How does the revised EIA Directive affect quality control? In 2014 Directive 2014/52/EU amending EIA Directive 2011/92/EU was adopted. The revision of the Directive was required to be transposed into national legislation by 16 May 2017. The revision had several objectives: to strengthen the quality of the EIA, to align that procedure with the principles of smart regulation, and to enhance the coherence and synergies with other EU legislation and policies as well as with strategies and policies developed by Member States in areas of national competence. For the purpose of this article, I will focus on the amendments related to the first objective, how they have been implemented in Dutch legislation and ways in which this influences quality control in the Netherlands. Article 5(3)a of the Revised Directive states that the developer shall ensure that EIA reports are prepared by ‘competent experts’. For the transposition of this provision the Netherlands considered introducing a system for accreditation of these experts. However, this was not adopted, for various reasons – one being that it would make the EIA procedure too costly. Moreover, the legislator noted that in Dutch practice EIA reports are usually prepared by consultancy firms. As these consultants can be assumed to be sufficiently knowledgeable, the legislator decided that it was unnecessary to insert a specific provision relating to the competence of experts. Article 5(3)b obliges the competent authority to ensure ´that it has, or has access as necessary to, sufficient expertise´ to examine EIA reports. As this obligation is already covered in Dutch administrative law, the Dutch legislator referred to the appropriate codified principle (in article 3:2 of the General Act on Administrative Law) that obliges a competent authority to thoughtfully prepare its decisions. Nevertheless, the revision led to a slight change in Dutch law. The EMA now explicitly mentions the possibility of requesting review by the NCEA as a way of obtaining sufficient expertise. That option had always been available, but now it is explicitly stated. In practice, however, the costs of review by the NCEA seem to be a burden, especially for smaller municipalities. It is therefore questionable whether access to sufficient expertise is guaranteed in practice. Last but not least, article 9bis of the revised Directive introduced an article that is somewhat related to quality control. The article states that where the competent authority is also the developer, ´Member States shall at least implement, within their organisation of administrative competences, an appropriate separation between conflicting functions when performing the duties arising from this Directive´. In the Netherlands, this provision has been transposed almost verba14 The NCEA’s Views and Experiences 2018
17 Online Touch Home