No abstract

No abstract

This study analysed 40 planning applications in the East of England to investigate the practice of translating paper recommendations in the environmental statement (ES) into legal conditions and obligations. A high proportion (50%) of suggested mitigation measures were not translated into planning conditions or obligations. However, a significant number of additional conditions or obligations, not directly based on the ES, were imposed on developers. The research suggests a mismatch between the practice of those producing ESs and the expectations of planning authorities, leading to inefficiency and, possibly, emasculation of environmental impact assessment through a failure to implement mitigation. Several recommendations are made to increase the effectiveness of the implementation and integration of mitigation measures.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation was first adopted in Greece in 1979. In the intervening 23 years, competent authorities, practitioners, and developers have gained considerable experience in the practice of EIA. A previous research study conducted for the European Commission indicated, on the basis of the quality of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) produced, that overall the nation's EIA system was performing satisfactorily. This research builds on the previous study by examining a considerably larger sample (72) of EISs produced for a diverse range of project types. Only 40% of EISs sampled were found to be of a satisfactory quality (compared to 75% in the previous study). An assessment of the performance of different elements of the EIA process indicates that descriptive tasks are, on average, performed better than scientific tasks. Consultation with stakeholder groups and their participation appears to be particularly problematic. Variables that influence the quality of EISs are identified and a number of broad recommendations are made for improving the effectiveness of the EIA system in the short and long term.

No abstract