Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia

Figures & data

Figure 1 Main steps of EIA process in Slovakia.

Figure 2 Number of completed assessments of proposed activities (EIA) in Slovakia in 1994–2012. Source: MoE (2013).

Table 1 Outcomes of the EIA process in 2011.

MfE SR level
Number of assessed buildings and activities – EIA	161
Number of final positions issued – EIA	161
Number of statements on activities change	154
Environmental authorities level
Number of assessed buildings and activities – EIA	476
Number of decisions and final positions issued – EIA	398
Number of statements on activities change	107

Note: MoE (2012).

Figure 3 Proportion of respondents' work time spent on EIA. Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Figure 4 Respondents by specialism. Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Table 2 The main purposes of EIA.

EIA purpose	Percentage of responses
Comply with the development of the territory	38
Reduce the impact on the environment	78
Support for decision-making	50
Tool for sustainable development	33
Help the developers	28
Contribute to the design decision	33
Reduce future costs	11
The basis for obtaining a building permit	33
Other	16

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Table 3 Results of the question: do you feel current EIA practice is effective at the following.

	Strongly agree (%)	Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)	Strongly disagree (%)
Helping decision-makers	16	50	29	5	–
Helping developers	5	40	50	5	–
Reducing environmental impacts	5	63	16	16	–
Contributing to sustainable development	–	40	40	16	4

Table 4 Selected comments about monitoring in Slovakia.

Monitoring is still a weakness in the EIA process, but particularly SEA.

Monitoring is particularly unclear, and also monitoring the health impact is difficult.

Monitoring must be carried out systematically, and measuring of real impacts must be compared with the impacts set out in the assessment report.

Monitoring the implementation of the approved proposed activities is provided only in a few cases, or only by the permitting authority.

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Table 5 Selected comments on increasing the effectiveness of the EIA process.

The EIA is now too formal and even unsatisfactory. It is necessary to increase the weight of legislation and, in particular, to change the binding force of recommendations in terms of environmental impact. The second point which significantly impedes and detracts from the EIA process is the linkage between complainants and the person who prepares the assessment report on the evaluation – this is an absurd situation that significantly contributes to subjectivity in EIA.

Quality of documentation is poor and getting worse. Formal procedures are applied for setting up many screening procedures, and many unnecessary screening procedures are performed. Higher demands for quality of judges should be enforced.

It is time for an amendment that would be informed by past experience and would remove some formal but also substantive errors in the applicable laws, conforming to the current technical level (e.g. printing always in digital form, especially for large-scale activities, and particularly in land-use planning documentation for SEA), eliminating the unnecessary strictness of the Law (assessment without limit), clarifying the definition of changes in the proposed activity. To improve the quality of work, it is necessary to formalize the accountability (like in other professions, e.g. designers), the status of the processors or at least the status of reviewers (test, license, stamp and Chamber), and develop at least an indicative price list.

In principle, since 1994, EIA and SEA have been partially stabilized. Nevertheless, the current legislation contains even more mistakes and shortcomings, for example: • unnecessarily complicated process for the simple procedure of screening activity, • ill-defined changes in the proposed activities, • inconsistency of interpretation of certain controversial provisions (it might be necessary to provide guidance to the MfE), • partial duplication with other processes (construction law and environmental components), • shortcomings in the SEA procedure, • insufficient capacity of officials in some district offices.

The EIA procedure is not satisfactory and it is necessary to modify the following fields: • assessment of cumulative impacts, • severity assessment results, • monitoring, • assessment only of the impact on the environment and not on other things that often prevail in the assessment (employment, health effects, etc.), • objectification of the criteria and their weighting in the assessment, because it is often influenced to enable an acceptable result to come out for the investor, • obligation to incorporate building authorities into the decision-making in terms of an objective screening process, even if they decide that the activity is to be reassessed.

In comparison with previous periods, the EIA process is already at a higher level, only there is inadequate reflection by the relevant authorities of the conditions specified in the decision of the investigation or proceedings, e.g. in the final disposition of zoning or in the granting of planning permission.

Perhaps, it would be better if the final opinion should be binding (e.g. as in Austria, I think), not just a recommendation.

It is probably satisfactory, but nonetheless it is necessary to remove the formalism, to encourage the participation of experts in preparing documentation and to intensify work with the public.

EIA is often done on peripheral activities and some large investment intentions remain unchecked.

The process is satisfactory, but we already need an amendment to address the details arising from new legislation on the environment, or to bring the process up to date. I recommend: • simplifying the whole process – reviewers should not be paid by investors, • introducing mandatory professional qualifications for the exercise of the professions.

Source: Questionnaire Survey (2012).

Table 6 Statistical significance of answers from questionnaire survey.

Question	p
1.	0.001
2.	0.097
3.	0.001
4.	0.002
5.	0.106
6.	0.001
7.	0.050
8.	0.004
9.	0.003
10.	0.005
11.	0.0014
12.	0.098
13.	0.0014
14.	0.050
15.	0.050
16.	0.050
18.	0.0014
19.	0.098
21.	0.098

[MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2013. State of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in 2012. Bratislava/Banská Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).

 Google Scholar

[MoE] Ministry of Environment. 2012. State of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in 2011. Bratislava/Banská Bystrica: Ministry of Environment/Slovak Environmental Agency, (in Slovak).

 Google Scholar

Zvijáková L, Zeleňàkovà M.2012Questionnaire Survey. Technical University of Košice, Faculty of Civil Engineering. Unpublished.

 Google Scholar