unfortunately, Ukraine has recently eliminated the requirement for EIAs on most projects in Ukraine. Some of Ukraine’s environmental policies are moving backward to the middle of the previous century.”
Nevertheless, EPL is constantly working on promoting European standards on EIA in Ukraine by following new developments in the EU legislation, writing position papers, commenting on proposed legislation and educating relevant stakeholders.
For further information, please contact
President at EPL, Prof. John Bonine
Senior lawyer at EPL, Yelyzaveta Aleksyeyeva
