files.gamta.ltfiles.gamta.lt/aaa/Tipk/Capasity_ECDG/1SummaryCRR/cz_capacity... · Web viewThis...

European Commission DG Environment

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and Regional Level

Capacity Review Report

Czech Republic

Date: 5 October 2004

Prepared by: Bohumil Sulek

Checked by: Norman Sheridan

Client Ref. No.: EuropeAid/116215/CSV/PHA

CMDCJoint Venture:

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review – Czech Republic

Foreword

Background of the ProjectIn 2003 the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, decided to launch a project in the 10 Phare countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania) aimed at improving the implementation of the following directives: - Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Directive 96/61/EC) - Environmental Impact Assessment (Directive 97/11/EC)

on regional and local level.

Each country has selected 4 to 8 pilot areas in which the training takes place. The training comprises regional workshops in each pilot area plus national workshops. Two Multi-country workshops, where the 10 participating countries can exchange experience and views, are included in the project.

The project was initiated in December 2003 and is expected to end in June 2005.

The project is implemented and managed by a Consortium comprising 4 international consulting companies (Carl Bro, COWI, DHV and Milieu) assisted by national companies in the 10 Phare-countries - including subsidiaries of the consortium companies.

The objectives of the project

Overall objectivesThe overall objective is as follows:

To develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

Specific objectivesThe specific objectives of this contract are as follows:

Better understanding in the PHARE countries of the steps needed to improve implementation of EIA and IPPC directives at local and regional level.

Better trained local and regional authorities in each country able to effectively implement environmental acquis, particularly the EIA and IPPC directives.

Preparation of models of good environmental administration at the local and regional level in the PHARE countries

Preparation of strategies for broader application of the experiences of the pilot areas within each PHARE country.

Objective of This ReportThe objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practice and capacities in the countries. It focuses on EIA and IPPC implementation, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA and IPPC Directives, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in the country, and will serve as a basis for any

Final Version 5-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture i


recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the EIA and the IPPC Directive.

Preparation of ReportThis report is prepared by Country Manager Bohumil Sulek. Further information may be obtained from Bohumil Sulek ([email protected]) or from Assistant Team Leader Grith Lindgreen Petersen ([email protected])

Final Version 5-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture ii

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

Foreword................................................................................................................................... i

Contents.................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Regions........................................................................................................................ iv

Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................... iv

A. Capacity Review Environmental Impact Assessment......................................................1A.1. Summary...................................................................................................................... 1

A.2. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1

A.3. The Current Legal Framework......................................................................................2

A.4. Institutional Arrangements............................................................................................4

A.5. Trainees Review...........................................................................................................6

A.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices........................................................14

B. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control.....................................16B.1. Summary....................................................................................................................16

B.2. Introduction................................................................................................................. 16

B.3. The Current Legal Framework....................................................................................17

B.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................18

B.5. Trainees Review.........................................................................................................20

B.6. Assessment of current administrative practices..........................................................27

C. Annex I: Institutional Review – EIA..................................................................................29Basic Definitions.................................................................................................................... 29

C.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 29

C.2. Legal Assessment.......................................................................................................30

C.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents.....................................................................38

C.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................39

C.5. Procedural Issues.......................................................................................................42

D. Annex I: Institutional Review – IPPC...............................................................................76D.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 76

D.2. Legal Assessment.......................................................................................................76

D.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents.....................................................................81

D.4. Institutional Arrangements..........................................................................................82

D.5. Number of Installations in the Czech Republic by Region..........................................86

D.6. Procedural Issues.......................................................................................................88

D.7. Fines........................................................................................................................... 95

D.8. Main Sources of Information.......................................................................................96

E. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment – EIA’...............................99E.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in

the Czech Republic.....................................................................................................99

E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences...........................................101

E.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA Determination 105

Final Version 5-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iii


F. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPC.............................106F.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in

Czech Republic.........................................................................................................106

F.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences...........................................107

F.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC.....................111

List of Regions

No. Name in Czech Name in English AbbreviationRegion 1 Moravskoslezský kraj Moravian-Silesian Region MSKRegion 2 Olomoucký kraj The OlomoucRegion OLKRegion 3 Jihomoravský kraj Southern Moravia Region JHMRegion 4 Pardubický kraj The Pardubice Region PAKRegion 5 Královéhradecký kraj The Hradec Králové Region KHKRegion 6 Ústecký kraj The Ústí Region ULKRegion 7 Středočeský kraj Central Bohemia Region SCK

Abbreviations

Art. ArticleBAT Best Available TechniquesBREF Reference Document on Best Available TechniquesCA Competent AuthorityCEI Czech Environmental Inspectorate Coll. Collection of ActsEA European co-operation for AccreditationEI Equivalent InhabitantEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementETS Emission Trading SystemEU European UnionGHG Greenhouse GasesIAF International Accreditation ForumILAC International Laboratory Accreditation CoordinationIPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and ControlJHM Southern Moravia RegionKHK The Hradec Králové RegionLCPD Large Combustion Plant DirectiveMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoE Ministry of EnvironmentMoH Ministry of HealthMoIT Ministry of Industry and TradeMSK Moravian-Silesian RegionNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNo. NumberOLK The Olomouc RegionPAK The Pardubice RegionSCK Central Bohemia RegionSEA Strategic Environmental Impact AssessmentTWG Technical working groupULK The Ústí RegionVOC Volatile Organic Compound

Final Version 5-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture iv

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review EIA – Czech Republic

A. Capacity Review Environmental Impact Assessment

A.1. Summary

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

This Chapter focuses on EIA implementation in Czech Republic, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the EIA Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project.

The EIA Directive has been largely transposed into Czech legislation; although some amendment is required to Annex 1 of the Act on EIA to ensure full transposition of the EIA Directive Annexes I and II. Directive 2003/35/EC has already been transposed by the Act on EIA.

The Handbook for Developers and the public has been prepared, however it is of a general nature. No detailed Guidance Documents have been prepared, which can lead to uncertainty on the part of both developers and the public, and also the Competent Authorities. Limited English language skills within the Competent Authorities also mean that the documents produced by the EU on EIA are not often utilised.

Procedural weaknesses make it to certain extent possible for developers to split projects so as to avoid EIA and there are no clear procedures for dealing with confidentiality issues.

Staff receive regular training from the Ministry of Environment, although there is limited experience of trans-boundary issues and limited knowledge on the interaction between EIA and Natura 2000.

The national electronic EIA Register is well maintained, but it is said that its search engine is inadequate. Staff at the Competent Authorities is well equipped with IT facilities, although the software at Regional Offices could be updated. There is some concern that staff will become overloaded with work as they now have to deal with SEA.

A.2. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis at the Local and regional Level” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

The time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and regional level is now over – for the Czech Republic the deadline for having administrative structures in place was May 2004. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to the local/regional authorities with responsibilities for EIA are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern.

Final Version 5-10-04 CMDC Joint Venture 1


In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the Competent Authorities (CA) at regional level, as Regional Offices (and Ministry of Environment) are the only authorities responsible for EIA in the Czech Republic. The project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the EIA Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of EIA but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place.

Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.

A.3. The Current Legal Framework

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation is already for a long time implemented in the Czech Republic (since 1992) and fully operational from an administrative point of view. The interactions between individual pieces of EIA related legislation is straightforward and simple. There are also indirect links of EIA legislation to all the sector legislation (air, water, noise, etc.), which is taken into account within the assessment of environmental impacts of the respective project subject to the Act on EIA.

There is no direct link between EIA and IPPC legislation in the Czech Republic. The EIA procedure precedes the IPPC permitting procedure in the majority of cases, however a parallel execution is also possible. Certain indirect links exist between EIA and IPPC legislation concerning information needed for execution of both EIA procedure and IPPC permitting procedure.

The EIA Directive has been almost fully transposed into national legislation through the following legal acts: ACT No. 17/1992 Coll., on Environment as amended. The basic Act on protection of

environment. ACT No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment and amendments of some

related Acts (hereinafter Act on EIA)1. ACT No. 93/2004 Coll., which amends Act. No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact

Assessment and amendments of some related Acts. DECREE No. 457/2001 Coll., on professional qualification and regulation of some other

aspects related to environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “Decree 457”)2.

There are only some minor discrepancies between Czech EIA legislation and the EIA Directive that can easily be remedied by amending the Act on EIA (see Chapter 2.3 of the Institutional Review, which is attached as the Annex I to this report) and its Annexes. Also all the requirements of the Aarhus Convention, which are transposed into European EIA legislation by Directive 2003/35/EC are already met by the Czech Act on EIA.

The Czech Act on EIA, as well as EIA Directive, distinguishes two categories of projects. In the Czech Republic, there are both categories, however, included in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. The Annex 1 to the Act on EIA thus specifies Category I projects (equivalent to the Directive Annex I projects), for which full EIA procedure is mandatory and Category II projects (equivalent to the Directive Annex II projects), for which the screening is required to decide if the project will or will not be subject to full EIA procedure.

1

? Zákon č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí)

2 Vyhláška č. 457/2001 Sb., o odborné způsobilosti a o úpravě některých dalších otázek souvisejících s posuzováním vlivů na životní prostředí



Annex I to the EIA Directive has been widely transposed into Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. There are only some minor discrepancies concerning Category I projects (the Directive Annex I projects) that can easily be remedied by amendment of Annex 1 to the Act on EIA (see Chapter 2.2 of the Institutional Review, which is attached as the Annex I to this report). Within Annex 1 to the Act on EIA there are also listed certain types of projects that must be subject to EIA, which are not included in Annex I to the EIA Directive.

There are also certain discrepancies between projects listed in the Annex 1 to the Act on EIA as the Category II projects and the EIA Directive Annex II projects. These discrepancies can be remedied by minor amendment of Annex 1 (see Chapter 2.2 of the Institutional Review, which is attached as the Annex I to this report). In general it can be stated that Annex II to the EIA Directive has been widely transposed into Annex 1 to the Act on EIA.

Determination whether projects listed in Category II of the Annex I to the Act on EIA shall be made subject to full EIA procedure is made by a case-by-case examination, using the criteria set out in Annex 3 of the Act on EIA (equivalent to Annex III of the Directive). Threshold criteria are not used in the Czech Republic to determine whether Annex II projects are to be made subject to EIA.

The Czech Act on EIA does not allow a general exemption from EIA. A decision of the Government is necessary on a case-by-case basis, including the procedural steps defined in Article 2.3 of the EIA Directive. This is in accordance with Article 1.4 of the EIA Directive, because it offers only an option to restrict the field of application of EIA.

It is important to note that EIA in the Czech Republic is carried out as a procedure of its own 3. This means, that EIA is not directly integrated with the actual permitting procedure(s) in the Czech Republic. The major goal of the environmental impact assessment carried out according to the Czech Act on EIA in force is therefore to gather objective expert bases for issue of decision, or if need be measure, according to special legal regulations. This objective expert basis (Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or Final Statement from the EIA procedure) is consequently one of the grounds for administrative procedures according to special legal regulations.

In general, the permitting authority may not issue a decision according to special legal regulations without either a Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or a Final Statement from the EIA procedure issued by the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment (depending the on nature of the project). However, it should be noted, that both the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping and the Final Statement from EIA procedure are not binding on the permitting authority, as they are understood to be experts point of view (it is not binding as a Decision in terms of the Act on Administrative Procedures).

No publicly available Guidance Documents have been prepared recently. Only general Information and Explanations were prepared for internal use within Ministry of Environment and Regional Offices. Currently, the “Handbook for developers has been prepared by the Ministry of Environment. This handbook gives the developer basic information about relevant legislation, guides him through the EIA procedure and shows him the right way how to proceed, including recommendations of best practice.

A.4. Institutional Arrangements

A.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview

Table A.4.1 below shows the division of responsibilities between the different layers of government (national, regional and local) for specific obligations relating to EIA.

3 It is not an administrative procedure in the sense of the Act on Administrative Procedures (Zákon č. 71/1967 Sb., o správním řízení [správní řád])



Table A.4.1: Competent Authorities for EIA

Responsibilities Central Regional LocalDeciding whether a project requires an EIA Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Making the EIA decision Ministry of Environment Regional Office xIssuing guidance on EIA Ministry of Environment x xTrans-boundary issues Ministry of Environment x xIssues of commercial confidentiality Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Consultation with other authorities Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Ensuring public consultations Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Inspection

Czech Environmental Inspection;Hygienic ServiceControl: MoE

Czech Environmental InspectionHygienic ServiceControl: Regional Office

x

Enforcement Ministry of Environment Regional Office xMaintaining an EIA register

Czech Environmental Institute x x

Making information available to the public Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Responsibilities for specific obligations relating to EIA lie in the Czech Republic only at central (Ministry of Environment) and regional level (Regional Offices).

A.4.2. Division of Responsibilities between Competent Authorities

Competent Authorities for EIAAt present the EIA procedures are administrated at region level (14 Regions has been established in 2002) and at the Ministry of Environment, depending on type of project, as it is specified in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. The Ministry of Environment (projects with expected more significant impacts or with trans-boundary issues) or Regional Office is the Competent Authority and has the responsibility to manage EIA procedures and issue either the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or a Final Statement from the EIA procedure.

The Competent Authority (Ministry of Environment or Regional Office) also decides whether the Category II project listed in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA (equivalent to projects from Annex II to the EIA Directive) requires an EIA, i.e. whether the project shall or shall not be assessed in full extent according to Act on EIA.

The Competent Authority shall decide if the project will be subject to full EIA procedure on the basis of the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification), statements from relevant state administration and relevant municipalities, and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from public. The Competent Authority issues the statement whether Annex II project (Annex 1 project, Category II, according to Czech Act on EIA) requires an EIA within the “Conclusion from Screening and Scoping.

In legitimate cases (extremely comprehensive projects, conflicting projects, etc.) the Ministry of Environment can take over the responsibility for management of EIA procedures, which would normally be managed by Regional Offices. The Ministry of Environment can take over the responsibility for management of EIA procedure both upon request and own initiative and ensures coordination in this respect. The Ministry of Environment also manages all projects with expected cross-boundary impacts.



Statutory Consultation AuthoritiesIn § 3, letter e) of the Act on EIA, there is defined the “Affected Administrative Authority”. The Affected Administrative Authority shall be an administrative authority, which defends interests protected by special regulations and the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory and the Czech Environmental Inspection,

In § 3 letter d) of the Act on EIA, there is defined the “Affected Self-governing Unit”, which is defined as the self-governing unit, the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory.

In § 23 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act on EIA, there are defined some special affected administrative authorities, which are set forth as follows: For the standpoints on public health the affected administrative authority shall be the

Ministry of Health for projects and conceptions exceeding the regional framework and the territorially competent Regional Hygiene Services in other cases. In deliberations on land-use planning documents, the Ministry of Environment shall be the affected authority of the State administration in the sense of the Construction Code from the standpoint of environmental impact assessment.

The affected administrative authority in environmental impact assessment pursuant to the Act on EIA concerning projects dealing with nuclear energy, radioactive materials and/or radioactive waste shall be the State Nuclear Safety Authority.

The Statutory Consultation Authorities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and are designated by Competent Authority, which ensures coordination within the EIA procedure, on a case-by-case basis according to the nature of activities and links to other sectors, etc.

An information letter of the Ministry of Environment dating from 19 June 2003 lists possibly affected authorities. This information can also be found on the Internet in the EIA Information System of the Czech Ecological Institute.

A.4.3. Overall Capacity at the Central and Regional Level

Institutional Capacity at Central LevelOverall the institutional capacity (number of staff, background, exposure to training, etc.) at central level (Ministry of Environment) has been evaluated as sufficient for the majority of tasks to be carried out, i.e. in the following areas:

Preparing legislation (only concerning expert issues, legislative issues are worked out in the legislation department of the Ministry of Environment)

Preparing internal procedural manuals Maintaining national registers (on projects, decisions etc ) Providing legal advice (internally and externally) Providing advice to the regional/local authorities

However there is also activity at the Ministry of Environment, for which the institutional capacity is not sufficient at present due to insufficient staffing. This concerns works on preparation of general guidance documents and also support staff is assessed as insufficient.

Institutional Capacity at Regional LevelThe situation at the regional level is not uniform concerning overall institutional capacity and especially in terms of number of staff. In the majority of regions under investigation there seems to be sufficient staffing to manage EIA procedures. However, in two regions (Pardubice Region and Hradec Králové Region) lack of personnel has clearly been expressed.

It also should be noted that situation concerning staffing is currently changing due to a growing number of Strategic Environmental Assessments procedures as a consequence of recent amendments to the Act on EIA. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedures are



carried out at Regional Offices by the same departments as EIA procedures and for that reason there will be need for additional staff and/or training concerning SEA.

GeneralBoth the Ministry of Environment and Regional Offices are well equipped with computers and there is easy access to e-mail and Internet (each expert has own computer, own e-mail address and access to Internet).

General problem concerning institutional capacity seems to be very knowledge of foreign languages (especially English) within the staff at Regional Offices but also, to certain extent, at the Ministry of Environment. The consequence is that significant part of the staff is not able use the materials (e.g. EC Guidance) accessible on Internet.

During the investigation were recorded no problems concerning unclear arrangements of competencies and/or responsibilities, lack of coordination, conflicts of interests, etc.

A.5. Trainees Review

The selection of seven regions for project training has been made by the Ministry of the Environment and has reflected the different character of the regions and their parameters concerning EIA administration, i.e. the regions were selected to give a cross-section of the overall staffing.

Trainees were appointed for the project by Regional Offices and represent a selection from the staff with responsibilities for EIA at the Regional Offices. Trainees from only 5 Regional Offices were appointed, as 2 Regional Offices (Pardubice Region and Hradec Králové Region) did not appoint any trainee mainly due to low staffing and high workload.

As no selection criteria were given, the Regional Offices carried out selection of trainees based on their own internal criteria, which were different at different Regional Offices. However, two major grounds for decision-making can be distinguished on the basis of collected questionnaires and interviews at Regional Offices. First parameter for appointment of any trainee was his/her availability for training and the second parameter was the level of his/her skills and experience and consequently expected need for training.

The consequence of different selection criteria used at Regional Offices is that in the majority of regions the trainees were selected to give a cross-section of the overall staff. Only at Regional Office of Centra Bohemia Region (Stredocesky kraj) predominantly the novices (trainees with higher need of training) were selected.

Summary of FindingsThe Country Manager and National EIA and IPPC Trainers first arranged meetings and interviews at Regional Offices to collect relevant information concerning institutional capacity and training needs. In the meetings also number and personal profiles of trainees have been agreed. All candidates on trainees have been asked to fill questionnaires.

The total number of staff involved in EIA determinations in all seven selected pilot regions in the Czech Republic is 16,5. From that number 12 persons submitted questionnaires and 10 of them are participating as trainees in EIA training in the frame of this project. All 12 persons, who submitted questionnaires, were the staff with responsibilities for EIA determinations at the selected seven Regional Offices.

Table A.5.2: Staffing review and capacity overview, by pilot regions

Region 1 (Moravskoslezský kraj / Moravian-Silesian Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 2/2*



Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations

scientists planners engineers lawyers others

0 0 2 0 0

Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 21,5

Average duration of present employment 3

Position of staff involved in EIA junior medium high

- - -

Media specialisation of staff water waste air other

0 2 1 0

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 12,5Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 110Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 30Familiarity with the English language, summariesspeaking good/very good 0 Sufficient 0 not enough 0 not at all 2reading 0 0 1 1writing 0 0 1 1Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities

No. of experienced users, using some of the office package programmes and e-mail and internet facilities

No. of inexperienced and occasional users, not conversant with e-mail and internet

No. of non-users

2 0 0 0Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package

No. of staff using Windows later than win95

No. of staff with e-mail facilities

No. of staff with internet connections

No. of staff which has no - or only rarely - access to IT facilities

2 1 2 2 0* The staff involved in the survey in the frame of this project/total EIA staff at the Regional Office



Region 2 (Olomoucký kraj / The Olomouc Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 2/1+0,5+0,5*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


0 0 0 0 2

Average years of professional experience (i.e. years since graduation) 11

Average duration of present employment 3,5


0 2 0


2 2 2 0

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 5Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 60+Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0Familiarity with the English language, summariesspeaking good/very good 0 Sufficient 1 not enough 1 not at all 0reading 0 2 0 0writing 0 0 2 0Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users









Region 3 (Jihomoravský kraj / Southern Moravia Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 2/3*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


0 0 1 0 1




0 1 0


0 0 0 2

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to 0Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 100Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0Familiarity with the English language, summariesspeaking good/very good 0 Sufficient 1 not enough 1 not at all 0reading 1 1 0 0writing 0 1 1 0Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users









Region 4 (Pardubický kraj / The Pardubice Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 1/0,5+0,5*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


0 0 1 0 0




0 0 1


1 0 0 0




No. of non-users









Region 5 (Královéhradecký kraj / The Hradec Králové Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 1/2*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


0 0 1 0 0




0 1 0


1 0 0 0




No. of non-users









Region 6 (Ústecký kraj / The Ústí Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 1/1,5*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations


0 0 1 0 0




0 1 0


0 0 0 1 (EIA)

Average number of training days of EIA staff has been exposed to several days

Number of EIA determinations staff has been involved in as lead 150Number of EIA determinations to which staff have contributed 0Familiarity with the English language, summariesspeaking good/very good 0 Sufficient 0 not enough 0 not at all 1reading 0 0 0 1writing 0 0 0 1Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users









Region 7 (Středočeský kraj / Central Bohemia Region)Number of staff involved in EIAs* 3/5*Educational background of staff involved in EIA determinations

scientists planners engineers lawyers others0 0 3 0 0




1 1 0


3 3 3 0




No. of non-users






3 1 3 3 1* Only the staff involved in the survey and training in the frame of this project

From the staff involved in EIA determinations in the Czech Republic (only those, who submitted questionnaires) 2 are forestry engineers, 4 are agricultural engineers with different specialization (water management, agricultural and forestry hydrology, etc.) 2 are mechanical/technical engineers and 4 represent other professions (technical ecology, agro-ecology, biology and geology). Their media specialisation is 7 in water, 7 in waste, 5 in air and 2 in other areas. The majority of experts stated more than one specialisation.

The average general professional experience of the staff involved in EIA determinations ranges from 1 year experience to 36 year of experience, the average professional experience at the Regional Office (EIA Competent Authority) are 3,1 years. The majority of the staff is medium ranking (6), 1 is junior ranking and 1 is high ranking. There was no reply concerning ranking from 4 experts.

Involvement of experts in EIA determination as lead is quite variable and ranges from 0 (4 experts) to more than 100 (3 experts). The remaining 5 experts have been involved as main responsible in more than 0 and less 100 EIA determinations. Number of contributions to other EIA determinations by giving advice is very low (9 experts stated no participation, 1 experts stated up to 10 participations and 1 between 50 and 100).



Both on the basis of questionnaires and interviews carried out at the Regional Offices it can be concluded that the level of up to now training in different regions is comparable. One of the reasons of this status is that majority of trainings is arranged by the Ministry of Environment, which is trying to involve experts from regions in the training evenly. However, due to limited number of questionnaires in total and only single questionnaires from 3 regions it is hardly possible to make any representative comparison of training variations between regions.

A.6. Assessment of Current Administrative Practices

The assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the EIA Directive can be divided into three categories:

1. Procedures2. Training related issues3. Non-training related issues.

The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of EIA are summarised in the three tables below.

Table A.6.3: Capacity assessment of current procedural issuesStrengths WeaknessesThe EIA Directive is almost fully transposed into national legislation

Some minor discrepancies between the EIA Directive and Czech Act on EIA still needs to be remedied

All the necessary implementing regulations were adopted

Lack of general Guidance Document

Competent Authorities are clearly defined Limited experience with transboundary EIAWell functional system is established Low experience with SEACompetencies / responsibilities are clearly defined

IPPC is relatively new in Czech Republic (in force since 1st January 2003) and there may be communication problems between EIA and IPPC experts

Clear lines for co-ordination with other authorities are well established

No standard procedures to ensure that developer does not split projects so as to avoid EIA. In the Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, there is for particular case of parking areas and garages stated that the limit concerns sum of all the parking places related to the whole construction.

Procedural documents are being prepared No clear procedures for determining confidentiality issues

Clear procedures for public information and public consultation

Table A.6.4: Capacity assessment – training issuesStrengths WeaknessesLong lasting practical experience with EIA within Ministry of Environment and Regional Offices

Frequent exchange of staff

Majority of staff is trained in at least general EIA topics

Part of the staff (novices) is not fully aware and trained due to above frequent exchange of staff

Majority of staff is aware of main aspects of EIA Very limited experience in NATURA 2000 issues to be dealt within EIA determinations

Ministry of Environment provides training on the most relevant issues

Limited knowledge of EU documents available on Internet due to limited language skillsLimited knowledge of IPPC and its interaction with EIA



Table A.6.5: Capacity assessment – non-training issuesStrengths WeaknessesNational electronic EIA register is well maintained Inadequate search engine at national electronic

EIA registerAll the offices are well equipped with computers etc.

Software used at Regional Offices is not always up to date

All the offices have easy access to e-mail and Internet

At the Ministry of Environment there is insufficient staff for preparation of general guidance documents

At the Competent Authorities there is sufficient staffing for majority of tasks

At the Competent Authorities there is insufficient support staffAt the Competent Authorities there is not enough legal advisers


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review IPPC – Czech Republic

B. Capacity Review Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

B.1. Summary

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

This Capacity Review Report focuses on IPPC implementation in Czech Republic, and is based on the Institutional Review which focuses on the administrative structures in place for implementation, including an assessment of the transposition of the IPPC Directive, and the Training Needs Assessment which assesses the needs of the regional staff selected for training under this project. This Report forms an essential background review of the current state of play in Czech Republic and will serve as a basis for any recommendations for improvements to legal arrangements and/or administrative practices to ensure full effective implementation of the IPPC Directive.

The IPPC Directive has been fully transposed into Czech legislation; however none of the relevant requirements of Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation and access to justice have yet been transposed. Directive 2003/87/EC on GHG emission trading has not yet been transposed.

A number of Guidance Documents have been prepared to assist stakeholders in implementation of the IPPC legislation, and other are being prepared. However, guidance is still lacking on trans-boundary issues and on the interaction between the IPPC legislation and EIA and Natura 2000. A number of EU BREFs have been translated into the national language, and guidance is available on how to determine BAT when BREFs are not available (in the national language). The use of non-translated EU BREFs is somewhat limited in the Regional Offices due to lack of English.

IPPC permits are issued by the Regional Offices, although the Ministry of Environment is responsible when there may be trans-boundary issues. While some IPPC staff have been trained in IPPC (mainly through Twinning projects), there are no regular training programmes for new/junior ranking staff.

While the staff numbers at the MoE are currently sufficient, this may change if/when they have to deal with the expected number of IPPC applications with transboundary issues. Similarly, enhanced capacity is required in the Regional Offices to deal with the numbers of IPPC applications – especially leading up to 2007 when all existing installations will require such permits.

B.2. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

The time for transposition of the EU Directives into the national legislation, and the effective implementation of this national legislation into the public administrative practise at local and regional level is now very short – for the Czech Republic the deadline for having administrative structures in place is May 2004. Therefore it is essential that the training provided by this project to the local/regional authorities with responsibilities for IPPC are focused and specifically directed at their needs and at identified weaknesses or areas of concern.



In addition to the focused training directed to the needs of the trainees in the competent authorities at local/regional level, the project is also required to make proposals for any recommended revision of existing administrative regulations to enhance the implementation of the IPPC Directive. The scope of these recommended revisions means that it is necessary to consider not just the legal and regulatory framework for implementation of IPPC but also any administrative and technical guidance documents. It will also consider the actual implementation and enforcement – that is to say the administrative practices – currently in place.

Thus it is essential that appropriate background material is collected, reviewed and assessed. This Capacity Review Report summarises this material and assessment. The information itself has been collated in two reports: the Institutional Review - focused on the strength and weaknesses of the administrative structures - and the Training Needs Assessment - focused at the needs of the employees selected for training. The two reports appear as annexes to this report.

B.3. The Current Legal Framework

In the Czech Republic is in force a set of basic legislation relevant to the IPPC Directive. In 2002 the key element of IPPC legislation – the ACT No. 76/ 2002 Coll. on integrated pollution prevention and control, on the integrated pollution register and on amendment to some laws (the IPPC Act) has been adopted. Follow up secondary legislation is formed by a DECREE No. 554 Coll. regarding the specimen of the application, the ORDER of Government No. 63 Coll. on the manner and the scope of information exchange on the best available techniques provision and the ORDER of Government No. 368 Coll. on integrated register.

Also connected environmental legislation is in force; such as Seveso-II, EIA, clean air act, protection of nature and the landscape, Natura act, act on water, acts, act on waste, act on the Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI), environmental right to know act etc.

The IPPC Act covers the same list of categories (in the Annex 1 of the IPPC Act) of industry as is in Annex I of the IPPC Directive. With the exemption of general biding rules (not used in the Czech legislation directly) the Czech legislation transposes all of the Directive’s requirements. The IPPC Act entered into force by 1st January 2003.

The legislation does not establish a mechanism of time-schedule or call-in plan for existing installations to obtain an IPPC permit – there is only the general deadline of October 30 2007. There is thus a risk that the CAs will be overloaded with applications in the final months before this deadline.

Directive 2003/35/EC amends the IPPC Directive (and the EIA Directive) with regard to public participation and access to justice and Directive 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission trading; these Directives are not transposed yet and the amendments to corresponding Czech Acts or adoption of a special Act (ETS) are under development.

Regarding the information and documentation publicly available there is a network of websites offering a complex set of documents. The main source of information is a specialized web site www.ippc.cz which is operated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT). This web site is a part of the system for exchange of information on BAT. The other web sites offering manuals, guides and similar information is www.ceu.cz/ippc by the Agency for the Integrated Prevention (part of the Czech Environmental institute) and the website of the Ministry of Environment (MoE) www.env.cz.

Printed and electronic versions of instructions and guidances regarding IPPC and BAT/BREFs have been distributed to the stakeholders (dominantly directed to authorities and/or operators) and are available on the web and at mentioned organizations. Three sector specific guidance are also available (landfills, surface treatment, farming).


http://www.env.cz/

http://www.ceu.cz/ippc

http://www.ippc.cz/


A new set of Guidances is under preparation in the frame of (2003) Phare Twinning Covenant CZ02/IB/EN/03:- A guidance note for implementing the VOC Directive- A guidance note for implementing the LCPD- A guidance note for integration of EMS and EIA in permitting- A guidance note for assessment of transboundary issues- A policy on reviewing permits- A guidance note on reviewing permits.

There is no experience with transboundary issues in case of IPPC installations, and very little experience in transboundary EIA. The IPPC Act directs this issue to the MoE and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but no secondary legislation (Order, Decree) is foreseen. No practical manuals or guidance are available and even more, are not under preparation.

BAT notes (manuals) for sectors or installation categories are still not prepared in a systematic way. There are three sector specific notes for special categories (landfills, surface treatment), but prepared on an ad hoc basis by the Agency for Integrated Permitting. New initiatives for the required systematic preparation of national BAT notes (guidances) has started in the frame of national information exchange system (Forum for Information Exchange).

B.4. Institutional Arrangements

Table B.4.6 below shows the division of responsibilities between the different layers of government (national and regional) for specific obligations relating to IPPC.

Table B.4.6: Division of institutional responsibilitiesResponsibilities Central Regional Local Other Deciding whether an installation requires an integrated permit

MoE Regional Office no Note: According to parameters of installation production or character of production done in Annex 1 to IPPC Act No. 76/ 2002 Coll.

Issuing integrated permits

MoE Regional Office no

Issuing guidance on BAT

MoEMoIT

no Agency for Integrated Prevention

Trans-boundary issues

MoE, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

no

Issues of commercial confidentiality


Co-ordination with other authorities


Ensuring public consultations


Monitoring MoE Regional Office noInspection Czech

Environmental Inspectorate

Control: MoE

Czech Environmental Inspectorate

Control: Regional Office

no

Enforcement MoE Regional Office noMaintaining a register of emissions

MoE no



Responsibilities Central Regional Local Other Making information available to the public


Permitting - competent authorities: The Regional Offices (of which there are 14) are the competent authority for issuing an integrated permit, except for installations whose operations could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state when the competent authority is the MoE. To date, the MoE has not issued any integrated permit.

Within the MoE, which is the central body of the state administration for IPPC, there is a specialized IPPC Division in the Department for EIA and IPPC (Section of Technical Protection of the Environment). In the Regional Offices dealing with integrated permitting there is usually a specialized division for Integrated permitting within the Department for Environment and Agriculture. In the permitting process not only do IPPC division staff take part, but also other personnel of environmental departments (e.g. specialized for environmental media) participates.

The CA (MoE or Region) carries out (in cooperation with the relevant public health authorities and the Agency for the Integrated Prevention) controls at least once every 8 years to ensure that there has been no change in the circumstances that could lead to a change in the integrated permit. Further, the CA always controls an integrated permit or the operation of an installation in other 6 listed circumstances (planned changes in installation, change in BAT etc.).

Inspection and control: there are 2 regimes of control – one regular – the same as in the case of non-IPPC installation, and the other specific for integrated permitting.

The Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI) controls the compliance with the obligations laid down by the Act on IPPC or the integrated permits, except for the regular monitoring and control, executed by the CAs (Region or MoE) and other defined cases.

General and basic enforcement responsibilities are carried out by the CAs – MoE and Regions. Further, there is an enforcement responsibility of those authorities which have the right to impose fines in the frame of the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll (paragraph 37 – 41) - the Region, CEI and Regional Hygiene Officer.

The main task of MoE in the field of IPPC recently has consisted in a basic strategy and methodological development and in preparation of updating / completing relevant legislation via an amendment of IPPC Act. For this purpose the number and specialization of the staff is sufficient (7 in the IPPC Division, up to 10-15 in co-operating MoE departments, and 22 in the Agency for Integrated Prevention). In case that permit issuing (the most important permitting cases and transboundary IPPC) is starting (in some calculation appears an expected number of 47 installations) it can be considered as not sufficient personal capacity.

Within the project, data from only seven of regions has been collected. By May 2004 184 applications are or have been processed in those regions by 20 permitting officers and 10 supporting permitting officers – media specialists. In further calculation, it is approximately 6 permits per 1 permitting officer per 14 months (only few applications have been delivered before the mid of March 2003), that is 0,43 of permits in process/per month/ per officer. The number of issued permits by the date is lower – approx. 82. The average number of issued permits is than 0,2 per each permit officer per month. For the rest of 2004 and next 3 years an accelerated pace of the permitting work is needed. According to pre-registration of applicants, in the 7 pilot regions there are 899 expected applications (from the beginning of IPPC legislation in force). For the period by the 30 October 2007 (41 month) is still expected delivering of 707 applications, that is 23,5 per each of 30 officers. Average work on the permit is calculated also to 0,57 of permits/month per officer. The task is possible to fulfil or by intensifying permit work (higher efficiency) or by increased number of staff.

Optimally a combination of both above mentioned approaches could be considered– increasing the staff number together with elevating the efficiency of the permitting work.



Staff at both the MoE and the Regional Offices are well equipped with computers and internet connections.

B.5. Trainees Review

The selection of the seven regions for project training has been made by the Ministry of Environment and has reflected the different characters of the regions and their IPPC parameters. After written information was sent to the regions, meetings and interviews have been arranged by national EIA and IPPC trainers. In the meetings also the number and personal profiles of trainees have been agreed. All candidates on trainees have been asked to fill questionnaires. All 15 trainees are the staff with responsibilities for IPPC in the region. In general observation - half of trainees are experienced staff (regions MSK, KHK, PAK, SCK), the second part is composed by less experienced officers (regions OLK, JMK and probably ULK).

The total number of staff involved in IPPC permitting in the 7 pilot regions in the Czech Republic was found to be 31. From that number 15 persons are participating in IPPC training in the frame of this project, of these 4 are chemists, 3 engineers, and 7 are representing other professions (from them 1 is environmentalist, 5 are agro-ecologists or agricultural engineers). Their media specialisation is 7 in water, 5 in waste and 5 in air (in several cases one specialist declares more than one media specialization).

The average professional experience of the staff involved in IPPC training is 15 years, the majority of the staff is medium (11), 3 of junior and 1 of high ranking.

They have been involved in a total of 85 IPPC permits as lead (12 respondents, average 7,1 permits), and they have contributed to another 87 IPPC permits (12 respondents, average 7,3 permits).

In previous training on IPPC procedures 8 permitting officers (from 12 respondents) have taken part, dominantly it was in Twinning projects (6). However, it should be noted that this reflects the position of the Trainees – many staff (not selected for training under this project) have already received training in IPPC – mainly from Twinning programmes.

Computer knowledge/familiarity and Internet/e-mail equipment seem to be satisfactory in general and also in individual regions.



Table B.5.7: Trainee review and capacity overview, by pilot regions٭

Region 1 Moravskoslezský krajNumber of staff involved in IPPC* 3Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting

chemists biologist engineers lawyers others

1 1 1



Position of staff involved in IPPC junior medium high

1 2


1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 24Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 4,6Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 10Familiarity with the English language, summaries

good/very good sufficient not enough not at allspeaking 1 2reading 1 2writing 3Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

1 2Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package





3 2 3 3

Only the staff involved in the survey and training in the frame of this project ٭



Region 2 Olomoucký krajNumber of staff involved in IPPC* 5Educatio3nal background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


3 2




2 3


3 2 2

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 4,2Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 2.5Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 1,2Familiarity with the English language, summaries

good/very good sufficient not enough not at allspeaking 4reading 3 2writing 1 4Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

2 3Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package





5 3 5 5



Region 3 Jihomoravský kraj Number of staff involved in IPPC* 3Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


1 2




1 2


1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 0Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 6Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 3,5Familiarity with the English language, summaries

good/very good sufficient not enough not at allspeaking 1 1 1reading 1 1 1writing 2 1Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users

3Status of IT No. of staff fully equipped with PCs, peripherals and office package





1 1 2 2



Region 4 Pardubický krajNumber of staff involved in IPPC* 1Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


1




1


1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 15Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 22Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 0Familiarity with the English language, summaries

good/very good sufficient not enough not at all1

reading 1writing 1Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






1 1 1 1



Region 5 Královéhradecký krajNumber of staff involved in IPPC* 1Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


1




1


1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 40Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 12Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 12Familiarity with the English language, summaries

good/very good sufficient not enough not at allspeaking 1reading 1writing 1Computer knowledge and familiarityNo. of very advanced and experienced users, using the full office package and e-mail and internet facilities



No. of non-users






1 1 1 1



Region 6 Ústecký krajNumber of staff involved in IPPC 1Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting


1




1


1 1 1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead 15Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 18Familiarity with the English language, summaries




No. of non-users






1 1 1 1



Region 7 Středočeský kraj Number of staff involved in IPPC* 1Educational background of staff involved in IPPC permitting

chemists biologist Engineers lawyers others

1




1

Media specialisation of staff** water waste air other

1 1 1

Average number of training days of IPPC staff has been exposed to 3Number of IPPC permits staff has been involved in as lead Number of IPPC permits to which staff have contributed 15Familiarity with the English language, summaries




No. of non-users






1 1 1 1

B.6. Assessment of current administrative practices

The assessment of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of the IPPC Directive can be divided into three categories:

1. Procedures2. Training related issues3. Non-training related issues.

The strengths and weaknesses of the current administrative practices for the effective implementation of IPPC are summarised in the three tables below.



Table B.6.8: Capacity assessment of current procedural issues

Strengths WeaknessesBAT information exchange system incl. website Transboundary IPPC – lack of guidancesInvolvement of Technical Working groups Lack of sector (installation categories) specific

BAT guidances (notes, manuals)Methodological support from Agency for Integrated Prevention

Length of integrated permitting process (in practice more then 12 months)

Set of secondary legislation ready (except transboundary issues)

Relation to EIA and Natura not generally known

EPER covered by legislation No practice with EPER, little trainingDominant CA – Regions are networking within Information Exchange Forum

Tool/concept of priority lists substances (and phase off of substances) is not generally known and used

Table B.6.9: Capacity assessment – training issues

Strengths WeaknessesAppropriate media mix in MSK, OLK, JMK Insufficient No of staff in some regions (PAK,

KHK, ULK)2/3 of total number of trainees previously exposed to training

Not enough sufficient knowledge of English

Computer knowledge/familiarity No regular plans on training for novices and low-experienced staff

Internet/e-mail equipment Temporarily overloaded staff in peaks of permitting

Experience gathered in practice (high numbers of applications and permits processed)

Table B.6.10:Capacity assessment – non-training issues

Strengths WeaknessesCEI strong monitoring and enforcement role Not generally known plans of permitting for next

yearsCEI capability to use own special measurement group

Not especially appointed staff for maintaining registers at Regional Offices

Sufficient offer of monitoring and accredited laboratory services on the market of environmental services and consultancies

Low involvement of lawyers in integrated permit issuing

Electronic application for integrated permit parallel to hard copy

No processing (correspondence, statement) the integrated permit in electronic form


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – IR - EIA – Czech Republic

C. Annex I: Institutional Review – EIA

Basic Definitions

Within the EIA procedure, the following definitions shall be used:a) project shall be a construction work, activity and technology as set forth in Annex No. 1

to the Act on EIA,b) affected territory shall be the territory the environment and population of which could be

significantly affected by the implementation of the project,c) affected territorial self-governing unit shall be the self-governing unit the administrative

area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory,d) affected administrative authority shall be an administrative authority, which defends

interests protected by special regulations4 and the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory and the Czech Environmental Inspection,

e) competent authority shall be the Ministry of Environment or the Regional Office in the territorial administrative area of which the project is planned.

Differences in definition/terminologyThere are the following major differences in definition/terminology between Czech Republic and EU/other countries:

EU / other countries Czech RepublicPreliminary Environmental Study NotificationDeveloper Notifier (the person, who intends to implement a project)Expert Opinion Expert ReportEnvironmental Impact Statement DocumentationScreening and Scoping Fact-finding Procedure

C.1. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis.

This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.

4 E.g. Act No. 50/1967 Coll., on territorial planning and construction (Construction Code), as amended, Act No. 44/1988 Coll., on the protection and exploitation of mineral resources (Mining Act), as amended, Act No. 138/1973 Coll., on waters (Water Act), as amended, Act No. 13/1997 Coll., on roadways, as amended, Act No. 266/1994 Coll., on railways, as amended, and Act No. 49/1997 Coll., on civil aviation and amending and supplementing Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on small businesses ( Small Business Act ), as amended



The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.

This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the EIA Directive in the Czech Republic has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national EIA experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.

Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for EIA, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation.

Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EIA procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the EIA legislation are examined in some detail in Section 5.

C.2. Legal Assessment

C.2.1. LegislationEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has already been implemented for a number of years in the Czech Republic (since 1992) and is fully functional from an administrative point of view. The only recent change concerning EIA administration was that the EIA procedures were formerly administrated at the district level (former 75 districts were cancelled by the end of 2001). Now the EIA procedures are administered at regional level (14 Regions has been established in 2002) and at the Ministry of Environment (selected projects with expected significant impacts). Some of the experienced personnel left the EIA sector during the transformation and handover of the agenda and responsibility to the Regions but no substantial problems were recorded.

EIA is carried out upon the following legislation in the Czech Republic: ACT No. 17/1992 Coll., on Environment as amended. The basic Act on protection of

environment. ACT No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment and amendments of some

related Acts (hereinafter Act on EIA)5. ACT No. 93/2004 Coll., which amends Act. No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact

Assessment and amendments of some related Acts. DECREE No. 457/2001 Coll., on professional qualification and regulation of some other

aspects related to environmental impact assessment (hereinafter “Decree 457”)6.

A brief overview of the legislation is given below:

ACT No. 17/1992 Coll., on Environment as amended. This act is the basic Act on Protection of Environment in the Czech Republic. This Act defines environmental impact assessment in very general terms only.

ACT No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended, is the main real basis for execution of EIA in the Czech Republic. The Act came into force on 1 January 2002 and it is applicable for all constructions, activities and technologies specified in the Annex 1 to the Act. The Act on EIA transposes the Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment (hereinafter “EIA Directive)7, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC8.A translation of Act 100, as amended, can be found in Appendix 1.

5 Zákon č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí)

6 Vyhláška č. 457/2001 Sb., o odborné způsobilosti a o úpravě některých dalších otázek souvisejících s posuzováním vlivů na životní prostředí

7 Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment



ACT No. 93/2004 Coll., an amendment of the Act on EIA. The Czech Parliament passed the act on 29 January 20049. It cancels residual Act No. 244/1992 Coll., on EIA and amends the Act on EIA in force. It introduces into the Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on EIA regulations on Strategic Environmental Assessment, to respond to previous criticism by the European Commission and to further optimise EIA regulations.

DECREE No. 457/2001 Coll., on professional qualification and regulation of some other aspects related to environmental impact assessment, deals in detail with regulations on the professional qualification of experts authorised to prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Expert opinion on Environmental Impact Statement, including the examination of this qualification, as only authorised persons are allowed to carry the above activities within the EIA procedure in the Czech Republic. The decree furthermore contains some special regulations on public participation and on the preparation of the expert opinion (expert report). It came into force on 1 January 2002.A translation of Decree 457 can be found in Appendix 2.

The interactions between the above mentioned pieces of EIA related legislation is straightforward and simple. The Act 100/2001 Coll., on EIA provides the details of the general statement on EIA presented in the ACT No. 17/1992 Coll., on Environment. Decree No. 457/2001 Coll. specifies who is competent (accredited persons only) to elaborate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Expert Opinion on EIS within the EIA procedure. The Act No. 93/2004 Coll. only amends the Act on EIA in force.

Indirect links of EIA legislation exist to all the sectoral legislation (air, water, noise, waste, nature protection, soil/groundwater, etc.). All the sector legislation has to be taken into account within the assessment of environmental impacts of the respective project subject to the Act on EIA.

Brief Description of the Steps of EIA According to the Act 100/2001 CollThe developer/investor of any project, which is subject to Act on EIA (i.e. the project listed in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA), is obliged to elaborate the so-called Preliminary environmental study (Notification) and submit it to the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment depending on specification of the project as presented in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA). The requirements/outlines of contents of the Preliminary environmental study are included in Annex 3 to the Act on EIA.

When the Preliminary environmental study is delivered to the Competent Authority it starts carry out Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure). Within Screening and Scoping the Preliminary environmental study (Notification) is made accessible to the public and delivered to relevant bodies of state administration and respective municipalities. Anybody can submit comments, complaint and/or recommendations to the Preliminary environmental study (Notification).

The Competent Authority issues (on the basis of the Preliminary environmental study (Notification), statements from state administration and municipalities and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from the public) the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping at the end of Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure).

Annex 1 to the Act on EIA distinguishes two categories of projects. Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects), which are always subject to full EIA procedure, and Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects), for which it is decided within the Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure) if the project will or will not be subject to full EIA procedure.

For Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects) the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping states if the project will or will not be assessed to the full extent according to Act on EIA. For both Category I projects (always) and Category II projects (if the project must be assessed according to the Act on EIA to the full extent), the scope of the Environmental Impact 8 Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the

effects of certain public and private projects on the environment9 Zákon č. 93/2004 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování vlivů na

životní prostředí a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí)



Statement (EIS) is defined within Conclusion from Screening and Scoping. This means that the content of the EIA, as it is specified in general terms in the Annex 4 to the Act on EIA, is made more precise and issues of special concern for EIS are highlighted.

The first step of the full Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The developer/investor shall elaborate the EIS in compliance with Annex 4 to the Act on EIA and within the scope of the EIS as defined in the “Conclusion from Screening and Scoping”. The EIS shall include the overall investigation, description and evaluation of the presumed environmental impacts of the proposed project, including a comparison with the current status of the environment in the place where it is to take place. It is important to note that only authorised persons can make the EIS.

The EIS is submitted to the Competent Authority (Regional Office or the Ministry of Environment depending on the type of project under investigation). In the next step the EIS is made accessible to the public and delivered to relevant bodies of state administration and respective municipalities. Anybody can submit comments, complaint and/or recommendations to the EIS within a specified period of time. In parallel, the Regional Office or Ministry of Environment orders an Expert Opinion concerning the EIS in question. The requirements of the Expert Opinion are defined in Annex 5 to the Act on EIA. Only authorised persons (with certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment) are allowed to prepare the Expert Opinion.

When the Expert Opinion is completed and delivered to the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment depending on the type of project) it is made accessible to the public and delivered to relevant bodies of state administration and respective municipalities. Anybody can send comments, complaint and/or recommendations on the Expert Opinion within a specified period of time.

The next step of the EIA procedure is the Public Hearing. The Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment depending on the type of project) organises the Public Hearing to present and discuss the EIS and, first of all, the Expert Opinion on EIS.

The Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment depending on type of the project) issues the Final Statement at the end of the EIA procedure. The Final Statement shall take into account EIS, Expert Opinion on EIS, public hearing and all the relevant comments from the public, NGOs, state administration and municipalities. The content/structure of the Final Statement is specified in Annex 6 to the Act on EIA.

EIA in the Czech Republic is carried out as a procedure of its own10; it is not directly integrated with the actual permitting procedure(s). The European EIA Directive, however, contains numerous requirements for development consent procedures.

The major goal of the environmental impact assessment carried out according to the Czech Act on EIA in force is to gather objective expert bases for issue of decision, or if need be measure, according to special legal regulations. This objective expert basis (Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or Final Statement from the EIA procedure) is consequently one of the grounds for administrative procedures according to special legal regulations.

The respective special regulations are, inter alia, as follows: the Act No 50/1976 Coll., on land use planning and building order (Building Code) as amended, Act 44/1988 Coll., on protection and use of natural resources (Mining Code) as amended, Act. No 254/2001 Coll., on waters and change of certain acts (Water Act) as amended, etc.

The major direct link is to the Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on land use planning and building order (Building Code). The result of the EIA procedure is an obligatory part of the application for a land use permit (for projects subject to the Act on EIA) and/or building permit. This means that the permitting authority shall take into account, within the decision-making process, the result of the environmental impact assessment procedure.

In general, the permitting authority may not issue a decision according to special legal regulations without either a Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or a Final Statement from

10 It is not an administrative procedure in the sense of the Act on Administrative Procedures (Zákon č. 71/1967 Sb., o správním řízení [správní řád])



the EIA procedure issued by the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment (depending the on nature of the project). However, it should be noted, that both the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping and the Final Statement from EIA procedure are not binding on the permitting authority, as they are understood to be experts point of view (it is not binding as a Decision in terms of the Act on Administrative Procedures).

EIA has been fully functional in the Czech Republic since 1992. The EIA procedures are administrated at regional level as from the end of 2001. The integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) concept is completely new for the Czech administration (the IPPC Act is in force since 1.1.2003) and the IPPC permitting authorities (Regional Offices) role have started only from January 2003.

There is no direct link between EIA and IPPC in the Czech Republic. The EIA procedure precedes the IPPC permitting procedure in the majority of cases, however a parallel execution is also possible. The EIA procedure must be completed before an application for land use permit is submitted whilst a valid IPPC permit must be part of the application for a construction permit for any new facility subject to both the Act on EIA and the Act on IPPC. This means that the IPPC permit procedure is carried out mostly at a phase when EIA is already successfully completed.

Certain links exist concerning information needed for execution of both EIA procedure and IPPC permitting procedure. There is an effort to use information collected within the EIA procedure also for elaboration of the application for IPPC permit. However, there are some bottlenecks in this approach. First, EIA deals with information, which is generally insufficiently detailed for elaboration of the IPPC application, as the project is not yet elaborated in detail. Secondly, different experts are dealing with EIA from those dealing with IPPC, so communication problems can appear.

C.2.2. ScreeningScreening relates to the decision by the Competent Authority of whether an EIA is required for a specific project. The Directive specifies two categories of projects for which an EIA is required; projects listed in Annex I (EIA is mandatory), and those projects listed in Annex II (screening is carried out to decide if EIA will or will not be executed).

The Czech Act on EIA, as well as EIA Directive, distinguishes two categories of projects. However, both categories are included in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. The Annex 1 to the Act on EIA thus specifies two categories of projects. Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects), for which full EIA procedure is required mandatory and Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects), for which the screening is required to decide if the project will or will not be subject to full EIA procedure.

Within Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure) the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment, depending on specification of the project – see below) shall decide on the basis of both the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification), statements from state administration and municipalities (Statutory consultation authorities), and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from the public if the project will or will not be subject to a full EIA procedure.

Annex 1 to the Act on EIA also specifies which projects are to be dealt with by Regional Offices, and which should to be dealt with by Ministry of Environment. This is distinguished using cross mark in one of two columns at the list of projects. If the cross mark is in the first column, the EIA procedure is carried out by Ministry of Environment. If the cross mark is in the second column, the EIA procedure is carried out by Regional Office.

This relates to both Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects) and Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects), In general terms Ministry of Environment deals with projects with potentially more serious impacts. This means that for example within the Category I project Regional Offices administer only the following types of projects: Waste water treatment plants with a capacity above 100 000 equivalent inhabitants (EI)

and sewerages for more than 50 000 connected inhabitants



Installations for the breeding of livestock with the capacity above 180 livestock units (1 livestock units = 500 kg of living weight)

Veterinary sanitary facilities Black or brown coal treatment – charge more than 3 million tons/year. Metal ore roasting and sintering Installation for the production of pharmaceutical products Installation for the production of explosives and regeneration or destruction of explosive

substances.

The situation concerning Category II projects (Directive annex II projects) is reversed. The Ministry of Environment administers only about 19% of projects of Category II listed in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. It relates, for example, to installations for storage of crude oil or oil products with the capacity between 5 000 and 100 000 tons.

At the end of Screening and Scoping the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment) issues the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping, which in the case of projects of Category II (according to Annex1 to the Act on EIA) states whether the project in question will or will not be assessed in full extent according to Act on EIA.

Annex I ProjectsArticle 4.1 of the Directive requires that, subject to Article 2.3, projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an EIA.

Annex 1 to the Act on EIA covers in its list of projects Category I projects equivalent to projects listed in Annex I of the Directive. All project listed in the “Category I” of the Annex 1 to the Act on EIA must always be subject to EIA according to §4, letter a) of the Act on EIA.

Within Annex 1 to the Act on EIA there are certain different threshold values for size of project listed in the Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects). However, the general result of the analysis is that Annex I to the Directive has been widely transposed into Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. There are only some minor discrepancies concerning Category I projects (Directive annex I projects) that can easily be remedied by amendment of Annex 1 to the Act on EIA.

The following discrepancies related to Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects) were found:

Paragraph 2 of Annex I to the Directive (nuclear installations), second indent The exception for research installations is not limited to the production and conversion of fissionable and fertile materials (see Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, Category I, No. 3.2).

Paragraph 3 of Annex I to the Directive (nuclear installations)There are certain doubts, if the re-processing of irradiated nuclear fuel is covered by the Czech regulations. The Directive distinguishes processing and reprocessing, the Czech EIA Act mentions only processing (see Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, Category I, No. 3.4). However, Czech expression “processing” includes re-processing in general terms.

Paragraph 5 of Annex I to the Directive (asbestos)The “processing and transformation of asbestos” in its pure form is missing in the Act on EIA (see Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, Category I No. 6.2). However, the Czech expression “production of products containing asbestos” should also cover processing and transformation of asbestos, as any treatment of asbestos results in products containing asbestos, even if the content of asbestos is 100%.

Paragraph 9 of Annex I to the Directive (waste disposal)The Czech regulation makes installations for the management (“nakládání”) of hazardous wastes in general subject to EIA. However, the 2004 amendment added a threshold of 1000 t/year (see Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, Category I No. 10.1). The EIA Directive does not allow such a threshold for incineration, chemical treatment and landfill.



Paragraph 19 of Annex I to the Directive (mining)Extraction of lignite and ores is included in Category I projects. However, Category II projects contains separate provisions, which limit EIA to extraction of lignite of more 200 000 t/year, and extraction mineral resources between 10 000 and 100 000 t/year. The regulations of Category II projects are based on t/year but have no direct relation to the surface area as required by Annex I No. 19 EIA Directive. Peat extraction is not mentioned in Category I of Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, however it must be subject to mandatory EIA.

Within Annex 1 to the Act on EIA there are also certain additional types of projects that must be subject to EIA. This concerns e.g. the following types of projects:

Permanent deforestation or forestation of piece of land larger than 25 hectares Black or brown coal treatment – more than 3 million tons/year Cement, lime or magnesite production.

According to §4, sub-section (2) of the Act on EIA, an EIA is not required in certain circumstances, when the Government makes a decision in cases of emergency, state of danger and state of war, for urgent reasons of defence or to comply with international agreements binding the Czech Republic, and in case where the project serves for the immediate prevention of consequences or the mitigation of unpredictable events that could seriously endanger the health, safety or property of the population or the environment. This may not be laid down for projects subject to an environmental impact assessment extending beyond the border of the Czech Republic pursuant to § 11. In relation to a project excluded pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph, the Government shall be obliged: to appropriately inform the public of this decision, together with a justification therefore,

pursuant to § 16, to consider the possibility of some other assessment of environmental impacts therefore,

with public participation, prior to issuing a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations a), to inform the

European Commission of the reasons for exclusion pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph and provide it with the information published in the framework of any assessment pursuant to letter b).

Annex II ProjectsProjects equivalent to projects listed in Annex II to the Directive are listed in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA as Category II projects. Category II projects are those projects, about which it is decided within Screening and Scoping according to §4, sub-section (1), letter b) if a full EIA will or will not be carried out. Determination whether projects listed in Category II of the Annex I to the Act on EIA shall be made subject to full EIA procedure is made by a case-by-case examination.

Within Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, there are certain discrepancies between projects listed in the Category II and Directive Annex II projects. However, the general result of the analysis is that Annex II to the Directive has been widely transposed into Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. There are only some minor discrepancies concerning Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects) that can easily be remedied by amendment of Annex 1 to the Act on EIA.

The following discrepancies related to Category I projects (Directive Annex II projects) were found:

Paragraph 2 of Annex II to the Directive (extractive industry), letters (a) and (b) The scope for the extraction of mineral resources in Category II projects contains provisions, which limit EIA to extraction of lignite of more 200 000 t/year, and extraction mineral resources between 10 000 and 100 000 t/year (see Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, Category II, No. 2.1.,2.3.). Category I covers larger extraction project. The regulations of Category II projects are not used in Annex II to EIA Directive. Peat extraction is missing as well as in Category I.

Paragraph 4 of Annex II to the Directive (production and processing of metals), letter (c) According to Annex II (paragraph 4, letter c) of the EIA Directive ferrous metal foundries may be made subject to EIA. They are not included in Annex 1, Category II, No. 4.1 of Act on EIA



(“processing ferrous metals”), because the EIA Directive explicitly distinguishes between “processing of ferrous metals” and “ferrous metal foundries”. However, ferrous metal foundries are mandatory subject to EIA as it is listed in Category I of Annex 1 to the act on EIA.

Paragraph 4 of Annex II to the Directive (production and processing of metals), letter (f) According to Annex II (paragraph 4, letter f) of the Directive the manufacture and assembly of motor vehicles and manufacture of motor-vehicle engines may be made subject to EIA. Annex 1, Category II, No. 4.3 of the Act on EIA mentions only production and repair of motor vehicles and not the manufacture of motor-vehicle engines.

Paragraph 8 of Annex II to the Directive (textile, leather, wood and paper industries), letter (b) According to Annex II (paragraph 8, letter b) of the Directive plants for the pre-treatment or dyeing of fibres or textiles may be made subject of EIA. Annex 1, Category II, No. 5.4 of the Act on EIA mentions only plants for the treatment or dyeing of textiles. However, in Czech conditions it is understand that treatment includes pre-treatment.

Paragraph 10 of Annex II to the Directive (infrastructure projects), letter (a)According to Annex II (paragraph 10, letter a) of the EIA Directive industrial estate development projects may be made subject to EIA. Annex 1, Category II, No. 10.6 of Act on EIA originally included “industrial zones”. However, this item was cancelled by the recent (2004) amendment of the Act on EIA and it is therefore absent now.

Paragraph 10 of Annex II to the Directive (infrastructure projects), letter (b)According to Annex II (paragraph 10, letter a) of the EIA Directive urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks may be made subject to EIA. Annex 1 Category II, No. 10.6 of the Act on EIA does not mention urban development projects and therefore does not completely comply with Annex II of the EIA Directive.

Paragraph 13 of Annex II to the Directive (changes or extensions of projects), second indentAccording to Annex II (paragraph 13, second indent) of the EIA Directive projects listed in Annex I, undertaken exclusively or mainly for the development and testing of new methods or products and not used for more than two years are exempted from EIA. The exemption in Annex 1, Category II, No. 10.14 of the Act on EIA is not conditioned by a period of two years.

The decision whether Directive Annex II projects will be made subject to EIA is made within Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure - see §7 of the Act on EIA), which is carried out following Annex 2 to the Act on EIA. Annex 2 specifies principles for the Screening and Scoping (fact-finding procedure). They include the characteristics of the project, the location of the project and the characteristics of expected impacts of the project on inhabitants and the environment.

Annex 2 of the Czech Act on EIA is therefore in full compliance with Annex III to the EIA Directive.

Case-by-Case ExaminationThe developer/investor of any category 2 project is obliged to elaborate the so called Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) according to §6, sub-section (1) of the Act on EIA. The Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) ensures that the relevant selection criteria in Annex III of the Directive are taken into account. The content of the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) is specified in Annex 3 to the Act on EIA.

Within Screening and Scoping the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) is made accessible to public and delivered to relevant bodies of state administration and respective municipalities. Anybody can submit comments, complaint and/or recommendations to the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification). On the basis of the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification), statements from state administration and municipalities and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from the public it is decided if the project will or will not be subject to full a EIA procedure.



Depending on the type of project (as specified in Annex1 to the Act on EIA) The Regional Office or Ministry of Environment (the Competent Authority) is the responsible body for deciding whether the project shall be made shall subject to EIA and issues the “Conclusion from Screening and Scoping”, which inter alia clearly states if the project will or will not be assessed in the full extent according to the Act on EIA.

Thresholds or CriteriaThreshold criteria are not used in the Czech Republic to determine whether Annex II projects are to be made subject to EIA.

According to point 10.15 of the Annex 1 to the Act on EIA, constructions, activities and technologies not included in the previous points of the Annex 1 and not attaining the parameters in the previous points of the Annex 1, that could seriously change the state of the environment in especially protected areas pursuant to special legal regulations or if so laid down in a special legal regulation will be subject to Act on EIA.

The Czech Act on EIA does not allow a general exemption from EIA, as would be possible according to Article 1.4 of the EIA Directive. A decision of the Government is necessary on a case-by-case basis, including the procedural steps defined in Article 2.3 of the EIA Directive. This is in accordance with Article 1.4 of the EIA Directive, because it offers only an option to restrict the field of application of EIA. The Czech Act on EIA does not use this option.

C.2.3. Status of TranspositionThe EIA Directive has been almost fully transposed into national legislation. There are only some minor discrepancies that can easily be remedied by amending the Act on EIA and its Annexes.

Besides the above discrepancies related to Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive the following discrepancies were identified:

Article 5, paragraph 3 of the DirectiveAnnex 3 and Annex 4 to the Act on EIA do not specify the necessary content of non-technical summary, although the last indent of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the EIA Directive explicitly refers to the information mentioned in the previous indents of Article 5, paragraph 3.

Article 5, paragraph 4 of the DirectiveArticle 5, paragraph 4 of the EIA Directive requires that any authorities with relevant information in their possession make this information available to the developer. Paragraph 15 of the Act on EIA states that the competent and affected authorities (only) are obliged to provide the developer with information on the environment and upon request. However, any authority is obliged to make environmental information in their possession available to anybody, pursuant to Act No. 123/1998 Coll., on the right to information on the environment, as amended.

Article 6, paragraph 1 of the DirectiveAmong others, Art. 6 paragraph 1 EIA Directive requires that authorities likely to be concerned by a project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the request for development consent. As EIA in the Czech Republic is carried out as a procedure of its own11 and it is not directly integrated with the actual permitting procedure(s) this requirement is not included in the Act on EIA. However, authorities likely to be concerned by a project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the request for development consent within land use permit procedure and building permit procedure.

11

? It is not an administrative procedure in the sense of the Act on Administrative Procedures (Zákon č. 71/1967 Sb., o správním řízení [správní řád])



Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the DirectiveThe Directive requires that any request for development consent is made available to the public and the public concerned is given an opportunity to express an opinion before the development consent is granted. According to Article 6, paragraph 3 of the EIA Directive the Member States are obliged to determine detailed arrangements for such consultation, e.g. determine the public concerned. As EIA in the Czech Republic is carried out as a procedure of its own and it is not directly integrated with the actual permitting procedure(s) this requirement is not included in the Act on EIA.

The Act on EIA only says that the locally competent unit of a civic association or generally beneficial society, the sphere of activity of which is the protection of public interests protected pursuant to special regulations (hereinafter "civic associations") or a municipality affected by the project shall become a participant in subsequent procedures pursuant to special regulations12 if:

a) it has submitted a written viewpoint on a Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification), Environmental Impact statement (EIS) or expert report on EIS within the periods of time laid down in this Act,

b) the competent authority stated in its statement pursuant to § 10, paragraph 1 of the Act on EIA that this viewpoint is fully or partly included in its statement, and

c) the administrative authority making a decision in the subsequent procedure did not decide that the public interests, defended by the civic association, are not affected in the subsequent procedure.

C.2.4. Directive 2003/35/ECThe Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC aims at transposition of the Aarhus Convention and its implementation into European legislation.

The MoE is currently completing a comparative study related to Directive 2003/35/EC. On the basis of analysis of compatibility of Directive 2003/35/EC with Czech legislation, particularly the Czech IPPC Act, Act on EIA and Right to Know Acts, an appropriate proposal for amendments of all relevant Czech Acts will be prepared if it will be found necessary (expected in 2004).

All the requirements of the Aarhus Convention, which are transposed into European EIA legislation by Directive 2003/35/EC are already met by the Czech Act on EIA.

C.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents

No publicly available Guidance Documents have been prepared. Only general Information and Explanations were prepared for internal use within Ministry of Environment and Regional Offices.

Recently, the “Handbook for developers (notifiers)” has been prepared by the Ministry of Environment and will be distributed to the public soon. This handbook gives the developer basic information about relevant legislation, guides him through the EIA procedure and shows him the right way how to proceed, including recommendations of best practice.

12 Act No. 83/1990 Coll., on association of citizens, as amended, Act No.227/1997 Coll., on foundations and foundation funds and amending and supplementing some related Acts (the Act on foundations and foundation funds) and Act No. 248/1995 Coll., on generally beneficial societies and amending and supplementing some other Acts.



C.4. Institutional Arrangements

C.4.1. Competent Authorities – OverviewTable A.4.1 shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to EIA.

Table C.4.11:Competent Authorities for EIA

Responsibilities Central Regional LocalDeciding whether a project requires an EIA

Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Making the EIA decision Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Issuing guidance on EIA Ministry of Environment x x

Trans-boundary issues Ministry of Environment x x



Consultation with other authorities




Inspection

Czech Environmental Inspection;Hygienic Service

Control: MoE

Czech Environmental InspectionHygienic Service


x

Enforcement Ministry of Environment Regional Office x

Maintaining an EIA register

Czech Environmental Institute

x x

Making information available to the public


Responsibilities for specific obligations relating to EIA lie in the Czech Republic only at central (Ministry of Environment) and regional level (Regional Offices).

C.4.2. Competent Authority for EIADepending on the type of project (as specified in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA) it is the Ministry of Environment (EIA and IPPC Department), or Regional Office (Environmental Department, in certain cases Environment and Agriculture Department), that has the responsibility for making a “decision” on EIA. However, neither the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping nor the Final Statement from the EIA procedure is concluded with a binding Decision in terms of the Administrative Code.

The Ministry of Environment or Regional Office makes the decision whether an Annex II project (Annex 1 project, Category II, according to Czech Act on EIA) requires an EIA, i.e. whether the project will or will not be assessed in full extent according to the Act on EIA.

The Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment, depending on the type of the project) shall decide if the project will be subject to full EIA procedure on the basis of the Notification (Preliminary Environmental Study), statements from state administration and relevant municipalities, and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from the public.



The statement whether an Annex II project (Annex 1 project, Category II, according to Czech Act on EIA) requires an EIA is prepared by the Competent Authority (Regional Office or Ministry of Environment) within the “Conclusion from Screening and Scoping”.

Annex 1 to the Act on EIA specifies which projects are to be dealt with by Regional Offices, and which should to be dealt with by the Ministry of Environment. In general terms the Ministry of Environment deals with projects with potentially more serious impacts. Regional Offices administer within the Category I projects (Directive Annex I projects) only the following types of projects:

Waste water treatment plants with a capacity above 100 000 equivalent inhabitants (EI) and sewerages for more than 50 000 connected inhabitants

Installations for the breeding of livestock with the capacity above 180 livestock units (1 livestock units = 500 kg of living weight)

Veterinary sanitary facilities Black or brown coal treatment – charge more than 3 million tons/year. Metal ore roasting and sintering Installation for the production of pharmaceutical products Installation for the production of explosives and regeneration or destruction of explosive

substances.

The situation concerning Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects) is reversed. The Ministry of Environment administers about 19% of Category II projects listed in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA. It relates for example installations for storage of crude oil or oil products with the capacity between 5 000 and 100 000 tons.

C.4.3. Statutory Consultation AuthoritiesThe term “affected administrative authority” is defined in § 3 letter e) of the Act on EIA. The affected administrative authority shall be an administrative authority, which defends interests protected by special regulations and the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory, and the Czech Environmental Inspection.

In § 3 letter d) of the Act on EIA the term “affected self-governing units” is defined as the self-governing unit, the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory.

In § 23 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act on EIA some special affected administrative authorities are set forth as follows:

For the standpoints on public health the affected administrative authority shall be the Ministry of Health for projects and conceptions exceeding the regional framework, and the territorially competent regional hygiene services in other cases. In deliberations on land-use planning documents, the Ministry of Environment shall be the affected authority of the State administration in the sense of the Construction Code from the standpoint of environmental impact assessment.

The affected administrative authority in environmental impact assessment pursuant to this Act from the standpoint of projects set forth in Annex No. 1 to this Act, Category I points 3.2 to 3.5 and Category II point 3.5 shall be the State Nuclear Safety Authority.

In addition the Statutory Consultation Authorities given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer are designated on a case-by-case basis according to the nature of activities and links to other sectors, etc. An information letter of the Ministry of Environment dating from 19 June 2003 lists possibly affected authorities. This information can also be found on the Internet in the EIA Information System of the Czech Ecological Institute.



C.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central Level

Table C.4.12:Institutional capacity at central level

Activity No. of staff*

Are there sufficient staff for the task (Y/N) Comments**

Preparing Legislation 1 - 3 Y

Not for full capacity. Only expert issues. Then it is worked out in the legislation department

Preparing general Guidance Documents 0,5 N Carried out rarely due to

insufficient capacity.Preparing Internal Procedural Manuals 2 Y

Maintaining national registers (on projects, decisions etc )

3 Y Maintained at Czech Environmental Institute.

Legal Advisers 1 Y Lawyer within the EIA and IPPC department.

Providing advice to the regional/local authorities 10 Y

All EIA staff of the department + 7 experts for SEA.

Support staff 0 N* Other than support staff, please include only staff directly involved in the activity. If staff carry out more than one function, assess how much time is spent on this particular activity (e.g. if someone spends half their time on maintaining registers, then count this as 0.5 person)** Use Comments column for any other relevant information – e.g. whether staff are senior or junior, in what areas are additional staff needed etc.



C.4.5. Institutional Capacity at Regional/Local LevelTable C.4.13:Institutional capacity at regional level

Activity Region 1MSK

Region 2OLK

Region 3JHM

Region 4PAK

Region 5KHK

Region 6ULK

Region 7SCK

No. EIA applications 2003 36 37 43 36 33 53 91

No. EIA applications 2004till 31.7.04

44 26 31 26 24 22 55

No. Staff for EIA determinations 2 1+0,5+0,

5 3 0,5 + 0,5 2 1,5 5

No. Support staff n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.No. Staff for maintaining registers

2 1 3 0,5+0,5 2 1,5 5

No. Staff at other statutory authorities

Number of staff dealing with EIA is changing case by case

No. Support staff n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7No. Legal advisers n.p. n.p. 1 n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p.No. Computers in EIA Dept. Each expert has own computer and own e-mail connection (e-mail address).

Is register electronic (Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is there an electronic connection with the central authority (Y/N)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is public information available on-line (Y/N)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Notes:n.a. Not available. Number of support staff dealing with EIA is changing case by case.n.p. No permanent legal advisers are designated for EIA

C.5. Procedural Issues

C.5.1. The EIA There are no standard procedures based on the Czech Act on EIA concerning a prior request for an opinion from the developer as to whether the project may require an EIA.

The EIA procedure starts with Screening and Scoping. Within Screening and Scoping the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) is supplied by the developer (notifier) to the Competent Authority (Regional Office or the Ministry of Environment depending on the type of project as specified in Annex1 to the Act on EIA). The Competent Authority makes the Preliminary Environmental Study accessible to the public and delivers it to relevant bodies of state administration and respective municipalities. Anybody can submit comments, complaint and/or recommendations to the Preliminary Environmental Study.

On the basis of the Preliminary Environmental Study, statements from state administration, statements from municipalities and comments, complaint and/or recommendations from the public the Competent Authority elaborates and issues the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping. The Conclusion from Screening and Scoping, inter alia, states if the Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects) will or will not be assessed in full extent according to the



Act on EIA. Certain projects (specified in Annex1 to the Act on EIA) are always subject to full EIA procedure.

For all the projects subject to full EIA procedure the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is defined within Conclusion from Screening and Scoping. This means that the content of the EIA, as it is specified in general terms in the Annex 4 to the Act on EIA, is made more precise and issues of special concern for EIS are highlighted.

There are no standard procedures based on the Czech Act on EIA ensuring that a developer does not split projects so as to try and avoid the requirements for an EIA.

For the purpose of the Screening and Scoping procedure the developer (notifier) has to submit a Preliminary Environmental Study (pursuant to § 6) containing the information specified in Annex 3 to the Act on EIA.

If a project is subject to the full EIA procedure, the developer (notifier) must submit the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) according to § 8 of the Act on EIA, which has to cover more detailed information than the Preliminary Environmental Study. The information, which must be presented in the EIS is specified in Annex 4 to the Act on EIA.

The Czech Act on EIA does not specify the content of the non-technical summary, although the last indent of Article 5, paragraph 3 of the EIA Directive explicitly refers to the information mentioned in the previous indents of paragraph 3 of Article 5.

The information, which the developer must provide to the Competent Authority, can be prepared either by the developer himself or by outside consultants. However, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), according to § 8 of the Act on EIA, can be prepared only by authorised/accredited person (person with certificate on professional qualification issued by the Ministry of Environment in agreement with the Ministry of Health).

If so requested by the developer (notifier), the Competent Authority and the affected administrative authorities shall be obliged to discuss the planned project or conception with the developer (notifier) and recommend to him/her a preliminary consultation with other affected administrative authorities, affected territorial self-governing units and, if appropriate, with other entities. Upon request from the developer (notifier), the Competent Authority and affected administrative authorities shall be obliged to provide him/her with information on the environment pursuant to Act No. 123/1998 Coll., on the right to information on the environment, as amended.

Screening and Scoping has to be carried out for every project subject to the Act on EIA according to § 7 of the Act. The purpose of this procedure is to decide if the Category II projects (Directive Annex II projects) will or will not be assessed in full extent according to the Act on EIA and for projects, which are subject to full EIA procedure, “refine information” that is appropriate to be laid down in the Environmental Impact Statement (§ 7 paragraph 1 of the Act on EIA).

Pursuant to § 6 paragraph 3 of the Act on EIA the Preliminary Environmental Study has to be sent to the affected authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and made available to the public. Everyone, including the affected authorities and affected self-governing units, can send in written viewpoints to the competent authority.

The results of the Screening and Scoping procedure have to be laid down in a written Conclusion from Screening and Scoping by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority shall terminate the Screening and Scoping procedure at the latest within 35 days of the date from publishing the Preliminary Environmental Study pursuant to § 6. If the Preliminary Environmental Study is submitted with requisites pursuant to Annex 4 (i.e. in the extent of the Environmental Impact Statement), this deadline shall equal 45 days.

After completing the Screening and Scoping procedure, the competent authority shall immediately send its written Conclusion from Screening and Scoping to the developer (notifier), the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and shall



publish it pursuant to § 16 within the same period of time without the annexes pursuant to paragraph 3.

Furthermore preliminary consultations are defined in § 15 of the Act on EIA. Upon a request by the developer (notifier) the Competent Authority and the affected administrative authorities are obliged to discuss the considered project with the developer/investor (notifier) and recommend to him/her preliminary consultations with other affected administrative authorities, affected territorial self-governing units and/or other entities, as appropriate.

The Czech Act on EIA also offers an option for preliminary hearings on request by the developer (notifier).

If a project is subject to full EIA procedure, the developer (notifier) must submit to the Competent authority the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) according to § 8 of the Act on EIA, which has to cover more detailed information than the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification). The information, which must be presented in the EIS, is specified in Annex 4 to the Act on EIA.

Requisites of the Environmental Impact Statement according to Annex 4 to the Act on EIA (concise overview) are as follows: Information on the developer (notifier) Information on the project

Basic information Information on inputs (soil and land, water, raw material and energy sources, etc.) Information on outputs (air pollution, waste water, waste, noise and vibrations, etc.)

Information on the state of environment in the affected territory The most important environmental characteristics Characteristics of the current state of the environment in the affected territory Overall evaluation of the quality of the environment in the affected territory

Complex characteristics and evaluation of the impacts of the project on public health and the environment Characteristics of expected impacts of the project on the population and the

environment and evaluation of their magnitude and importance Complex characteristics of the environmental impacts of the project from the

standpoint of their magnitude and importance and potential transboundary impacts Characteristics of environmental risks during potential accidents and non-standard

states Characteristics of measures to prevent, avoid, mitigate or compensate unfavourable

impacts on the environment Characteristics of the methods used for forecasting and of the initial assumptions for

the evaluation of the impacts Characteristics of deficiencies in knowledge and uncertainties occurring during the

preparation of the documentation Comparison of alternatives of the project (if submitted) Conclusion Non-technical summary

The Act on EIA is very detailed and defines the above procedural arrangements.

Although it is not formally regulated in the Czech EIA Act, the competent authority can at any time require further information from the developer/investor (notifier) during the whole EIA procedure. No time period(s) are laid down for the CA to request ‘further information’ or for the developer to comply with this request. Time period(s) are set on the basis of mutual agreement.

There is not any standard procedure for the situation when the developer fails to supply the “further information”. The CA must decide if the information supplied is sufficient to complete the Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure) or the EIA procedure.

First of all it should be noted that both the Conclusion from Screening Scoping and the Statement from the EIA procedure are not Decisions in terms of the Act on Administrative Procedures. They are understood as expert points of view, which are not binding for the permitting authority issuing the development consent.



The time period(s) related to Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure) and EIA procedure are as follows:

Screening and Scoping (Fact-finding procedure)

The competent authority shall terminate the Screening and Scoping procedure at the latest within 35 days of the date of publishing the Preliminary Environmental Study pursuant to § 6. If a Preliminary Environmental Study was submitted with requisites pursuant to Annex 4 (the extent of EIS), this deadline shall equal 45 days. After completing the Screening and Scoping procedure, the competent authority shall immediately send its written conclusion to the developer/investor (notifier), the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and shall publish it pursuant to § 16 of the Act on EIA within the same period of time.

EIA procedureOn the basis of the EIS, the expert report and the public hearing pursuant to § 9 paragraph 9 of the Act on EIA and the viewpoints submitted thereon, the competent authority shall issue a statement on the assessment of the environmental impacts of implementing the project within 30 days of the date of expiration of the deadline for submitting viewpoints on the expert report.

Within 7 working days of issuing the statement, the competent authority shall send the statement to the developer/investor (notifier), the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time, it shall publish the statement on the Internet and ensure that it is published pursuant to § 16.

The time period for issue of either Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or the Statement from EIA procedure should not be extended. There is no standard procedure for the situation if CA does not make the decision within the relevant time period.

C.5.2. Statutory Consultation AuthoritiesAccording to the Act on EIA the statutory consultation authorities are consulted in each step of the EIA procedure when the EIA documents are made accessible to the public i.e. in the following steps:

When Preliminary Environmental Statement (Notification) is completed When Environmental Impact Statement is completed When Expert Opinion to Environmental Impact Statement is completed.

Statutory consultation authorities are also invited to take part in public hearings, where they are given the floor for their statements.

The Ministry of Environment or the Regional Office, depending on the nature of the projects (as specified in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA), is the responsible office in terms of EIA of the procedure. The responsible office deals with procedural arrangements for consultation with the statutory consultation authorities.

Within the EIA procedure the responsible office first delivers to the statutory consultation authorities the EIA documents, to which the statutory consultation authorities should give their standpoints. The document is accompanied with a request for submission of the respective standpoints within specified a period of time. If no standpoint from the statutory consultation authority is received within the given period of time it is expected that the respective authority agrees with the project.

The Statutory Consultation Authorities are of two kinds:

Affected bodies of state administration. For the majority of projects the affected bodies of state administration are the Czech Environmental Inspection, Health Service, Regional Office and the Ministry of Health. In case of specific projects/activities the Regional Office can, on a case-by-case basis, invite also other bodies



Affected Regional Self-administration, i.e. potentially affected municipalities. Affected municipalities are designated on a case-by-case basis according to the location of the projects/activity.

All the above Statutory Consultation Authorities are supplied with their own copies of the EIA document to which they should express their opinion and are invited to elaborate their standpoint to this document.

IPPC consultation authorities are not formally consulted within the EIA procedure at present. Relations between EIA and IPPC procedures are currently discussed both within state administration and other stakeholders (investors, industry, public, etc.). In daily practice at the same departments at Regional Offices deal with EIA and IPPC issues and in some cases the experts a the EIA and IPPC departments at the Regional Offices are involved both in EIA and IPPC procedures. In this way informal consultations take place.

C.5.3. Trans-Boundary ConsiderationsArticle 7 of the EIA Directive deals with the consultation procedures when a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State, and when a project in another Member State is likely to have significant effects on the environment in the national territory.

Projects Likely to Have Significant Effects on Another Member StateThe Ministry of Environment is the responsible body for transboundary EIA procedures. In transboundary assessments the Ministry of Environment shall proceed in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The projects set forth in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA will be subject to transboundary EIA, if the affected territory extends beyond the territory of the Czech Republic. According to § 11 paragraph 1 letter b) of the Act on EIA a project can also be subject to transboundary EIA on a request of the affected State.

For a project set forth in Annex 1, column B, the Regional Authority shall be obliged to submit its assessment to the Ministry of Environment, if it discovers that this is a project subject to transboundary EIA.

In the transboundary assessment, the procedure pursuant to the Act on EIA shall be followed, unless the international agreements binding the Czech Republic lay down alternative procedures in transboundary assessments. In transboundary assessments the Ministry may prolong the deadlines for viewpoints by up to 30 days, if the affected State so requests. In such case the other deadlines shall be accordingly prolonged.

If the Ministry of Environment discovers that a project is subject to transboundary EIA pursuant to § 11 paragraph 1 letter a) or if the affected State has requested a transboundary EIA of the project pursuant to §11 paragraph 1 letter b), the Ministry of Environment shall send the Preliminary Environmental Study within 5 working days to the affected State for a viewpoint, together with information on the course of the assessment pursuant to this Act and information on the subsequent decisions that can be adopted pursuant to special regulations The notification includes the Preliminary Environmental Study.

If the received viewpoint of the affected State on the Preliminary Environmental Study sent thereto contains a request to participate in the transboundary assessment, the Ministry of Environment shall request information from the affected State on the state of the environment in its affected territory. The Ministry of Environment shall send this information within 5 working days of the date of receipt thereof to the developer/investor (notifier) for use in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement that must always be prepared in the case of transboundary assessment, and shall also provide it to the person preparing the expert report.

Within 20 days of obtaining the Environmental Impact Statement, the Ministry shall send this Environmental Impact Statement to the affected State and offer a preliminary consultation, particularly if the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared in variants, including information



of measures for mitigating significant transboundary impacts (hereinafter "consultations"). If the affected State expresses interest in a consultation, the Ministry of Environment shall participate in the consultation. Immediately beforehand and at the latest within 5 days of the date of setting the date for the consultation, the Ministry shall inform the developer/investor (notifier) and, through him/her, the person preparing the Environmental Impact Statement on the place and time of the consultation. These persons shall then be obliged to also participate in the consultation. The Ministry shall be obliged to publish information on the consultation.

The Ministry has to send the viewpoint of the affected State on the Environmental Impact Statement to the person preparing the expert report as a basic document for evaluation (according to § 13 paragraph 4 of the Act on EIA) within 5 working days of obtaining the viewpoint of the affected State on the Environmental Impact Statement.

The Ministry of Environment shall according to § 13 paragraph 5 of the Act on EIA incorporate the viewpoint of the affected State in the (final) statement from the EIA procedure, or shall set forth therein the reasons why it did not incorporate this viewpoint in its statement or why it did so only partly.

The Ministry shall be obliged to send the (final) statement to the affected State within 15 days of its issue. Furthermore it shall be obliged to send to it requests for related decisions pursuant to special regulations and these decisions, within 15 days of the date of their receipt. The administrative authorities shall be obliged to send these requests and decisions to the Ministry on the basis of a requirement set in the statement or on the basis of a request.

The Ministry of Environment shall ensure that the above information shall be published at least in the following way:

On the official notice boards of the affected territorial self-governing units, On the Internet, and In at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the local press, on the

radio, etc.).

The Czech Republic ratified Espo Convention on 26th February 2001.

The same procedures noted above are applied for consultation with other (non EU) states that are likely to be affected by projects on the Czech national territory.

Projects in Another Member State Likely to Have Significant Effects on National TerritoryThe Ministry of Environment is the responsible body for transboundary EIA procedures. The Act on EIA specify in its § 14 the following rules for transboundary EIA procedures (transboundary assessment of projects Implemented outside the territory of the Czech Republic:

a) If the Ministry of Environment obtains the Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) of a project or otherwise learns of a project that will be implemented in the territory of the State of origin, it shall be obliged to publish information on such Preliminary Environmental Study pursuant to § 16 of the Act on EIA within 5 working days after receipt thereof and shall send it to the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint.

b) Within 15 days of the date when information on a Preliminary Environmental Study (Notification) pursuant to above paragraph a) was published, every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint on this Preliminary Environmental Study to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment shall send all viewpoints together with its own viewpoint to the State of origin within 30 days of the date when the above information on the Preliminary Environmental Study pursuant to above paragraph a) was published.

c) Upon request of the State of origin, the Ministry of Environment shall communicate information on the state of the environment in the affected territory of the Czech Republic within 30 days of the date of receipt of this request, unless a special regulation prevents this5).

5 ) E.g. the Civil Code, the Commercial Code, the Criminal Code, Act No. 527/1990 Coll., on inventions, industrial samples and suggestions for improvement, as amended, Act No. 101/2000 Coll., on protection of personal information and amending some Acts, as amended by Act No. 227/2000., Act No. 148/1998 Coll.



d) If the Ministry of Environment has obtained the Environmental Impact Statement and, may be, also an offer for a consultation from the State of origin, it shall send this Environmental Impact Statement for a viewpoint to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and shall publish information on this Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to § 16 of the Act on EIA.

e) Within 15 days of the date when information on the Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to above paragraph d) was published, every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint on this Environmental Impact Statement to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment shall send all viewpoints together with its own viewpoint and information that it will potentially participate in the consultation to the State of origin within 30 days of the date when the information on the Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to above paragraph d) was published.

f) If the Ministry of Environment obtains within sufficient time information on the place and time of a public hearing held in the territory of the State of origin, it shall publish it pursuant to § 16 of the Act on EIA.

g) If the Ministry of Environment obtains the conclusions of the State of origin on the assessment of the project and on the decision of the State of origin on the basis of subsequent procedures, it shall publish information on this conclusion and/or this decision pursuant to § 16 within 15 days of receipt thereof.

The Ministry of Environment shall ensure that above information shall be published at least in the following way:

On the official notice boards of the affected territorial self-governing units, On the internet, and In at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the local press, on the

radio, etc.).

The same procedures mentioned above are applied for consultation with other (non EU) states that have projects likely to affect the environment of the Czech national territory.

C.5.4. Issues of Confidentiality The Act on EIA only refers to special regulations. According to § 16 paragraph 5 of the Act on EIA information that cannot be published pursuant to special regulations) shall be deleted from the below information and statements:

The Preliminary Environmental Study and on when and where it may be perused, The Environmental Impact Statement and on when and where it may be perused, the expert report and on when and where it may be perused, The consultation within transboundary assessment.

In general the developer decides which information will be used within the EIA procedure.

C.5.5. Public Information and ConsultationIt should be noted, that the Act on EIA does not relate directly to development consent. However, the Conclusion from Screening and Scooping and (final) Statement from EIA procedure are basic expert document for the following permitting procedure(s).

The Conclusion from Screening and Scooping or the Statement from EIA procedure is an obligatory part of the application for development consent (land use permit, building permit), and the administrative authority has to include the requirements for protection of the environment set forth in the respective document. If the decision diverges from the statement, the authority has to justify it.

Within the EIA procedure the competent authority (Ministry of Environment or Regional Office, depending on nature of the projects, as specified in Annex 1 to the Act on EIA) has to ensure that information is made available to the public; the details are regulated in § 16 and § 17 of the Act on EIA and complemented by § 4 and § 5 of the Decree 457. The competent authority is also obliged to arrange consultation.



In the EIA procedure the public is informed and is involved at every relevant step; people have the possibility to express their opinion at many steps of the EIA procedure:

Preliminary hearings: the competent authority or the affected administrative authorities can recommend preliminary hearings with other entities, if appropriate (§ 15 of the Act on EIA)

Preliminary Environmental Study: within ten working days from obtaining the Preliminary Environmental Study information on it has to be published (§ 6 paragraph 3 of the Act on EIA); within 20 days every person can send a written viewpoint to the relevant authority (§ 6 paragraph 4 of the Act on EIA)

Screening and Scoping procedure: immediately after completing the Screening and Scoping procedure the written conclusion has to be published (§ 7 paragraph 2 of the Act on EIA)

Environmental Impact Statement: within ten working days of obtaining the Environmental Impact Statement information on it has to be published (§ 8 paragraph 2 of the Act on EIA); within 30 days every person can send a viewpoint to the competent authority (§ 8 paragraph 3 of the Act on EIA)

Expert report: within ten working days of obtaining the expert report information on it has to be published (§ 9 paragraph of the Act on EIA); within 30 days every person can send a written viewpoint to the competent authority (§ 9 paragraph of the Act on EIA)

Public hearing (§ 9 paragraph 9 and § 17 of the Act on EIA): every person can participate at the public hearing and express his/her opinion, the minutes of the public hearing have to be published on the Internet (§ 17 paragraph 6 of the Act on EIA)

Statement: within seven days of issuing it, the statement has to be published (§ 10 paragraph 2 of the Act on EIA).

According to § 16, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Act on EIA the competent authority shall ensure that the following information and statements are published: The Preliminary Environmental Study and on when and where it may be perused Conclusion of the Screening and Scoping procedure The place and time of holding the public hearing pursuant to the Act Returning the Environmental Impact Statement for reworking or supplementing The Environmental Impact Statement and on when and where it may be perused The expert report and on when and where it may be perused Statement from the EIA procedure The consultation within the transboundary assessment.

According to § 16, paragraph 3 of the Act on EIA the information and statements are published at least in the following way:

On the official notice boards of the affected territorial self-governing units, On the Internet, and In at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the local press, on the

radio, etc.).

Arrangements for public participation in the EIA procedure are specified in § 16 and § 17 of the Act on EIA and complemented by § 4 and § 5 Decree 457. The major rules are as follows:

Anybody is the public. All information is made available to everyone. The competent authority is obliged by § 16, paragraph 1 of the Act on EIA to inform the

public about the time and place where the information can be consulted. The competent authority is obliged to provide for a public hearing of the expert report and

simultaneously of the Environmental Impact Statement. At all steps of the procedure the Czech EIA Act defines time limits both for the competent

and affected authorities and for the public (see above).



C.5.6. Taking Account of Information and Consultation Opinions

The Preliminary Environmental Study and Screening and Scoping procedureThe competent authority shall, within 10 working days of obtaining the Preliminary Environmental Study, send a copy thereof to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint. Within the same period of time it shall provide for publishing information on the Preliminary Environmental Study and shall further publish the textual part of the Preliminary Environmental Study on the Internet. The Regional Office shall send a copy of the Preliminary Environmental Study to the Ministry of Environment within the same period of time.

Every person may send his/her written viewpoint on the Preliminary Environmental Study to the competent authority within 20 days of the day when information on the Preliminary Environmental Study was published. The period of time for a viewpoint by the affected administrative authority and territorial self-governing unit shall begin to run from the date of delivery of the Preliminary Environmental Study. If a Preliminary Environmental Study with the content and scope pursuant to Annex 4 to the Act on EIA (the extent of the Environmental Impact Statement) was submitted, this period of time shall be prolonged by 15 days. The competent authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

The Screening and Scoping procedure shall be commenced and carried out on the basis of the Preliminary Environmental Study and the viewpoints obtained thereon, and pursuant to the aspects and criteria set forth in Annex 2 to the Act on EIA. Part of the written conclusion from the Screening and Scoping procedure shall be a summary evaluation of all the comments contained in the viewpoints received. Copies of all the viewpoints obtained shall be an integral annex to this conclusion.

Environmental Impact StatementOn the basis of the Preliminary Environmental Study, the viewpoints on the Preliminary Environmental Study, and the conclusion from the Screening and Scoping procedure pursuant to § 7, the developer/investor (notifier) shall provide for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The requisites of the Environmental Impact Statement are set forth in Annex 4 to the Act on EIA.

Within 10 working days of the date of delivery thereof, the competent authority shall send the Environmental Impact Statement for a viewpoint to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time, it shall ensure that information on the Environmental Impact Statement is published and shall publish at least the textual part of the Environmental Impact Statement on the Internet.

Any person may submit a viewpoint on the Environmental Impact Statement to the competent authority in writing within 30 days of the date when information on the Environmental Impact Statement was published. The authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

The Expert ReportThe expert report shall be prepared on the basis of the Environmental Impact Statement or Preliminary Environmental Study and all the viewpoints submitted thereon. The requisites of the expert report are set forth in Annex 5 to the Act.

If the expert report contains the requisites pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Act on EIA, the competent authority shall send it within 10 working days of the date of its receipt to the developer/investor (notifier), the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time the competent authority shall ensure that the expert report is published.

Any person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint to the competent authority within a period of 30 days of the date when the information thereon was published or to express an opinion thereon at the public hearing. In the further procedure, the relevant authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the expiration of this deadline.



If the competent authority has obtained negative viewpoints on the Environmental Impact Statement or expert report, it shall provide for a public hearing of the expert report and of the Environmental Impact Statement simultaneously.

The person preparing the expert report shall deal with the received written viewpoints on the expert report and the viewpoints presented during the public hearing and potentially modify the proposal for the Statement on the basis of these viewpoints. This evaluation shall be submitted together with the proposal for the (final) statement to the competent authority within 10 days after the expiration of the deadline.

C.5.7. Information on DecisionsAccording to § 16, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Act on EIA the competent authority shall ensure that the following information and statements is published:

Conclusion from the Screening and Scoping procedure (information on the decision taken whether an EIA is required)

Statement from the EIA procedure (information whether the project can be executed from the environmental point of view).

According to § 16, paragraph 3 of the Act on EIA the information and statements are published at least in the following way:

On the official notice boards of the affected territorial self-governing units, on the Internet, and In at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the local press, on the

radio, etc.).

The Ministry shall be obliged to send the (final) statement to the affected State within 15 days of its issue. Furthermore it shall be obliged to send to it requests for related decisions pursuant to special regulations and these decisions, within 15 days of the date of their receipt.

The statement shall be a basic expert document for issuing a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations. The requisites of the statement are set forth in Annex 6 to the Act on EIA.

Non-member states are informed in the same way as member states.

C.5.8. AppealsFirst of all it should be noted that the EIA procedure in the Czech Republic is not considered as a permitting procedure concluded with the Decision in terms of the Act on Administrative Procedures. Both the Conclusion from Screening and Scoping and the Final Statement from full EIA procedure are understood as expert points of view, which are not binding for the permitting authority issuing the development consent.

The major goal of the environmental impact assessment carried out according to the Czech Act on EIA is to gather an objective expert basis for the issue of a decision, or if need be measure, according to special legal regulations. This objective expert basis (Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or Final Statement from EIA procedure) is consequently one of the grounds for administrative procedures according to special legal regulations.

The respective special regulations are, inter alia, as follows: the Act No 50/1976 Coll., on land use planning and building order (Building Code), Act No.44/1988 Coll., on protection and use of natural resources (Mining Code), and Act. No 254/2001 Coll., on waters and change of certain acts (Water Act) etc.

The major direct link is to Act No. 50/1976 Coll., on land use planning and building order (Building Code). The result of the EIA procedure is an obligatory part of the application for land use permits (for projects subject to the Act on EIA) and/or building permits. This means that the permitting authority shall take into account within the decision-making process the result of the environmental impact assessment procedure if EIA is relevant.



Consequently appeals within the EIA procedure can relate only to formal parts of the EIA procedure but not to the result of the procedure, i.e. Conclusion from Screening and Scoping or Final Statement from the EIA. Therefore, there are no formal procedures how to deal with appeals presented in the Act on EIA.

If anybody intends to appeal against formal mistakes within EIA procedure he/she shall submit his appeal to the Regional Office or directly to the Ministry of Environment, which is the central administrative authority in the field of environmental impact assessment and execute supreme State supervision in the field of environmental impact assessment.

If he/she is not satisfied with settlement of the claim he/she can lodge a complaint at the court. However, only compliance with procedural issues set by act on EIA and/or by Decree No. 457/2001 Coll., on professional qualification and regulation of some other aspects related to environmental impact assessment, can be appealed.

Appeals concerning the consecutive development consent procedure are dealt with according to the Act on land use planning and building order (Building Code) and Act on administrative procedures.

According to the Czech Act on EIA anybody is the public within the whole EIA process. All information is always made available to everyone in general.


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – IR – EIA – Czech Republic

Annex 1CONSOLIDATED VERSION

100 ACTof 20 February 2001

on Environmental Impact Assessment and Amending Some Related Acts(Act on Environmental Impact Assessment)

as amended by

Act No. 93/2004of 29 January 2004

The Parliament has passed the following Act of Law of the Czech Republic:

PART ONEENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER I

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Section 1INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

§ 1

Subject of the Regulation(1) The Act in conformity with the law of the European Community13) regulates the assessment

of impacts on the environment and on public health (hereinafter “environmental impact assessment”) and the procedure for natural and legal persons, administrative authorities and territorial self-governing units (municipalities and Regions) in this assessment.

(2) Subject to environmental impact assessment shall be projects and conceptions as specified in this Act, the implementation of which could significantly affect the environment.

(3) The purpose of the environmental impact assessment shall be to obtain an objective professional foundation for issuing a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations, 1a) and thereby to contribute to the sustainable development of the society. 1b) This foundation shall be one of the basic documents in procedures pursuant to the special regulations.1a)

§ 2

Scope of the AssessmentThe assessment shall comprise the impacts on public health and the impacts on the

environment, including impacts on fauna and flora, ecological systems, the soil, the geological environment, water, air, climate and landscape, natural resources, tangible property and cultural

13 ?) Council Directive of 27th June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC).Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3rd March 1997 amending the Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 th June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

1 a) E.g. Act No. 50/1967 Coll., on territorial planning and construction (Construction Code), as amended, Act No. 44/1988 Coll., on the protection and exploitation of mineral resources (Mining Act), as amended, Act No. 138/1973 Coll., on waters (Water Act), as amended, Act No. 13/1997 Coll., on roadways, as amended, Act No. 266/1994 Coll., on railways, as amended, and Act No. 49/1997 Coll., on civil aviation and amending and supplementing Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on small businesses ( Small Business Act ), as amended, as amended

1 b) Act No. 17/1992 Col., on the environment, as amended.



monuments, as specified by special regulations14) and on the mutual interactions and connections between them.

§ 3

Basic DefinitionsFor the purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall be valid:

a) project shall be a construction work, activity and technology as set forth in Annex No. 1 to this Act,b) conception shall be strategies, policies, plans or programs elaborated or farmed out by a body of

public administration and subsequently approved or submitted for approval by a body of public administration,

c) affected territory shall be the territory the environment and population of which could be significantly affected by the implementation of the project or conception,

d) affected territorial self-governing unit shall be the self-governing unit the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory,

e) affected administrative authority shall be an administrative authority, which defends interests protected by special regulations2) and the administrative area of which constitutes at least one part of the affected territory and the Czech Environmental Inspection,

f) competent authority shall be the Ministry of Environment (§ 21) or the Regional Authority in delegated responsibility in the territorial administrative area of which the project is planned or for the territorial administrative area of which the conception is being elaborated (§ 22).

Section 2Environmental Impact Assessment of a Project

§ 4

The Subject of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Project(1) The subject of the assessment pursuant to this Act shall be

a) projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Category I, which shall always be subject to assessment,b) projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Category II, if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to

§ 7,c) changes in any project set forth in Annex No. 1, if its capacity or extent is to be increased by 25%

or more, or if there is a significant change in its technology, management of operation or manner of use and if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 7,

d) changes in any project set forth in Annex No. 1, if the relevant limit values will be reached by them or if the capacity or the scope of the project reaches the relevant limit values and if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 7,

e) projects, if the prolongation of validity of the statement pursuant to § 10 par. 3 is requested, if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 7.

(2) The subject of the assessment pursuant to this Act shall further not be a project or a part thereof about which the Government makes a decision in cases of emergency, state of danger and state of war, 3), for urgent reasons of defence or to comply with international agreements binding the Czech Republic and in case, that the project serves for the immediate prevention of consequences or the mitigation of unpredictable events that could seriously endanger the health, safety or property of the population or the environment. This may not be laid down for projects subject to an environmental impact assessment extending beyond the border of the Czech Republic pursuant to § 11. In relation to a project excluded pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph, the Government shall be obliged

a) to appropriately inform the public of this decision, together with a justification therefore, pursuant to § 16,

14 ) E.g. Act No. 44/1988 Coll., Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on state memorial care, as amended, Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on care for the health of the population, as amended, Act No. 17/1992 Coll., on the environment, as amended, Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on nature and landscape protection, as amended, Act No. 289/1995 Coll., on forests and amending and supplementing some Acts (Forest Act), as amended, Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on public health protection and amending some related Acts, as amended, Act No. 254/2001 Coll., on waters and amending some Acts (Water Act), as amended, Act No. 185/2001 Coll., on waste and amending some other Acts, as amended, Act No. 86/2002 Coll., on protection of the air and amending some other Acts (the Clean Air Act).

3 ) Constitutional Act No. 110/1998 Coll., on the security of State, as amended by Constitutional Act No. 300/2000 Coll.



b) to consider the possibility of some other assessment of environmental impacts therefore, with public participation,

c) prior to issuing a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations1a), to inform the European Commission of the reasons for exclusion pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph and provide it with the information published in the framework of any assessment pursuant to letter b).

§ 5

The Manner of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Project(1) The assessment shall include the identification, description, assessment and evaluation of

expected direct and indirect environmental impacts of implementing or not implementing the project.

(2) The environmental impacts of the project shall be assessed in relation to the state of the environment in the affected territory at the time of the notification of the project. In a long-term project its individual phases shall be assessed separately and in the context of the impacts of the project as a whole.

(3) In assessing a project, the impacts on the environment shall be assessed for its preparation, implementation, operation and termination, including, if appropriate, the results of its liquidation and further the decontamination or reclamation of the site, if the obligation of decontamination or reclamation is laid down by some special regulation.1a) Both normal operations and the possibility of accidents4) shall be assessed.

(4) The assessment of projects shall also include a proposal for measures to prevent unfavourable impacts on the environment through the implementation of the project, to exclude, reduce, mitigate or minimize such impacts, or, if appropriate, to increase the favourable impacts on the environment by implementing the project, including an evaluation of the expected effects of the proposed measures.

§ 6

Notification(1) The person, who intends to implement a project (hereinafter the “notifier”), shall be obliged to

submit a notification of the project (hereinafter the “notification”) to the competent authority. If the project is planned in the territory of several Regions, the notifier shall send the notification to the Ministry of Environment (hereinafter the "Ministry"). In this case, the Ministry shall decide on which Regional Authority is competent to carry out the assessment and shall immediately pass it the notification for further proceeding.

(2) The notifier shall be obliged to submit the notification to the competent authority in writing and on a technical data carrier, or to send it by electronic mail (hereinafter "in electronic form"), in a number of copies laid down by agreement with the competent authority. The requisites of the notification are laid down in Annex No. 3 to this Act. If a project is concerned which is subject to assessment pursuant to Annex No. 1 to this Act, the notifier must always give a summary of the studied main variants and key reasons for his (her) choice in relation to the environmental impact. A notification may also be submitted with the content and scope pursuant to Annex No. 4 to this Act, in a number of copies laid down by agreement with the competent authority.

(3) If the notification contains the requisites pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authority shall, within 10 working days of obtaining the notification, send a copy thereof to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint. Within the same period of time it shall provide for publishing information on the notification pursuant to § 16 and shall further publish the textual part of the notification on the Internet. The Regional Authority in delegated responsibility (hereinafter the "Regional Authority") shall send a copy of the notification to the Ministry within the same period of time.

(4) Every person may send his (her) written viewpoint on the notification to the competent authority within 20 days of the day when information on the notification was published. The period of time for a viewpoint by the affected administrative authority and territorial self-governing unit shall begin to run on the date of delivery of the notification. If a notification with the content and scope pursuant to Annex No. 4 to this Act was submitted, this period of time shall be prolonged by 15 days. The competent authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

4 ) E.g. Act No. 353/1999 Coll., on prevention of major accidents caused by selected hazardous chemical substances and chemical preparations and amending Act No. 425/1990 Coll., on District Authorities, outlining of their competence and some other related measures, as amended ( Act on prevention of major accidents) as amended by Act No. 258/2000 Coll.



§ 7

Fact-Finding Procedure(1) The objective of the fact-finding procedure is to refine information that is appropriate to be

laid down in the documentation on the environmental impacts of the project (hereinafter the "documentation"), in relation to

a) the nature of the specific project or kind of project,b) the environmental factors set forth in § 2, which could be affected by the implementation of the

project,c) the current state of knowledge and assessment methods.

For projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Category II and for changes in a project pursuant to § 4 par. 1 letters c), d) and e), the objective of the fact-finding procedure shall also be to determine, whether the project or change therein is to be assessed pursuant to this Act. The fact-finding procedure shall be commenced and carried out on the basis of the notification and the viewpoints obtained thereon, and pursuant to the aspects and criteria set forth in Annex No. 2 to this Act.

(2) The competent authority shall terminate the fact-finding procedure at the latest within 30 35 days of the date of publishing the notification pursuant to § 6. If a notification was submitted with requisites pursuant to Annex No. 4, this deadline shall equal 45 days. After completing the fact-finding procedure, the competent authority shall immediately send its written conclusion to the notifier, the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and shall publish it pursuant to § 16 within the same period of time without the annexes pursuant to paragraph 3.

(3) Part of the written conclusion pursuant to paragraph 2 shall be a summary evaluation of all the comments contained in the viewpoints pursuant to § 6 par. 3 and 4. Copies of all the viewpoints obtained shall be an integral annex to this conclusion.

(4) If a notification was submitted with requisites pursuant to Annex No. 4 and the competent authority did not obtain any justified negative viewpoint thereon, it may lay down in the conclusion pursuant to paragraph 2 that the documentation need not be prepared and the notification shall be considered to be the documentation. Otherwise, on the basis of the viewpoints pursuant to the previous sentence, the competent authority shall lay down in its conclusion pursuant to paragraph 2, how the notification should be elaborated so that it can replace the documentation.

(5) In the conclusion pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authority may propose the preparation of variant designs for the project, which shall generally differ in the location, capacity, technology employed or moment of implementation, if its implementation is demonstrably useful and technically feasible. It can be proposed only exceptionally and on the basis of a justification to prepare variant designs for the project that are different from the approved land-use planning documentation.

(6) In the conclusion pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authority shall lay down in relation to the number of affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units, how many copies of the project documentation the notifier is to submit thereto.

§ 8

Documentation(1) On the basis of the notification, the viewpoints on the notification pursuant to § 6 par. 3 and

4, and the conclusion to the fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 7, the notifier shall provide for the preparation of the documentation in written form in the number of copies laid down pursuant to § 7 par. 6 and in electronic form. In justified cases, especially for technical and economic reasons, the competent authority may desist from the electronic form of cartographic, pictorial or graphical annexes of the documentation. The requisites of the documentation are set forth in Annex No. 4 to this Act.

(2) Within 5 10 working days of the date of delivery thereof, the competent authority shall send the documentation for a viewpoint to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time, it shall ensure that information on the documentation is published pursuant to § 16 and shall publish at least the textual part of the documentation on the Internet.

(3) Every person may submit a viewpoint on the documentation to the competent authority in writing within 30 days of the date when information on the documentation was published. The authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.



(4) If the competent authority concludes that the documentation does not contain the requisites on the basis of this Act, it shall return it within 40 days of the date when the information was published pursuant to paragraph 2 to the notifier for supplementing or reworking, together with the specification of the required requisites, or shall request supplementary information from him (her); otherwise, it shall deliver it together with the viewpoints to the person preparing the report on the environmental impacts (hereinafter the "expert report") within the same period of time.

(5) In case the documentation is returned pursuant to paragraph 4, the supplemented or reworked documentation shall be handled pursuant to paragraph 2.

§ 9

The Expert Report(1) The competent authority shall provide by contract for the preparation of the expert report by a

person authorized therefor pursuant to § 19 (hereinafter the "person preparing the expert report").

(2) The person preparing the expert report shall prepare this report on the basis of the documentation or notification and all the viewpoints submitted thereon. The requisites of the expert report are set forth in Annex No. 5 to this Act.

(3) The period for preparing the expert report must not exceed 60 days from the date when the documentation, including all viewpoints received thereon, was delivered to the person preparing the expert report. This period of time may be exceeded in justified, especially in complex cases, however, by a maximum of a further 30 days.

(4) If the person preparing the expert report requires particular documents from other experts for verifying data on the environmental impacts of implementing the project, (s)he shall be obliged to state this fact in the expert report. A person who participated in preparing the notification or documentation may not participate in any way in the preparation of the expert report.

(5) On the basis of recommendations of the person preparing the expert report and at the latest 30 days from the date when the project documentation was delivered to the person preparing the expert report, the competent authority may return this documentation to the notifier for reworking or supplementing. The person preparing the expert report must not rework or supplement the assessed documentation.

(6) The notifier shall be obliged, at his own expense, to provide the person preparing the expert report with the basic documents that were used for preparing the documentation and with other data essential for the preparation of the expert report, within 5 working days of the date when (s)he obtained a request therefor from the person preparing the expert report.

(7) The person preparing the expert report shall send the expert report to the competent authority in the agreed number of copies, at the agreed time and in the agreed form. If the expert report contains the requisites pursuant to paragraph 2, the competent authority shall send it within 10 working days of the date of its receipt to the notifier, the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time, it shall publish the expert report on the Internet and ensure that information on the expert report for the project is published pursuant to § 16. If the expert report does not contain the requisites pursuant to this Act, the competent authority shall return it within 10 working days of the date of its receipt to the person preparing the expert report for supplementing or reworking.

(8) Every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint to the competent authority within a period of 30 days of the date when the information thereon was published, or to express an opinion thereon at the public hearing pursuant to paragraph 9. In the further procedure, the relevant authority need not take into account viewpoints sent after the expiration of this deadline.

(9) If the competent authority has obtained negative viewpoints on the documention or expert report, it shall provide for a public hearing of the expert report and simultaneously of the documentation pursuant to § 17.

(10) The person preparing the expert report shall deal with the received written viewpoints on the expert report and the viewpoints raised during the public hearing and potentially modify the proposal for the statement on the basis of these viewpoints. This evaluation shall be submitted together with the proposal for the statement to the competent authority within 10 days after the expiration of the deadline pursuant to paragraph 8.



§ 10

Statement on the Environmental Impact Assessment ofImplementing the Project

(1) On the basis of the documentation or notification, the expert report and the public hearing pursuant to § 9 par. 9 and the viewpoints submitted thereon, the competent authority shall issue a statement on the assessment of the environmental impacts of implementing the project (hereinafter "statement) within 30 days of the date of expiration of the deadline for submitting viewpoints on the expert report. The requisites of the statement are set forth in Annex No. 6 to this Act.

(2) Within 7 working days of issuing the statement, the competent authority shall send the statement to the notifier, the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units. Within the same period of time, it shall publish the statement on the Internet and ensure that it is published pursuant to § 16.

(3) The statement shall be a basic expert document for issuing a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations1a). The statement shall be submitted by the notifier as one of the basic documents for subsequent procedures or processes pursuant to these regulations. The statement shall be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of its issuing. On the basis of a request by the notifier, the validity may be extended by two years, and this also repeatedly, if no substantial change has occurred in the implementation of the project, the conditions in the affected territory, or regarding new knowledge related to the factual content of the documentation and the development of new technologies utilizable in the project. This period of time shall be interrupted if a subsequent procedure pursuant to special regulations1a) has been commenced.

(4) In the absence of a statement, it shall not be possible to issue a decision or measure necessary for implementing the project in any administrative procedure or other process pursuant to special regulations. 1a) In such procedures or processes, the competent authority shall be affected administrative authority. An administrative authority that issues a decision or measure pursuant to special regulations1a) shall include in its decision or measure the requirements for the protection of the environment set forth in the statement, if set forth therein, or it shall state in its decision or measure the reasons why it did not do so or did so only partly.

(5) In case that a project set forth in Annex No. 1 Category II and a change of a project pursuant to § 4 par. 1 shall not be assessed pursuant to this Act, the provisions of paragraph 4 shall be valid analogously also for the conclusions of the fact-finding procedure.

Section 3Environmental Impact Assessment of a Conception

§ 10a

The Subject of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Conception(1) The subject of environmental impact assessment of a conception (hereinafter “assessment of

a conception”) pursuant to this Act shall be

a) conceptions, which set the framework for future permits of projects set forth in Annex No. 1, prepared in the field of agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishery, surface or ground water management, energy, industry, transport, waste management, telecommunications, tourism, territorial planning, regional development and environment including nature protection, conceptions, for which, in view of their possible effect on the environment, the necessity of their assessment follows from a special legal regulation, 4a) and furthermore conceptions co-financed by European Community funds; these conceptions shall always be subject to assessment, if the affected territory is comprised of the territorial area of more than one municipality,

b) conceptions pursuant to letter a), if the affected territory is comprised of the territorial area of only one municipality, if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 10d,

c) changes of conceptions pursuant to letters a) and b), if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure pursuant to § 10d.

(2) The subject of assessment pursuant to this Act shall not be

a) conceptions prepared only for purposes of State defence,

4



b) conceptions prepared for a case of extraordinary events, which are likely to significantly and directly endanger the environment, or the health, safety or property of persons,4a)

c) financial and budgetary conceptions,d) regulatory plans pursuant to a special legal regulation,4b) unless they specify conditions for the

implementation of projects set forth in Annex No. 1 to this Act.

§ 10b

The Manner of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Conception(1) Conception assessment shall include the identification, description and estimation of

expected direct and indirect impacts of implementing or not implementing the conception and its objectives for the whole period of its expected implementation.

(2) The conception shall be assessed in relation to the state of the environment in the affected territory at the time when the notification on preparing the conception is submitted (hereinafter the “notification of a conception”), taking account of effects of other conceptions or projects, which will be implemented before or in the course of the implementation of the conception, or, if appropriate, the implementation of which is intended.

(3) Data of another assessment may be used in the assessment of a conception pursuant to this Act, if they correspond to data pursuant to this Act.

(4) In assessing a conception, measures to prevent unfavourable impacts on the environment and public health, to exclude, reduce, mitigate or compensate these impacts, or, if appropriate, to increase the favourable impacts on the environment and public health by implementing the conception shall be proposed and assessed, including an evaluation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed measures. For a conception prepared in variants, it shall be necessary to carry out the assessment pursuant to this Act for all variants.

§ 10c

Notification of a Conception(1) The person submitting a suggestion for the elaboration of a conception (hereinafter the

“submitter”) shall be obliged to submit a notification of the conception to the competent authority in documentary and electronic form. The requisites of the notification of the conception are laid down in Annex No. 7 to this Act.

(2) If the notification of the conception contains the requisites pursuant to paragraph 1, the competent authority shall, within 10 days of its receipt, send a copy of this notification to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint. Within the same period of time it shall publish the notification on the Internet and provide for publishing information on the notification pursuant to § 16. The Regional Authority shall send a copy of the notification to the Ministry within the same period of time.

(3) Every person may send his (her) written viewpoint on the notification of the conception to the competent authority within 20 days of the date of publication thereof. The competent authority shall not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

§ 10d

Fact-finding Procedure(1) The objective of the fact-finding procedure shall be to specify content and scope for

evaluating the impacts of the conception on the environment and public health (hereinafter “evaluation”). For a conception set forth in § 10a par. 1 letters b) and c), the objective of the fact-finding procedure shall also be to determine, whether the conception or change of the conception is to be assessed pursuant to this Act.

(2) The competent authority shall carry out the fact-finding procedure on the basis of the notification, the viewpoints received thereto and pursuant to the criteria set forth in Annex No. 8 to this Act and shall complete it by a written conclusion of the fact-finding procedure at the latest within 35 days of the date of publishing the notification of the conception.

4 a) E.g. Act No. 254/2001 Coll.4 b) Act No. 50/1976 Coll.



(3) If the conception is subject to assessment pursuant to this Act, the competent authority shall lay down in the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure

a) the content and scope of the evaluation, including the requirement to elaborate possible variants of the conception,

b) how many copies of the draft conception are to be submitted to the competent authority.

(4) In the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure, the competent authority shall furthermore propose the proceeding of assessing the conception including the performance of a public hearing.

(5) If the conception is not subject to paragraph 3, the competent authority shall be obliged to state the reasons, for which the assessment pursuant to this Act is not required, in the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure.

(6) The competent authority shall immediately send the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure to the submitter, the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units and at the same time publish it pursuant to § 16.

§ 10e

Proceeding of Environmental Impact Assessment of a Conception(1) Within 30 days of the date of receipt of the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure, the

submitter shall be obliged to provide for a person authorised to elaborate the evaluation pursuant to § 19 (hereinafter the “reviewer”) and to inform thereof the competent authority, which shall immediately publish this information on the Internet.

(2) The submitter shall be obliged to cooperate with the reviewer in elaborating the evaluation, especially to give him (her) viewpoints incoming in the course of the elaboration of the draft conception.

(3) The reviewer shall be responsible for the complete and objective elaboration of the evaluation. The requisites of the evaluation are set forth in Annex No. 9 to this Act.

(4) The reviewer shall be authorised to require information essential for the elaboration of the evaluation from the submitter, the competent authority, the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units and these shall be obliged to provide him (her) with information in the necessary scope. Rejecting disclosure of information shall be possible only on conditions laid down in special legal regulations4c).

§ 10f

Draft Conception(1) The submitter shall be obliged to submit the draft conception to the competent authority in

documentary and electronic form. Integral part of the draft conception shall be the evaluation elaborated by the reviewer.

(2) If the evaluation contains the requisites pursuant to Annex No. 9, the competent authority shall send the draft conception within 10 days of the date of its receipt to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint. Within the same period of time, it shall publish the draft conception on the Internet and provide for publishing information on the draft conception pursuant to § 16. If the evaluation does not contain the requisites pursuant to Annex No. 9, the competent authority shall return it for completion.

(3) The submitter shall be obliged to publish information on the place and time of the performance of the public hearing on the draft conception on its official notice board, on the Internet and in at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the press etc.), within at least 10 days before its performance. At the same time (s)he shall be obliged to inform the competent authority on the place and time of the performance of this public hearing.

(4) The public hearing on the draft conception may not be performed prior to the expiration of 30 days of the date of submitting the draft conception to the competent authority. The submitter shall be obliged to send the minutes taken on this public hearing to the competent authority at the latest within 5 days of the date of performing the public hearing on the draft conception and to publish it on the Internet at the same time.

4 c) E.g. Act No. 123/1998 Coll., on the right to information on the environment, as amended by Act No. 132/2000 Coll., Act No. 148/1998 Col., on the protection of secret facts and amending some Acts, as amended, Act No. 101/2000 Coll., on the protection personal data and amending some Acts, as amended.



(5) Every person may send his (her) written viewpoint on the draft conception to the competent authority at the latest within 5 days of the date of performing the public hearing on the draft conception. Within the same period of time the submitter may send his (her) written viewpoint on the evaluation to the competent authority. The competent authority shall not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

(6) The public hearing on the draft conception shall not be subject to § 17 par. 1 to 6.

§ 10g

Statement on the Draft Conception(1) On the basis of the draft conception, the viewpoints submitted thereon and the public

hearing, the competent authority shall issue a statement on the assessment of impacts on the environment and public health by implementing the conception (hereinafter “statement on the conception”) within 30 days of the date of receipt of the minutes taken on the public hearing on the draft conception.

(2) In its statement, the competent authority may state disagreement with the draft conception from the point of view of potential negative impacts on the environment and public health, it may furthermore propose its replenishment, or, if appropriate, propose compensatory measures and measures for monitoring impacts on the environment and public health by implementing the conception.

(3) The competent authority shall send the statement on the conception to the submitter, the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units immediately after issuing it and at the same time publish it pursuant to § 16.

(4) The conception may not be approved without the statement on the conception. The approving authority shall be obliged to take the requirements and conditions resulting from the statement on the conception into account, or if this statement contains requirements and conditions and these are not included or only partly included in the conception, the approving authority shall be obliged to justify its proceeding and to publish that justification.

§ 10h

Monitoring and Analysis of the Impacts of a Conceptionon the Environment and Public Health

(1) The submitter shall be obliged to provide for monitoring and analysis of the impacts of the approved conception on the environment and public health. If (s)he discovers that the implementation of the conception causes unexpected significant negative impacts on the environment or public health, s)he shall be obliged to ensure the adoption of measures to avert or mitigate such impacts, to inform the competent authority and the affected administrative authorities thereof and at the same time to decide on the modification of the conception.

(2) The affected administrative authorities within their scope of responsibilities pursuant to special legal regulations2) shall monitor the impacts of the approved conception on the environment and public health and shall be entitled to suggest a modification of the conception, if, in agreement with the approving authority, unexpected significant negative impacts pursuant to paragraph 1 cannot be averted or mitigated in a different way.

§ 10i

Special Provisions for the Environmental Impact Assessment of a Land-Use Planning Documentation

(1) In assessing the environmental impacts of a land-use planning documentation, the Construction Code 4b) and this Act within the scope of this provision shall be applied; the procurer of the land-use planning documentation shall be considered the submitter.

(2) The competent authority shall carry out the fact-finding procedure on the basis of the draft specification of the land-use planning documentation and pursuant to criteria set forth in Annex No. 8 to this Act.

(3) The competent authority shall conclude the fact-finding procedure by a written conclusion, which shall be part of the statement of the affected State administration authority on the draft specification of the land-use planning documentation.

(4) If the competent authority states the necessity of an environmental impact assessment in the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure, it shall at the same time specify content and scope of the



evaluation of environmental impacts, including requirements to elaborate possible variants of the conception draft of the land-use planning documentation.

(5) If the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure states the necessity of an environmental impact assessment, the evaluation of environmental impacts elaborated by a person authorised thereto pursuant to § 19 shall be an integral part of the conception draft of the land-use planning documentation.

(6) The person elaborating the evaluation of environmental impacts shall be obliged to elaborate this evaluation completely, objectively, consistent with the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure and adequately in the scope of Annex No. 9 to this Act.

(7) The person elaborating the evaluation of environmental impacts shall be entitled to require information essential for elaborating the evaluation from the procurer of the land-use planning documentation, the competent authority, the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units. These shall be obliged to provide him (her) with information in the necessary scope, a rejection shall be possible only on conditions laid down in special legal regulations4c).

(8) The procurer of the land-use planning documentation shall submit one copy thereof to the competent authority for the purpose of issuing the statement.

(9) On the basis of the public hearing on the conception draft of the land-use planning documentation, the viewpoints submitted thereon and on the basis of the proposal for an aggregated statement4b), the competent authority shall issue a statement on the evaluation of environmental impacts. This statement shall be part of the statement of the affected State administration authority on the conception draft of the land-use planning documentation.

(10) If the draft land-use planning documentation contains a variant evaluated from the point of view of the environmental impacts already in its conception draft, the draft shall not be evaluated again.

(11) The approving authority shall be obliged to justify in its resolution on the approval of the land-use planning documentation, how it has taken into account the conditions resulting from the statement on the evaluation of environmental impacts. It shall be obliged to publish this resolution.

§ 10j

Special Provisions for Environmental Impact Assessment of a Conception, if the Conception is being elaborated by a Central Administrative Authority

(1) Environmental impact assessment of a conception being elaborated by a central administrative authority pursuant to a special Act and submitted to the Government for approval shall be secured by the Ministry.

(2) The Ministry shall be obliged to provide for the evaluation of the draft conception by a reviewer pursuant to § 19 and to publish the draft conception on the Internet, including information, when and where it may be perused. The requisites of the assessment are set forth in Annex No. 9.

(3) Every person may send his (her) written viewpoint on the draft conception to the Ministry within 30 days of the date of publishing. The Ministry shall not take into account viewpoints sent after the deadline.

(4) The Ministry shall be obliged to ensure a public hearing on the draft conception adequately pursuant to § 17 paragraph 1 to 5 and paragraph 7. The central administrative authority shall be a non-excludable participant in the public hearing on the draft conception.

(5) In cooperation with the central administrative authority the Ministry shall evaluate the received viewpoints and comments from the public hearing and, based on this evaluation, it shall issue the statement on the draft conception.

(6) The costs connected with the environmental impact assessment shall be covered by the central administrative authority, which submits the conception for assessment.

(7) Transboundary environmental impact assessment shall adequately follow § 11 to 14a.



CHAPTER IITRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE CZECH REPUBLIC

§ 11

The Subject of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment for the Czech Republic(1) The subject of transboundary environmental impact assessment for the Czech Republic

(hereinafter “transboundary assessment”) shall be

a) a project set forth in Annex No. 1 and a conception pursuant to this Act, if the affected territory can extend beyond the territory of the Czech Republic,

b) a project set forth in Annex No. 1 or a conception pursuant to this Act, if the State, the territory of which can be affected by significant environmental impacts (hereinafter the “affected State”), so requests,

c) a project and a conception, which are planned to be implemented on the territory of another State (hereinafter the “State of origin”) and which can have significant environmental impacts in the territory of the Czech Republic.

(2) In transboundary assessment the competent authority shall proceed in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

(3) For a project set forth in Annex No. 1, column B, the Regional Authority shall be obliged to submit its assessment to the Ministry, if it discovers that this is a project pursuant to paragraph 1. Furthermore it shall be obliged to submit the assessment of a conception to the Ministry, if it discovers, that it is a conception pursuant to paragraph 1.

§ 12

The Manner of Transboundary Assessment(1) In transboundary assessment, a procedure pursuant to Chapter I of this Act shall be

followed, unless the provisions of Chapter II of this Act or international agreements binding the Czech Republic lay down the procedure in transboundary assessment otherwise. In transboundary assessment the Ministry may prolong the deadlines for viewpoints by up to 30 days, if the affected State so requests. In such case the other deadlines shall be accordingly prolonged.

(2) In case of doubt as to whether transboundary assessment shall be subject to regulations valid in the territory of the affected State or to regulations valid in the territory of the State of origin, the legal regulations valid in the territory of the State of origin shall apply unless an international agreement binding the Czech Republic lays down otherwise.

(3) On the basis of a request from either of them, the State of origin and the affected State shall determine whether post-project analysis shall be carried out and, if so, to what extent, taking into account potential significant unfavourable transboundary impacts of the project that was subject to transboundary assessment. Any post-project analysis will especially include constant monitoring of the consequences of implementing the project and the determination of any unfavourable transboundary impact. This constant monitoring and the determination of an impact may be carried out for the purpose of achieving the following objectives:

a) monitoring of the compliance with the conditions laid down in the decisions or measures pursuant to special regulations1a) and of the effectiveness of mitigating measures,

b) examination of the impacts of the project and dealing with questions arising during the post-project analysis,

c) verification of previous forecasts for the purpose of utilizing the information gained in implementing similar projects in the future.

(4) If, on the basis of the post-project analysis, the State of origin or the affected State has justified reasons for concluding that there is a significant unfavourable transboundary impact, or if factors have been determined that could lead to such an impact, it shall immediately inform the other State. After coming to an agreement, the State of origin and the affected State shall subsequently lay down necessary measures to decrease or prevent this impact.

§ 13

Transboundary Assessment of a Project Implemented in the Territory of the Czech Republic(1) If the Ministry discovers that a project pursuant to § 11 par. 1 letter a) is concerned or if the

affected State has requested the assessment of the project pursuant to §11 par. 1 letter b), it shall send



a notification within 5 working days to the affected State for a viewpoint, together with information on the course of the assessment pursuant to this Act and information on the subsequent decisions that can be adopted pursuant to special regulations1a).

(2) If the received viewpoint of the affected State on the notification sent thereto contains the request to participate in the transboundary assessment, the Ministry shall request information from the affected State on the state of the environment in its affected territory. The Ministry shall send this information within 5 working days of the date of receipt thereof to the notifier for use in preparing the documentation that must always be prepared in the case of transboundary assessment, and shall also provide it to the person preparing the expert report.

(3) Within 20 days of obtaining the documentation, the Ministry shall send this documentation to the affected State and offers a preliminary consultation, particularly if the documentation is prepared in variants, including information of measures for mitigating significant transboundary impacts (hereinafter "consultations"). If the affected State expresses interest in a consultation, the Ministry shall participate in the consultation. Immediately beforehand and at the latest within 5 days of the date of setting the date for the consultation, the Ministry shall inform the notifier and, through him (her), the person preparing the documentation on the place and time of the consultation. These persons shall then be obliged to also participate in the consultation. The Ministry shall be obliged to publish information on the consultation pursuant to § 16.

(4) Within 5 working days of obtaining the viewpoint of the affected State on the documentation, the Ministry shall deliver this viewpoint as a basic document for evaluating the project to the person preparing the expert report.

(5) The Ministry shall incorporate the viewpoint of the affected State in the statement, or shall set forth therein the reasons why it did not incorporate this viewpoint in its statement or why it did so only partly.

(6) The Ministry shall be obliged to send the statement to the affected State within 15 days of its issue. Furthermore it shall be obliged to send to it requests for related decisions pursuant to special regulations1a) and these decisions, within 15 days of the date of their receipt. The administrative authorities shall be obliged to send these requests and decisions to the Ministry on the basis of a requirement set in the statement or on the basis of a request.

§ 14

Transboundary Assessment for Projects Implemented outside the Territory of the Czech Republic

(1) If the Ministry obtains the notification of a project or otherwise learns of a project that will be implemented in the territory of the State of origin, it shall be obliged to publish information on such notification pursuant to § 16 within 5 working days after receipt thereof and shall send it to the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units for a viewpoint.

(2) Within 15 days of the date when information on a notification pursuant to paragraph 1 was published, every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint on this notification to the Ministry. The Ministry shall send all viewpoints together with its own viewpoint to the State of origin within 30 days of the date when the information on the notification pursuant to paragraph 1 was published.

(3) On request of the State of origin, the Ministry shall communicate information on the state of the environment in the affected territory of the Czech Republic within 30 days of the date of receipt of this request, unless a special regulation prevents this.5)

(4) If the Ministry has obtained a documentation and, may be, also an offer for a consultation from the State of origin, it shall send this documentation for a viewpoint to the affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-governing units and shall publish information on this documentation pursuant to § 16.

(5) Within 15 days of the date when information on a documentation pursuant to paragraph 4 was published, every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint on this documentation to the Ministry. The Ministry shall send all viewpoints together with its own viewpoint and information that it will potentially participate in the consultation to the State of origin within 30 days of the date when the information on the documentation pursuant to paragraph 4 was published.

5 ) E.g. the Civil Code, the Commercial Code, the Criminal Code, Act No. 527/1990 Coll., on inventions, industrial samples and suggestions for improvement, as amended, Act No. 101/2000 Coll., on protection of personal information and amending some Acts, as amended by Act No. 227/2000., Act No. 148/1998 Coll.



(6) If the Ministry obtains in time information on the place and time of a public hearing held in the territory of the State of origin, it shall publish it pursuant to § 16.

(7) If the Ministry obtains the conclusions of the State of origin on the assessment of the project and on the decision of the State of origin on the basis of subsequent procedures, it shall publish information on this conclusion and/or this decision pursuant to § 16 within 15 days of receipt thereof.

§ 14a

Transboundary Assessment of a Conception Implemented within the Territory of the Czech Republic

(1) If the Ministry discovers, that a conception pursuant to § 11 par. 1 letter a) is concerned, or if the affected State has requested a transboundary assessment pursuant to § 11 par. 1 letter b), it shall send the draft conception within 10 days of the date of its receipt to the affected State for a viewpoint. At the same time the Ministry shall offer a consultation to the affected State, especially if the draft conception is elaborated in variants.

(2) If the viewpoint received from the affected State on the draft conception sent to it contains the request to participate in the transboundary assessment, the Ministry shall request from the affected State information on the state of the environment in its affected territory. The Ministry shall send this information within 5 working days of the date of its receipt to the submitter and reviewer.

(3) If the affected State expresses interest in a consultation, the Ministry shall participate in the consultation. Immediately beforehand and at the latest within 5 days of the date of setting the date for the consultation, the Ministry shall inform the submitter and, through him (her), the reviewer on the place and time of the consultation. These persons shall then be obliged to also participate in the consultation. The Ministry shall be obliged to publish information on the consultation pursuant to § 16.

(4) The Ministry shall incorporate the viewpoint of the affected State on the final draft of the conception into the statement on the conception or shall set forth therein the reasons why it did not incorporate it into the statement or why it did so only partly. The Ministry shall send the statement on the conception to the affected State within 10 days of the date when it was issued.

(5) The approving authority shall be obliged to send one copy of the conception to the Ministry within 30 days of the day of its approval. The Ministry shall be obliged to send the approved conception to the affected State.

§ 14b

Transboundary Assessment of a Conception Implemented outside the Territory of the Czech Republic

(1) If the Ministry obtains a draft conception, which will be implemented in the territory of the State of origin and a potential offer for a consultation from the State of origin, it shall be obliged to publish information on the draft conception pursuant to § 16 within 20 days of its receipt and send the draft conception to the affected administrative authorities and affected self-governing units for a viewpoint.

(2) Every person shall be entitled to send a written viewpoint on the draft conception pursuant to paragraph 1 to the Ministry within 30 days of the date when the information on the draft of the conception was published. The Ministry shall send all viewpoints together with its own viewpoint and information that it will potentially participate in consultation to the State of origin within 40 days of the date when the information on the draft conception was published.

(3) On request of the State of origin the Ministry shall communicate information on the state of the environment in the affected territory of the Czech Republic within 30 days of the date of receiving this request, unless a special regulation prevents this.5)

(4) If the Ministry obtains in time information on the place and time of a public hearing held in the territory of the State of origin, it will publish it pursuant to § 16.

(5) The Ministry shall publish information on the approval of the conception pursuant to § 16 within 15 days of the date of receiving such information from the State of origin. If the Ministry obtains the approved conception from the State of origin, it shall publish it on the Internet within 20 days of the date of its receipt.



CHAPTER IIIJOINT AND TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

Section 1Joint Provisions

§ 15

Preliminary ConsultationsIf so requested by the notifier or submitter prior to submitting the notification pursuant to § 6 or

the notification pursuant to § 10c, the competent authority and the affected administrative authorities shall be obliged to discuss the planned project or conception with the notifier or submitter and recommend him (her) a preliminary consultation with other affected administrative authorities, affected territorial self-governing units and, if appropriate, with other entities. On request from the notifier or submitter, the competent authority and affected administrative authorities shall be obliged to provide him (her) with information on the environment pursuant to special regulations6).

§ 16

Publication of Information on Documents Obtained during the Assessment and on Public Hearings

(1) The competent authority shall ensure that information is published on

a) the notification and on when and where it may be perused,b) the place and time of holding the public hearing pursuant to this Act,c) returning the documentation for reworking or supplementing,d) the documentation and on when and where it may be perused,e) the expert report and on when and where it may be perused,f) the notification of a conception and on when and where it may be perused,g) the draft of a conception and on when and where it may be perused,h) the consultation within transboundary assessment.

(2) The competent authority shall also ensure that the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure, the statement and the statement on a conception are published.

(3) The competent authority shall ensure that the information and statements mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 are published

a) on the official notice boards of the affected territorial self-governing units,b) on the Internet, andc) in at least one other way usual in the affected territory (e.g. in the local press, on the radio,

etc.).

(4) The date of publication shall be considered to be the day when the information and statement pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 were displayed on the official notice board of the affected Region. The affected territorial self-governing units shall be obliged to display the information and statements pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 immediately on their official notice board for a period of at least 15 days and inform the competent authority thereof.

(5) Information that cannot be published pursuant to special regulations5) shall be deleted from information and statements published pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2.

§ 17

The Public Hearing(1) The competent authority shall be obliged to publish information on the public hearing

pursuant to § 16 at least 5 days prior to the holding thereof.

(2) The competent authority shall be obliged to ensure that the public hearing is held at the latest 5 days after the expiry of the period of time for stating a viewpoint on the expert report.

(3) The competent authority may terminate the public hearing in case that the notifier or the person preparing the documentation or expert report fail to participate.

6 ) Act No. 123/1998 Coll., on the right to information on the environment, as amended by Act No. 132/2000 Coll.



(4) If the competent authority has terminated a public hearing pursuant to paragraph 3, it shall be obliged to lay down the place and time of a new public hearing, at the latest within 5 working days from the date of termination of the public hearing. The day when the public hearing is held shall then be considered to be the date of holding the new public hearing; the other deadlines shall be accordingly prolonged.

(5) The competent authority shall draw up minutes of the public hearing, which shall contain in particular information on the participation and the conclusions of the hearing, and shall also draw up a complete stenographic recording or audio-recording thereof.

(6) The competent authority shall be obliged to send the minutes of the public hearing to the notifier, the affected administrative authorities and the affected territorial self-governing units and to publish them on the Internet.

(7) Facts protected by special regulations5) shall not be subject of a public hearing.

§ 18

Costs Connected with Environmental Impact Assessment(1) The costs connected with the environmental impact assessment of projects, except for the

costs connected with the public hearing and making information public, shall be borne by the notifier. The costs connected with the environmental impact assessment of a conception, except for the costs connected with making information public, shall be borne by the submitter.

(2) The costs connected with the public hearing and pursuant to § 9 par. 9 of this Act and the costs connected with making information public pursuant to this Act shall be borne by the competent authority; increased costs connected with transboundary assessment shall be borne by the Ministry. The costs connected with the translation of a documentation, expert report or draft conception and the costs connected with interpreting shall be borne by the notifier or submitter.

(3) The person preparing the expert report shall receive remuneration for preparing the report as laid down pursuant to the Commercial Code, which shall be paid by the competent authority on the basis of the agreement concluded pursuant to § 9 par. 1. The competent authority shall invoice a sum that shall be equal to the amount of the remuneration paid to the person preparing the expert report within 15 days after expiration of the deadline for submitting viewpoints on the expert report for payment by the notifier. The notifier shall be obliged to pay the invoiced amount to the competent authority within 10 days of the day of obtaining the invoice as part of the assessment costs set forth in paragraph 1. If the notifier does not pay the invoiced amount within the set period of time, the competent authority shall not issue the statement pursuant to § 10; in this case, the competent authority may issue the statement only after the invoiced amount is paid. A delay caused by failure to pay the invoiced amounts by the notifier shall not be included in the deadlines laid down in § 10 par. 1 and 2.

§ 19

Authorization to Prepare a Documentation and an Expert Report(1) Only natural persons who are holders of an authorization shall be authorized to prepare a

documentation, an expert report, a notification being submitted pursuant to § 7 par. 4 and to elaborate an evaluation. A legal person or natural person authorized to operate a business may contract to prepare these documents only if a natural person, who is holder of an authorization, will ensure this activity for him (her). For the projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Category I and also for other projects, if so laid down in the conclusion of the fact-finding procedure, the part of the documentation concerning the assessment of impacts on public health has to be prepared by a person, who is holder of a certificate of professional qualification for the field of assessment of impacts on public health. The certificate of professional qualification for the field of assessment of impacts on public health shall be granted and withdrawn by the Ministry of Health.

(2) The person preparing the expert report shall be obliged to assess the documentation objectively and in its full extent.

(3) A condition for granting authorization shall be the lack of a criminal record, professional qualification, practice in the field for a period of at least 3 years as well as full legal capacity.

(4) Professional qualification shall be demonstrated by

a) a document on having completed university education in at least a bachelor's study program,

b) a document on having passed an examination of professional qualification.



(5) As a person with a lack of a criminal record shall be considered a person who has not been legally convicted of a criminal act related to the authorised activity pursuant to this Act. The lack of a criminal record shall be demonstrated by submitting a document on a lack of a criminal record, which shall be an excerpt from the Criminal Records not more than 3 months old, for foreigners it shall be an analogous document of the State, of which the foreigner has the citizenship or in which the foreigner has his (her) permanent residence, or a statutory declaration in the case that the State, of which the foreigner has the citizenship, does not issue such a document.

(6) The authorization for the area of environmental impact assessment shall be granted and withdrawn by the Ministry in agreement with the Ministry of Health.

(7) The authorization shall be granted for a period of 5 years. If the conditions on which the authorization was granted have not changed, the authorization shall be prolonged for a further 5 years provided that the holder of the authorization so requests at least 6 months prior to the expiry of the period for which the authorization was granted.

(8) A granted authorization may not be transferred to another natural person.

(9) The Ministry shall withdraw the authorization of a natural person if this person seriously or repeatedly infringes this Act, if (s)he repeatedly fails to comply with obligations following from the decision on granting the authorization or if there is some change in the conditions on which the authorization was granted.

(10) A decision on granting and withdrawing an authorization shall be issued in an administrative procedure pursuant to the Act of Administrative Procedure8)

(11) A decision on authorization shall lose validity

a) through expiry of the period for which it was issued,b) through a decision of the Ministry on withdrawing the authorization,c) through the death of the natural person to whom the authorization was granted or through

the declaration that such person is dead.

(12) The payment connected with the examination of professional qualification amounting to 3 000 CZK shall be disbursed in advance by the applicant for this examination onto the account of the allowance organisation or organisational body of the State, which was authorised by the Ministry to ensure the examination of professional qualification. This payment shall be disbursed also for repeated examination.

(13) The Ministry shall lay down in a Decree detailed conditions of professional qualification, the procedure for verification thereof and the procedure for granting and withdrawing authorization. The Ministry of Health shall, in agreement with the Ministry, lay down in a Decree detailed conditions of professional qualification for the field of assessment of impacts on public health, the procedure for verification thereof and the procedure for granting and withdrawing the certificate of professional qualification for the field of assessment of impacts on public health.

(14) A decision on authorisation shall not be required for a person, who is a resident of another member State of the European Union and intends to carry out an activity set forth in paragraph 1 temporarily in the territory of the Czech Republic, if this person demonstrates:

a) to be a national of a member State of the European Unionb) to be entitled to carry out the activity set forth in paragraph 1 pursuant to legal regulations

of another member State of the European Union.

(15) The Ministry shall issue a decision on non-fulfilment of the requirements for carrying out the activity set forth in paragraph 1 within 15 days of the date, when all documents on fulfilment of the conditions pursuant to paragraph 14 letters a) and b) were submitted.

(16) If the decision pursuant to paragraph 15 has not been issued, the activity pursuant to paragraph 1 may be carried out for a maximum period of 1 year of the day following the day, when the deadline for issuing this decision expired.

8) Act No. 71/1967 Coll., on the administrative procedure (the Act of Administrative Procedure), as amended.



Section 2Execution of the State Administration in the Area of Environmental Impact Assessment

§ 20

The State administration in the sphere of environmental impact assessment shall be carried out

a) by the Ministryb) by the Regional Authorities.

§ 21

The Ministry shall

a) be the central administrative authority in the field of environmental impact assessment,b) execute supreme State supervision in the field of environmental impact assessment,c) provide for the assessment of projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Columns A and for projects the

notifier of which is the Ministry of Defence, also in columns B, and changes therein,d) provide for the assessment of a territorial plan of a large territorial unit pursuant to § 10i and

furthermore for the assessment of conceptions in cases, when the affected territory comprises the whole territory of a Region or concerns territories of several Regions or the territory of a National Park or Protected Landscape Area8a) or if the affected territory comprises the territory of the whole State,

e) provide the European Commission, in conformity with legal regulations of the European Community, with information in the field of environmental impact assessment,

f) provide for the transboundary assessment of projects and conceptions,g) provide for the assessment of other projects, for which the competent authority is the Regional

Authority, if it has reserved this responsibility in individual cases,h) keep summary records of all commenced assessments and records of all conclusions of the fact-

finding procedure and statements issued,i) grant and withdraw authorization,j) keep and once annually publish a list of authorized persons in its Bulletin,k) by the end of February of each year, publish a list of expert reports and the persons having

prepared these reports and furthermore a list of conceptions and their reviewers for the previous calendar year.

§ 22

The Regional AuthoritiesThe Regional Authorities shall

a) provide for the assessment of projects set forth in Annex No. 1, Columns B and changes therein,b) provide for the assessment of a territorial plan of a municipality pursuant to § 10i and furthermore for

the assessment of conceptions in cases, when the affected territory concerns exclusively the territory of the Region, unless the Ministry is competent pursuant to § 21 letter d),

c) keep records of the statements issued by them and send one copy of every conclusion of a fact-finding procedure and every statement issued by them to the Ministry for summary records,

d) by the end of February of each year, publish a list of expert reports and the persons having prepared these reports and furthermore a list of conceptions and their reviewers for the previous calendar year.

§ 23

Other Joint Provisions(1) The competent authority, affected administrative authorities and affected territorial self-

governing units shall be obliged to make documents prepared in the framework of the assessment pursuant to this Act available pursuant to special regulations6).

(2) If the reason for the assessment ceases to exist or changes, the competent authority shall not continue the assessment and shall terminate it.

(3) In case of legitimate doubts about the project and the assignment of the project to a particular category or particular column pursuant to Annex No. 1 to this Act, or about the area of the

8 a) Act No. 114/1992 Coll.



affected territory, the viewpoint of the Ministry shall be decisive; this must be issued within 15 days of delivery of the request for a viewpoint to the Ministry.

(4) In justified cases, the Ministry may reserve the assessment of a project or a conception, where the Regional Authority is competent for the assessment. The Ministry may, in justified cases, after an agreement with the Regional Authority, delegate the assessment of a project pursuant to § 21 letter c) or the assessment of a conception pursuant to § 21 letter d) to the Regional Authority, if that can help from the viewpoint of speed and economy of the assessment.

(5) The affected administrative authority in environmental impact assessment pursuant to this Act from the standpoint of impacts on public health shall be the Ministry of Health for projects and conceptions exceeding the regional framework and the territorially competent regional hygiene services in other cases. In deliberations on land-use planning documents, the Ministry shall be the affected authority of the State administration in the sense of the Construction Code9) from the standpoint of environmental impact assessment.

(6) The affected administrative authority in environmental impact assessment pursuant to this Act from the standpoint of projects set forth in Annex No. 1 to this Act, Category I points 3.2 to 3.5 and Category II point 3.5 shall be the State Nuclear Safety Authority.

(7) The competent authority may decide not to assess a project if the implementation of the project is necessary to mitigate or prevent the consequences of events that seriously and immediately endanger the environment, or the health, safety or property of the population. The obligations set forth in § 4 par. 2 letters a) to c) are valid analogically.

(8) The competent authority shall store all the basic materials prepared in environmental impact assessment pursuant to this Act for a period of 10 years from the date of issuing the statement. After the end of this period, it shall proceed pursuant to special regulations10).

(9) The locally competent unit of a civic association or generally beneficial society, the sphere of activity of which is the protection of public interests protected pursuant to special regulations,11) (hereinafter "civic associations") or a municipality affected by the project shall become a participant in subsequent procedures pursuant to special regulations1a) if

a) it has submitted a written viewpoint on a notification, documentation or expert report within the periods of time laid down in this Act,

b) the competent authority stated in its statement pursuant to § 10 par. 1 that this viewpoint is fully or partly included in its statement, and

c) the administrative authority making a decision in the subsequent procedure did not decide that the public interests, defended by the civic association, are not affected in the subsequent procedure.

(10) The Ministry shall lay down in a Decree the manner and course of the public hearing, the publication of information and statements and the procedure in providing for the preparation of the expert report pursuant to this Act.

(11) Within the territory of the Capital City of Prague

a) the responsibility entrusted by this Act to the Regional Authorities shall be executed by the Magistrate of the Capital City of Prague,

b) acts that shall be carried out by the municipalities pursuant to this Act shall be ensured by the city wards of the Capital City of Prague.

(12) Unless explicitly stated otherwise in this Act, the Act of Administrative Procedure 8) shall not apply to procedures pursuant to this Act.

(13) The evaluation of consequences of plans and projects in the territory of sites of European importance and bird protection areas pursuant to a special legal regulation shall not be affected by this Act.

9 ) Act No. 50/1976 Coll.

10) Act No. 97/1974 Coll., on archiving, as amended1 1) Act No. 83/1990 Coll., on association of citizens, as amended, Act No.227/1997 Coll., on foundations and foundation funds and

amending and supplementing some related Acts (the Act on foundations and foundation funds) and Act No. 248/1995 Coll., on generally beneficial societies and amending and supplementing some other Acts.



Section 3Temporary Provisions

§ 24

(1) An authorized person who has obtained a certificate pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended, and Decree No. 499/1992 Coll., on the Professional Qualification for Environmental Impact Assessment and on the Manner and Course of a Public Hearing of an Expert Report, shall be considered to be a holder of an authorization pursuant to § 19.

(2) Assessments commenced prior to the date when this Act comes into effect shall be completed pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended.

PART TWOAmendment of the Act on the Environment

§ 25

In Act No. 17/1992 Coll., on the Environment, as amended by Act No. 123/1998 Coll., § 20 to 26, including the headings and footnotes No. 2) and 3) and Annexes No. 1 to 4 shall hereby be cancelled.

PART THREEAmendment of the Small Business Act

§ 26

Act No. 455/1991 Coll., on Small Businesses (the Small Business Act) as amended by Act No. 231/1992 Coll., Act No. 591/1992 Coll., Act No. 600/1992 Coll., Act No. 273/1993 Coll., Act No. 303/1993 Coll., Act No. 38/1994 Coll., Act No. 42/1994 Coll., ActNo. 136/1994 Coll., Act No. 200/1994 Coll., Act No. 237/1995 Coll., Act No. 286/1995 Coll., Act No. 94/1996 Coll., Act No. 95/1996 Coll., Act No. 147/1996 Coll., Act No. 19/1997 Coll., Act No. 49/1997 Coll., Act No. 61/1997 Coll., Act No. 79/1997 Coll., Act No. 217/1997 Coll., Act No. 280/1997 Coll., Act No. 15/1998 Coll., Act No. 83/1998 Coll., Act No. 157/1998 Coll., Act No. 167/1998 Coll., Act No. 159/1999 Coll., Act No. 356/1999 Coll., Act No. 358/1999 Coll., Act No. 360/1999 Coll., Act No. 363/1999 Coll., Act No. 27/2000 Coll., Act No. 29/2000 Coll., Act No. 121/2000 Coll., Act No. 122/2000 Coll., Act No. 123/2000 Coll., Act No. 124/2000 Coll., Act No. 149/2000 Coll., Act No. 151/2000 Coll., Act No. 158/2000 Coll., Act No. 247/2000 Coll., Act No. 249/2000 Coll., Act No. 258/2000 Coll. and Act No. 409/2000 Coll. shall hereby be amended as follows:

In Annex No. 2 - Bound Businesses, Group 214 - Others, branch "Environmental Impact Assessment", in Column 2 - Qualification Identification Card, the words "University education in a relevant field and 6 years of experience in the field and a certificate pursuant to § 6 and 9 of Act No. 244/1992 Coll." shall be replaced by the words "Authorization pursuant to § 19 of Act No. 100/2000 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment and Amending Some Related Acts (Act on Environmental Impact Assessment)."

PART FIVELegal Force

§ 28

This Act shall come into effect on January 1, 2002.

Klaus personally

Havel personally

Zeman personally



Annex 2457

DECREEof the Ministry of the Environment

of December 6, 2001

on professional qualification and regulation of some other aspects related to environmental impact assessment

The Ministry of the Environment (hereinafter ”the Ministry”), pursuant to § 19 par. 12 and § 23 par. 10 of Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on environmental impact assessment and on amendment to some related Acts (Act on environmental impact assessment), (hereinafter the ”Act”), lays down as follows:

More Detailed Conditions for Professional Qualification and the Procedure in Verifying Thereof, Procedure in Granting and Withdrawing Authorization

(Ad § 19 of the Act)

§ 1

Examination of Professional Qualification(1) For the purposes of § 19 par. 4 letter b of the Act, the professional qualification shall include

the knowledge of

a) the Act and other legal regulations in the area of environmental protection,15)b) legal regulations in the area of public health, land-use planning and the construction code,c) procedures in processing documents drawn up during environmental impact assessment,d) natural and technical sciences from the viewpoint of environmental impact of activities.

(2) The professional qualification pursuant to paragraph 1 above shall be demonstrated through an examination of professional qualification (hereinafter ”examination”).

(3) The applicant shall submit an application for examination to the Ministry.

(4) The professional qualification shall be verified by an examination commission consisting of at least five members (hereinafter ”the commission”) who shall be experts appointed by the Minister of the Environment. At least one employee of the Ministry and of the Ministry of Health shall always be members of the commission. The commission, including the appointment of the chairman thereof, shall be composed by the Ministry. The commission shall adopt decisions by a simple majority of votes of its members; if the votes are equal, the chairman shall have a casting vote.

(5) The applicant shall be invited to the examination at least 30 days in advance.

(6) The examination shall be divided into two parts that are separately held and assessed, consisting in a written examination and oral examination. Successful passing of the written examination shall be a precondition for holding the oral examination. Details of holding the examination are set out in the examination rules specified in Annex No. 1 to this Decree.

(7) The examination shall be rated ”passed” or ”failed”. If the examination is successfully passed, the Ministry shall issue a certificate on passing the examination of professional qualification (hereinafter ”the certificate”). The form of the certificate is specified in Annex No. 2 to this Decree.

(8) The Ministry shall lay down an alternative date for examination for applicants who could not participate in the examination for serious reasons and have delivered a proper written excuse for their absence.

(9) An applicant may repeatedly apply for passing the examination; however, (s)he may do so, at the earliest, 60 days from the date of holding the examination in which (s)he failed or in which (s)he failed to participate without a proper excuse or serious reason.

(10) If the applicant fails to pass the repeated examination or fails to participate therein without due excuse, (s)he may repeat the examination, at the earliest, after expiry of 1 year.

§ 2

15 ) E.g. Act No. 44/1998 Coll., on protection and use of mineral wealth (the Mining Act), as amended, Act No. 17/1992 Coll., on the environment, as amended, Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on protection of nature and the landscape, as amended, Act No. 289/1995 Coll., on forests and on amendment to and supplementation of some acts (the Forest Act), as amended, Act No. 185/2001 Coll., on waste and on amendment to some other acts, and Act No. 254/2001 Coll., on waters and on amendment to some acts (the Water Act).



For the purposes of this Decree, completed university education pursuant to § 19 par. 4 letter a) of this Act shall consist in university education in areas dealing with the subject of environmental impact assessment.

§ 3

Procedure of Granting, Prolonging and Withdrawing Authorization(1) The applicant shall submit an application for issuing a decision on granting authorization to

the Ministry in writing. The content of the application is specified in Annex No. 3 to this Decree.

(2) If the applicant is the holder of a certificate and complies with other conditions specified in § 19 par. 3 of the Act, the Ministry shall issue a decision on granting authorization.

(3) The Ministry shall prolong the authorization within 30 days of receiving an application for its prolongation, if the conditions set out in the Act are met. If the Ministry has justified doubts as to whether the conditions, under which authorization was granted, have changed, it shall request that the applicant for prolonging authorization shall submit a new certificate or other documents decisive for granting authorization. The Ministry shall not satisfy an application for prolonging authorization if the conditions are met for withdrawing authorization pursuant to § 19 par. 9 of the Act.

(4) The Ministry shall publish information on a decision pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 and on a decision on withdrawing authorization in the Journal of the Ministry of the Environment (hereinafter ”the Journal”). Information on granting authorization shall include the name, surname, title, permanent address of the holder of authorization or, if (s)he has no permanent address, the address of his/her place of residence, and information on the term of validity of the authorization.

(5) The holder of authorization shall provide the Ministry with information for the purposes of publishing the list of holders of authorization in the Journal pursuant to § 21 letter h) of the Act and shall notify the Ministry of any changes in this information.

Manner and Course of the Public Hearing, Disclosure of Information and Statements to the Public, and Proceeding in Providing for the Elaboration of the Expert Report

(Ad § 16 and 17 of the Act)

§ 4

Manner and Course of the Public Hearing(1) The authority competent to provide for the environmental impact assessment pursuant to § 6

par. 1 of the Act (hereinafter ”the competent authority”) shall ensure that the venue and time of the public hearing correspond to the importance of the discussed project, taking into account transport accessibility of the venue, the capacity thereof and the time of holding the hearing allowing for participation of the general public.

(2) The course of the public hearing shall be directed by a person accredited by the competent authority (hereinafter ”the accredited person”) so that environmental impacts of the project are discussed from all substantial viewpoints.

(3) Questions and comments concerning the environmental impact assessment of the discussed project shall be answered and explanations provided, in particular by the persons who have prepared the documentation and expert report; the notifier shall provide information on the project and goals thereof.

(4) If substantial questions and comments cannot be discussed or if further information must be provided for the discussion, the accredited person may suspend the public hearing for the required period of time.

(5) The accredited person shall draw up minutes of the public hearing at the latest within 10 days of completion thereof.

§ 5

Disclosure of Information and Statements to the Public(1) The competent authority shall send information and conclusions pursuant to § 16 par. 1 and

2 of the Act to the affected district authorities, regions and municipalities for the purpose of displaying thereof on their official boards for a period of at least 15 days. The affected district authorities, regions and municipalities performing state administration in delegated competence shall notify the competent



authority in writing of the date of displaying of this information and the conclusions on their respective official boards.

(2) The competent authority shall publish information in electronic form and shall disclose it in the form of a reference to the public administration portal.16)

(3) The relevant information shall also be disclosed to the public in a manner usual in the affected territory, such as publishing in the local press, radio, on information boards or in non-periodical publications. The competent authority shall provide for the manner of this disclosure according to the requirements of the affected municipality, or otherwise according to its sole discretion.

§ 6

Provision for the Elaboration of the Expert Report(1) The expert report shall be provided for by means of a written agreement.

(2) Upon submission of a proposal for concluding an agreement pursuant to paragraph 1, for authorized persons pursuant to § 19 of the Act, the competent authority shall take account, in particular, of their ability to assess the documentation objectively and in full extent (§ 19 par. 2 of the Act).

(3) The agreement shall always include

a) an obligation of the contractor to draw up and submit the expert report in both written and electronic forms,

b) a number of copies of the expert report that is at least equal to the number of copies of the documentation,

c) the deadline for drawing up the expert report pursuant to § 9 par. 3 of the Act,d) the conditions applicable in case of non-compliance with the deadline intended for drawing up

the expert report, including specification, by how many days such deadline may be prolonged in accordance with § 9 par. 3 of the Act,

e) the manner of addressing complaints following from the public hearing and standpoints on the assessment.

Repealing and Concluding Provisions§ 7

Decree No. 499/1992 Coll., on professional qualification for environmental impact assessment and on the manner and course of the public hearing of the expert report, is hereby repealed.

§ 8

Legal Force

This Decree comes into effect on January 1, 2002.

The Minister:

RNDr. Kužvart, in his own hand

Annex No. 1 to Decree No. 457/2001 Coll.Rules of Examination of the Professional Qualification

I. Rights and Obligations of the Commission and of the Chairman of the Commission1. The commission shall examine the applicant and, furthermore

a) it shall solve disputable issues connected with the examination,b) it may exclude the applicant from examination for serious reasons,c) it shall adopt a resolution evaluating the examination,d) its members shall sign the written protocol of the course and evaluation of the examination.

2. The chairman of the commission shall

a) direct the deliberations and work of the commission and shall provide for a uniform and accurate procedure,

b) sign the certificate.

16 ) Act No. 365/2000 Coll., on public administration information systems and on amending some other acts.



II. Examination1. The commission shall acquaint the applicant with the results of the evaluation of the written

examination at the latest during the oral examination.

2. During the oral examination, the applicant shall usually answer four examinational questions. The members of the commission may put additional questions.

3. If the applicant fails to pass the oral examination, (s)he shall repeat only this part of the examination.

4. A written protocol shall be drawn up of the examination, stating the evaluation of both the written and oral examination.

5. The commission shall advise an applicant who has been rated ”failed” on the possibilities and conditions of repeating the examination.

III. Documents on the Course of the Examination and Granting the CertificateThe Ministry shall register and file documents concerning the course of the examination and granting the certificate.

Annex No. 2 to Decree No. 457/2001 Coll.

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ref. No. ……………………………………

In…………………….on……………..

Certificateof passing the examination of professional qualification pursuant to § 19 par. 4 letter b) of Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on environmental impact assessment and on amendment to some related acts (Act on Environmental Impact Assessment)

Name, surname, title

Date and place of birth

Permanent address or address of the place of residence, as appropriate

Date of passing the examination

Signature of the chairman of the commission: Stamp:

Annex No. 3 to Decree No. 457/2001 Coll.Content of the Application for Granting or Prolonging the Authorization to Elaborate a

Documentation and Expert ReportThe application for granting authorization shall include

a. the name and surname, title, permanent address, or address of the place of residence, as appropriate

b. documents proving the professional qualification,c. a document proving the lack of a criminal record,d. information on the duration and content of professional experience in the area of environmental

protection,e. a survey of publishing and scientific activities and other professional work of the applicant in the

area of ecology and environmental protection,f. date and signature.

An application for prolonging authorization shall also include the number of the decision on granting authorization or the number of the certificate of professional qualification pursuant to legislation valid prior to the legal force of the Act, if appropriate, and a survey of documentations and expert reports elaborated to the date of submission of the application for prolonging authorization.


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – IR - IPPC – Czech Republic

D. Annex I: Institutional Review – IPPC

D.1. Introduction

The overall objective of the project “Capacity building in implementation of the environmental acquis” is to develop the ability of local and regional authorities to effectively implement environmental legislation, particularly in the domains of EIA and IPPC. This will be done through an approach that is tailored to the needs and conditions of each particular country, but also ensuring the possibility for countries to learn from the experiences of their neighbours.

One of the specific activities to be carried out by the project is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the present administrative practices and capacities in the application of the relevant environmental acquis in the pilot areas selected in the country, with reference to the regulatory acts in each country which define the role of the local and regional authorities in implementation of environmental acquis. This Capacity Assessment will form an essential background review of the current state of implementation and highlight any weaknesses, either in the administrative practices or in the capacity of the local/regional authorities, which may hinder the effective implementation of the national legislation transposing the EU acquis.

The Capacity Assessment is in two parts: this part, the Institutional Review, and a Training Needs Assessment. Together they form an important baseline for the preparation of training materials and programmes, which will thus be directed at the specific needs in the pilot regions.

This Institutional Review, on the implementation of the IPPC Directive in the Czech Republic has been completed by the Country Manager, assisted by the national IPPC experts and the national lawyers on the project team, based on information available and on interviews with the relevant authorities at both national and at local/regional level.

Section 2 of the Institutional Review provides an overview of the national legislation in place for IPPC, and Section 3 looks at any Guidance Documents that have been prepared to provide information on implementation.

Section 4 examines the institutional arrangements for the implementation of the IPPC procedures and the capacities of the competent authorities at local/regional level. Section 6 provides information on the numbers of installations covered by the IPPC legislation in the pilot regions. Finally, specific procedural issues for the effective implementation of the IPPC legislation are examined in some detail in Section 6. The Annex provides details of all IPPC installations in the country, by industrial sector.

D.2. Legal Assessment

D.2.1. LegislationThe legislation relevant to the IPPC Directive includes:

ACT No. 76/ 2002 Coll. from 1st of March 2002 on integrated pollution prevention and control, on the integrated pollution register and on amendment to some laws (the IPPC Act)

Decree No. 554 Coll. of 16 December 2002, establishing the specimen of the application for integrated permit, the scope and method of filling in of the application

ORDER of Government No. 63 Coll. of 13th January 2003 on the manner and the scope of information exchange on the best available techniques provision

ORDER of Government No. 368 Coll. of 1st October 2003 on integrated register of pollution.


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – IR – IPPC – Czech Republic

The key element of IPPC legislation is the IPPC Act, which contains mandates for laying down implementing regulations in three cases – covered by above mentioned decree and two orders. In addition, a number of other pieces of legislation are relevant to IPPC, namely:

Act 353/1999 on the prevention of major accidents caused by selected dangerous chemical substances and chemical preparation and amendment of Law No. 425/1990 (Seveso-II-Implementation Law)

Act 100/2001 on environmental impact assessment and amendment of some other acts (EIA-Implementation Law)

Act 86/2002 on clean air protection and amendment of some other acts (clean air act) Act 114/1992 on protection of nature and the landscape Act 254/2001 on water and amendment of some other acts Act 185/2001 on waste and amendment of some other acts Act 282/1991 on the Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI).

Overview of the IPPC legislationThe legislation system of IPPC is formed by the IPPC Act No 76/2002 together with linked secondary legislation (one decree and two orders) and by the set of other environmental legislation (EIA, Seveso, air protection, water, waste etc.). The IPPC Act entered into force on 1st January 2003.

The purpose of the IPPC Act is, in accord with the legislation of the European Communities, to achieve a high level of protection of the environment as a whole, to provide for integrated implementation of the public administration in permitting the operation of installations and to create and operate an integrated pollution register.

The IPPC Act:a) lays down the obligations of operators of installations,b) establishes the procedure for granting an integrated permit,c) establishes the integrated pollution register, and lays down the manner of collecting

information on emissions and transfers of substances registered in this register and the provision of data therefrom,

d) provides for conditions for interconnection of existing information systems in the area of environmental protection with the integrated pollution register,

e) sets competences of public administration bodies pursuant to this Act,f) establishes the system for exchange of information on the best available techniques,g) lays down sanctions for breach of obligations laid down by this Act.

The scope of installations is analogical to the scope of IPPC Directive Annex I.

An installation means a technical and technological unit referred to in Annex No. 1 of the Act or a set of related technical and technological units located in a single operation, if at least one such unit is referred to in Annex No. 1 and if this is not a unit employed for research, development and testing of new products and processes; an installation also includes other technical and technological units or a their set not listed in Annex No. 1 to the Act, if the operator of the installation applies for granting an integrated permit therefore,

A construction permit may not be granted for an installation (so called new installation) in the absence of an legally binding integrated permit.

The operator of an existing installation has a duty to obtain an integrated permit by October 30 2007, if he intends to operate this installation after October 30, 2007.

Fees: Submission of an application for an integrated permit for an installation set forth in Annex No. 1 of the Act on integrated prevention – tariff rate for administrative fees 30 000 CZK (955 EUR); Issuing a decision on a change in an integrated permit on a substantial change - 10 000 CZK (320 EUR); Granting an integrated permit or a change therein on a substantial change in an installation set not forth in Annex No. 1 of the Act on integrated prevention -5 000 CZK (160 EUR).



The IPPC Act, inter alia, covers the following areas:

Procedure on Granting an Integrated Permit - Application for Granting an Integrated Permit

Basic Definitions on IPPC and on the integrated pollution register Content of the Application Expert Support of the Execution of Public Administration (the role of Authorised person) Participants in the Procedure Forwarding the Application and Disclosure to the Public Statements of the Relevant Administrative Authorities and Participants in the Procedure Statement of an Affected State

Oral Discussion of the Application (within 5 days of the date of obtaining the statement of the Authorized person, the Authority shall arrange for an oral discussion to deliberate the application. In addition to the participants in the procedure, it shall also invite the Authorized person and the relevant administrative authorities to the oral discussion)

Decision on the Application The Manner of Laying Down Binding Conditions of Operation Basic Obligations of the Operator of an installation Transfer, Control, Change and Extinguishment of an Integrated Permit Integrated Pollution Register Systems for Exchange of Information on the Best available techniques Execution of the Public Administration

The public administration pursuant to the IPPC Act is executed by:a) the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) (executes supreme state supervision and is the

central body of state administration), makes decisions on applications for installations whose operations could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, makes decisions on appeals against the decisions of the Regions, makes decisions on appeals against the decisions of the Inspectorate, establishes and maintains the integrated pollution register etc.);

b) the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT) (from the standpoint of BAT for installation categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7 and 6.8 listed in Annex No. 1 to the Act), ensures monitoring of BAT contained in the documents of the EC, ensures authorized translations of these documents, publishes these documents, including its explanation thereof, and provides information on developments in BAT, makes statements on appeals against decisions on applications for granting of an integrated permit, evaluates application of BAT, ensures the system for exchange of information on BAT;

c) the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) (from the standpoint of BAT for installation categories 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 set forth in Annex No. 1 to the Act), ensures monitoring of these techniques contained in the documents of the EC, ensures authorized translations of these documents, publishes these documents, including its explanation thereof, and provides information on developments in BAT, makes statements on appeals against decisions on applications for granting of an integrated permit, evaluates application of BAT;

d) the Ministry of Health makes statements on appeals against decisions on applications for granting of an integrated permit within its competence;

e) the Regions (in delegated competence), makes decisions on application for an integrated permit with the exception of installations whose operation could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, carries out control of an integrated permit or operation of an installation with the exception of installations whose operations significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, imposes fines, makes decisions on suspending or terminating a procedure on imposing a fine, requests the operator of an installation to submit an application for granting an integrated permit, evaluates application of BAT and submit information on their development to the relevant administrative authorities;

f) The Czech Environmental Inspectorate controls compliance with obligations laid down by the Act or the integrated permit (with the exception of control pursuant to § 18 – which is carried out by the Authority), limits or stops the operation of an installation or part thereof, if its further operation would cause or could cause serious environmental damage or considerable material damage, imposes fines pursuant, makes decisions on



suspending or stopping a procedure on imposing a fine, submits to the Region the results of a completed control, if this control reveals breach of obligations for which the Region imposes fines, evaluates applications of BAT and submits information on trends therein to the relevant administrative authorities;

g) the Regional Hygiene Officer lays down the binding conditions for operation of a source of noise or vibrations if the hygiene limits cannot be met, from the standpoint of protection of the public health, controls the integrated permit or operation of the installation at a time agreed with the inspection or with the Authority, limits or terminates the operation of an installation or part thereof, if further operation thereof would or could cause serious damage to human health, imposes fines.

DECREE No. 554 Coll. established the specimen of the application for integrated permit, the scope and method of filling in of the application. The use of specimen (format) is obligatory for applicants either in electronic or paper version of the application.

ORDER of Government No. 63 Coll. sets up rules and responsibility on the manner and the scope of information exchange on the best available techniques provision. The responsibility is mainly on MoIT, shared with MoE and MoA. The system comprises the whole spectrum of technical working groups corresponding to all sectors – categories of IPPC installations. The focal point of the system is the web site www.ippc.cz. Within this system the Forum for information exchange has been established in 2003. Its secretariat is supported by the MoIT Three plenary meeting of all stakeholders (from ministries and inspection to industry) have been held to date.

D.2.2. Categories of Industrial ActivitiesThe list of categories of industry in the annex 1 of the IPPC Act is identical to Annex I of the Directive. There are no added or missing categories and no difference in threshold values.

There are no additional categories of industry covered by the national legislation on integrated permitting.

D.2.3. One Integrated Permit or Several PermitsOne single integrated permit is issued for an installation, covering all aspects as required by the IPPC Directive.

However, it should be noted that the IPPC Act does not state how many permits is to be issued for one company area in case that there are several installations. In some cases the IPPC authority issues a single integrated permit for such installations, in other cases there may be several permits or a combination e.g. two single permits (incinerator, combustion plant) and one integrated permit for several installations of similar type (chemical industry). Connected and auxiliary installations (not IPPC) and activities there are usually linked to the permit of the “group” of installation. The administration permitting procedure is the same for both approaches including the participation of interested parties.

D.2.4. General Binding RulesIn the Czech legislation there is not used a special approach of general binding rules according Article 9.8 of the Directive, which allows Member States to establish certain requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding rules, instead of including them in individual permit conditions.

D.2.5. Status of TranspositionThe IPPC Directive has been fully transposed into national legislation by the IPPC Act No 76/2002 and linked secondary legislation (one decree and two orders) IPPC Act entered into force – the Act by 1st January 2003.


http://www.ippc.cz/


D.2.6. Directives 2003/35/EC and 2003/87/ECDirective 2003/35/EC amends the IPPC Directive (and the EIA Directive) with regard to public participation and access to justice requirements, and implements requirements of the Aarhus Convention. The Directive entered into force on the 25th June 2003, and has to be transposed into national legislation by the 25th June 2005 at the latest.

The MoE is currently finishing a comparative study. On the base of analysis of compatibility of Directive 2003/35/EC and the Czech IPPC, EIA and Right to Know Acts, a appropriate proposal for amending Czech Acts will be prepared (in 2004).

Directive 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission trading and amends the IPPC Directive. The Directive entered into force on the 25th November 2003, and has to be transposed into national legislation by the 31st December 2003 at the latest.

The draft Czech Act on Emission Trading System (ETS) is under preparation, recently in comments stage. No Allocation plan has been yet adopted but an intensive discussion between MoE and industry is running. IPPC permitting will not cover ETS/Allocation plans issues.

D.2.7. Permit Validity PeriodAn integrated permit is not issued for a specified time. The CA carries out reviews at least every 8 years. According the paragraph 18 of the IPPC Act, the CA is additionally required to review an integrated permit or the operation of an installation:

a) if it is considered that there has been a serious breach of the conditions of the integrated permit or that an installation is operated without a valid integrated permit,

b) if the operator notifies them of a planned change in the installation,c) if there has been a change in the best available technique that allows for a substantial

decrease in emissions not entailing excessive costs for the operator of the installation for the introduction thereof,

d) if they discover that the operating safety of a process or activity of the installation requires that a different technology be used,

e) if so required by a change in the emission limits or environmental quality standards implemented on the basis of other regulations, or

f) if the environmental pollution caused by operation of the installation is so high that it significantly exceeds the environmental quality standard and it cannot be approached other than through a change in the binding conditions for operation of the installation.

If the CA finds that there has occurred a substantial change in the operation of the installation, it requests the operator of the installation to submit an application for a change in the integrated permit. The Authority is authorized to require that the operator of the installation submit a request for a change in the integrated permit within an appropriate deadline set by CA, where it may lay down the requisites that are not required in the content of the application.

D.2.8. Time Limit for the Decision Making ProcessBy reference to national legislation:

The time period in which the CA must make a decision on the application for an integrated permit is 162 days. This period can be extended by 165 days (see below) to 327 days.The first extension is possible within 20 days of the date of obtaining the application. The CA verifies all prescribed requisites (paragraph 3 of the IPPC Act No 76/2002). If the application does not contain all the prescribed requisites, the CA requests the operator of the installation to supply the requisites lacking in the application within a suitable deadline, which is not to exceed 4 months (120 days), and suspend the procedure on granting the integrated permit until all the requisites lacking in the application are supplemented. If the application is not supplemented within the deadline laid down pursuant to paragraph 3 of the IPPC Act No 76/2002, CA stops the procedure on granting the integrated permit.

Within the phase of decision on application the time period can be prolonged by the appeal authority by 45 days in a complex case (paragraph 13 of the IPPC Act No 76/2002).



If the CA does not make the decision within the relevant time period the operator can appeal to the appeal authority (MoE) or to go to law at the Administrative Court.

D.3. Publicly Available Guidance Documents

At the national level a specialized web site www.ippc.cz is operated by the MoIT. This web site is a part of the system for exchange of information on BAT. The other web site offering manuals, guides and similar information is www.ceu.cz/ippc operated by the Agency for the Integrated Prevention (part of the Czech Environmental Institute). The main manuals and guides include:

Instruction for application of IPPC or – “Don´t dread of the IPPC Act No. 76/2002 Coll.”. Authors: Michal Straub et al., Agency for the Integrated Prevention, Prague, 2003. 37 pp.

Directed to authorities and/or operators and/or the public.

A Guide for filling the application for integrated permit for installations under IPPC Act no. 76/2001, Coll. for intensive rearing of livestock. MoA and MoE, Research Institute for agriculture techniques, Prague, 2003. 30 pp.

Directed to authorities and/or operators.

General Guidance on the Definition of BAT and Application of BREF or additional BAT-sources. Elaborated within Phare Twining 2000 „Implementation structures for IPPC and IRZ“. Authors: Ansgar Drost, Georg Lutz, Elisabeth Schmid, adaptation by Jiří Jungr, Lucie Svobodová, Marek Thürner. Prague, 2002. 40 pp.


A Guide for executors of application integrated permit application for category 5.4 of Annex 1 to IPPC Act no. 76/2001, Coll. installations. Agency for the Integrated Prevention, MoE, ISATech Prague. 36 pp


Examples of connected installations and activities (technical and technological installations beyond the frame of Annex 1 to IPPC Act no. 76/2001, Coll. and directly connected activities). Agency for the Integrated Prevention, Prague. 2003. 7 pp.


Technologies of surface treatment under categories 2.3c), 2.6 a 6.7 of Annex 1 to IPPC Act no. 76/2001, Coll. Authors: M. Thürner, Czech Environmental institute, V. Trojan, SVUOM Prague, 2002, 13 pp.


Decalogue for Integrated permitting (IPPC) for farmers.12 slides. MoE and AIP Prague, 2003.Directed to operators.

All the above cited Guidance Documents are available in electronic form on websites www.ippc.cz and www.ceu.cz/ippc.

A new set of Guidance documents (see below) is under preparation in the frame of (2003) Phare Twinning Covenant CZ02/IB/EN/03. These Guidance documents are to be finished and available by the end of May 2004. The list of them is available on the project website http://sharepoint.infomil.nl/eu/czech/IPPC/. They are intended as an advice to the MoE. A decision has yet to be made whether to officially issue these documents. The set of documents consist of:- A guidance note for implementing the VOC Directive- A guidance note for implementing the LCPD- A guidance note for integration of EMS and EIA in permitting- A guidance note for assessment of transboundary issues- A policy on reviewing permits- A guidance note on reviewing permits


http://sharepoint.infomil.nl/eu/czech/IPPC/


http://www.ippc.cz/


http://www.ippc.cz/


The Czech IPPC legislation is based on direct use of BREFs, available in the Czech translation on the public web site www.ippc.cz. This field is covered by the Government Order No. 63/2003 on the BAT Information exchange system which came into force in January 2003. Within this system a set of technical working groups (TWGs) was established for each IPPC installation category or clusters of categories (branches). TWGs provide a preparation of background documentation for respective European TWG, monitor BAT development in the respective field in the Czech Republic or on the level of EC or international organizations, prepare translations and professional proofing of translation of relevant BREF, ensure the authorization of BREF translation, prepare a proposal of its explanation, provide comments and information communication on the development of BAT.

No national BREF or other official BAT documents are foreseen by valid legislation.

The MoE is responsible for the monitoring of trends in the best available techniques (BAT) contained in reference documents (BREF), and for the publishing and providing information on trends of the BAT from the standpoint of their environmental impact as well as for areas that are not within the competence of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MoIT), the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) or the Ministry of Health (MoH).The Czech approach is focused on the application of the translated (existing) BREFs. There is available a “General Guidance on the Definition of BAT and Application of BREF or additional BAT-sources”, which was developed under the 2000 Twinning project. This guidance contains also descriptions how to determine BAT in cases of non-existing BREFs. In case the BREF (final version) is not available, the respective environmental compartments legislation and / or additional BAT-sources from the Member States are used for the determination of BAT. In this case, access was established to BAT sources from the Twinning partners. In addition, there was also a permanent close co-operation established between the Twinning partners, in particular concerning further development of guidelines on the use of BAT sources and the application of BREFs. The Guidance is already disseminated to all bodies involved in the implementation process of IPPC.

D.4. Institutional Arrangements

D.4.1. Competent Authorities – Overview Table D.4.14 shows the division of responsibilities between different layers of government (national, regional, local) for specific obligations relating to IPPC.

Table D.4.14: Division of responsibilitiesResponsibilities Central Regional Local Other Deciding whether an installation requires an integrated permit

MoE Regional Office

Note: According to parameters of installation production or character of production done in Annex 1 to IPPC Act No. 76/ 2002 Coll.

Issuing integrated permits

MoE Regional Office

Issuing guidance on BAT

MoEMoIT

Agency for Integrated Prevention

Trans-boundary issues

MoE


MoE Regional Office

Co-ordination with other authorities

MoE Regional Office


MoE Regional Office

Monitoring MoE Regional Office

Inspection Czech Envi-ronmental

Czech Envi-ronmental


http://www.ippc.cz/


Responsibilities Central Regional Local Other Inspectorate

Control: MoE

Inspectorate


Enforcement MoE Regional Office

Maintaining a register of emissions

MoE

Making information available to the public

MoE Regional Office

D.4.2. Competent Authority for IPPC PermitsAccording to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll., Chapter 5, paragraph 28 and 33, the competent body for issuing an integrated permit (“make decision on applications for integrated permits for installation”) are the Regions (in delegated competence) and MoE (for installations whose operations could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state).

Within the MoE, which is the central body of the state administration for IPPC, there is a specialized IPPC Division in the Department for EIA and IPPC (Section of Technical Protection of the Environment, headed by deputy minister).

In Regional Offices which deal with integrated permitting there is usually a specialized division for Integrated Permitting within the Department for Environment and Agriculture.

D.4.3. Inspection and EnforcementAccording to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll., paragraph 18 , the CA (MoE or Region) carries out (in cooperation with the relevant public health authorities and the Agency for the Integrated Prevention) controls at least once every 8 years to ensure that there has been no change in the circumstances that could lead to a change in the integrated permit. Further, the CA always controls an integrated permit or the operation of an installation in other 6 listed circumstances (planned changes in installation, change in BAT etc.).

According to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll., paragraph 34, the Czech Environmental Inspectorate (CEI) controls the compliance with the obligations laid down by the Act on IPPC or the integrated permits, except for the regular monitoring and control, executed by the CAs (Region or MoE) and other defined cases. Additionally, the CEI limits or stops the operation of an installation or parts thereof, if further operation would cause serious environmental damage or considerable material damage and impose fines (with some exceptions). The CEI submits to the Region the results of a completed control, if this control reveals breach of obligations for which the Region imposes fines.

General and basic enforcement responsibilities lie with the CAs – MoE and Regions. Further, there is an enforcement responsibility of those authorities which have the right to impose fines in the frame of the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll (paragraph 37 – 41) - the Region, CEI and Regional Hygiene Officer.

Measures to be taken when the operator fails to meet the permit condition are provided in paragraph 19 of the Act (results of control): a) to require that the operator of the installation introduce measures for a remedy within an

appropriate deadline,b) to require that the operator of the installation submit a request for a change in the integrated

permit within an appropriate deadline set by CA, where it may lay down the requisites that are not required in the content of the application (§ 4), or

c) to issue to the operator of the installation a decision on stopping operation of the installation or part thereof; if CA does not proceed pursuant to (a) to (c), it confirms accord of the operation of the installation with the integrated permit.



D.4.4. Institutional Capacity at Central Level

Table D.4.15: Institutional capacity at central level

Activity No. of staff*

Are there sufficient staff for the task (Y/N)

Comments

Preparing Legislation 7+2 Y Dept. for EIA and IPPC of MoELegislation dept. of MoE

Preparing general Guidance Documents

7+ 22 Y Dept. for EIA and IPPC of MoEAgency for Integrated Prevention

Preparing Internal Procedural Manuals

7+ 22 Y Dept. for EIA and IPPC of MoEAgency for Integrated Prevention

Developing BAT reference documents

dozens Y MIT, MoE, MoA,TWG within the Information Exchange SystemOnly translations, proofing, authorization of translations, comments, explanations of BREFs

Maintaining national registers (on installations, emissions, EPER etc)

2-3

ca 10

Y Installations – MoE andAgency for Integrated PreventionEmissions - Czech Hydrometeorological InstituteEPER – MoE(under preparation)

Legal Advisers ? N Generally not in useAt regions – rarely as a staff of IPPC divisionsUsing internal consultation with legislation/legal units

Providing advice to the regional/local authorities

7+22 Y MoEAgency for Integrated Prevention plus 39 “Authorized Persons” according paragraph 6 of IPPC Act No. 76/ 2002 Coll.

Support staff ? N RegionsAgency for Integrated Prevention

* Other than support staff, please include only staff directly involved in the activity. If staff carry out more than one function, assess how much time is spent on this particular activity (e.g. if someone spends half their time on maintaining registers, then count this as 0.5 person)

D.4.5. Institutional capacity at regional/local levelTable - List of regions

No. Name in Czech Name in English AbbreviationRegion 1 Moravskoslezský kraj Moravian-Silesian Region MSKRegion 2 Olomoucký kraj The OlomoucRegion OLKRegion 3 Jihomoravský kraj Southern Moravia Region JHMRegion 4 Pardubický kraj The Pardubice Region PAKRegion 5 Královéhradecký kraj The Hradec Králové Region KHKRegion 6 Ústecký kraj The Ústí Region ULKRegion 7 Středočeský kraj Central Bohemia Region SCK

Table D.4.16:Institutional capacity at regional level

Activity Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

No. IPPC installations 144 68 137 89 74 166 221No. permits 2004 33 14 28 21 21 33 34



Activity Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

No. permit 2005 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?No. Staff for issuing IPPC permits

2 2 5 2 1 3 5

No. Support staff 3 2 1 1 1 1 1No. Staff for maintaining registers

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

No. Inspectors -x) -x) -x) -x) -x) -x) -x)

No. Support staffNo. Legal advisers - - 1 - - - -No. Computers in IPPC Dept. -xx) -xx) -xx) -xx) -xx) -xx) -xx)

Is register electronic (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YIs there an electronic connection with the central authority (Y/N)

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Is public information available on-line (Y/N)

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Y – via MoE

Note: -x) No special inspectors are foreseen for the Control of integrated permit in CA. Control/inspection will be done by permitting staff of Regional Office. Number of CEI inspectors is adequate to general responsibility of CEI for inspection incl. In IPPC installations.-xx) At least one PC to one employee (permitting officer).

D.4.6. Capacity for Monitoring

Self-monitoringGenerally it is supposed, that the whole country territory is satisfactorily covered by commercial laboratories offering the whole spectrum of environmental services. There are no signals of lack of staff or equipment. In the indicated cases only accredited laboratories are authorised to carry out measurements. The Czech accreditation of laboratories is under the responsibility of the Czech Accreditation Institute (member of EA, ILAC, IAF). There are more than 400 accredited testing laboratories and more than 300 calibration laboratories accredited.

Monitoring by InspectorsRegions do not have their own laboratories for monitoring and they are not expected to execute enforcement monitoring/measurements. This is the task of CEI, which is structured into 10 Regional Inspectorates (there is not full overlap with the area of Regions, but the whole territory is covered). A special measurement group is a part of Air protection department at the Central Directorate in Prague (they also operate equipment for odour measurements).


http://www.iaf.nu/

http://www.ilac.org/

http://www.european-accreditation.org/

Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – IR IPPC – Czech Republic

D.5. Number of Installations in the Czech Republic by Region

D.5.1. Number of Installations and Permits per Pilot RegionTable D.5.17:Numbers of installations and IPPC permits per pilot region

Pilot region1 2 3 4 5 6 7 total

Total No. Installations 144 68 137 89 74 166 221 899No. existing installations 144 68 137 89 74 166 221 899No. new installations X X X X X X X -No. IPPC permits already issued 33 14 28 21 21 33 34 184Expected No. permits to be issued in 2004

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -

Expected No. permits to be issued in 2005

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -

Comments* on 2004 permits XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -Comments* on 2005 permits XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -

* Please indicate the industrial sector (using Annex I sector codes) and whether for a new or existing installation, for the permits expected to be issued in 2004 and 2005.X – the number of new installations is estimated (twinning project) for 10% of the number of existing installations, the same share is estimated for existing installations which will cease operation before October 30th, 2007XX - Data not available - Regions have not binding plans of issuing permits (or time schedule of application obtaining). In the start of IPPC Act processes the implementation plan was adopted (prepared also within Phare 2000 Twinning project).

Final version 12-08-04 CMDC Joint Venture 86


Existing IPPC-installations in the Czech Republic17 (table developed within the Phare 2000 Twinning project, June 2003)

Region IPPC-installations existinginstallations

new existing installations18

Submited Aplications by 31st March 2003

(new existing and new installations)

estimated number of installations with transboundary

effects19

estimated number of new installations20

estimated number of shut-downsError:

Reference source notfound

MoE21 47 41 6 0 47 (6) 4 4

Jihočeský kraj 103 (99)22 101 2 13 3 (1) 10 10

Jihomoravský kraj 99 (131) 98 1 22 5 (1) 10 10

Karlovarský kraj 33 (36) 32 1 2 2 (0) 3 3

Královehradecký kraj 60 (69) 58 2 10 1 (0) 6 6

Liberecký kraj 33 (48) 31 2 7 1 (0) 3 3

Moravskoslezský kraj 125 (142) 121 4 25 15 (2) 12 12

Olomoucký kraj 57 (68) 55 2 8 1 (0) 6 6

Pardubický kraj 69 (86) 64 5 14 3 (0) 6 6

Plzeňský kraj 66 (87) 65 1 11 1 (1) 7 7

Praha 44 (42) 44 0 1 0 (0) 4 4

Středočeský kraj 163 (215) 157 6 31 0 (0) 16 16

Ústecký kraj 136 (157) 133 3 22 13 (1) 13 13

Vysočina 50 (64) 48 2 16 1 (0) 5 5

Zlínský kraj 47 (64) 43 4 15 1 (0) 4 4

17 according to information by the Ministry of the Environment, June 200218 In this report „new existing installation“ refers to those IPPC-installations for which the application for a construction permit was submitted after October, 30 th 1999. Pursuant to §43 of the IPPC-Act, these installations shall submit an application for granting of an IPPC-permit within 3 months of the date of legal enforcement of the IPPC-Act, i.e. by March, 31st 2003.19 The details in brackets refer to the estimated number of new existing installations with transboundary effects.20 The details equal to approximately 10% of the total number of IPPC-installations.21 The MoE is responsible for IPPC-installations with transboundary effects 22 according to information by the Ministry of the Environment, June 2003, in brackets



D.5.2. Deadlines for Integrated Permits

New InstallationsNew installations must have an integrated permit before obtaining a construction permit. There is no difference regarding this condition among categories listed in the Annex 1 to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll.

According to the IPPC Act., paragraph 16 (2) the operator of an installation must not operate the installation without an integrated permit. According to paragraph 45 of the IPPC Act, a construction permit pursuant to the special regulations (Construction Act) may not be granted for installations in the absence of a legally binding integrated permit.

No deadline for applying for a permit is explicitly specified by the IPPC Act or connected legislation. There is no difference regarding the deadline among categories listed in the Annex 1 to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll.

Based on the Amendment No. 521/2002 to the IPPC Act there was an exemption for the part of so called “old new” installations for 2004. This “old new” installation for which the operator asked for a construction permit before the 1st January 2003, but this permit was not issued, must have the integrated permit by the date of proposing the start of inspection for operational permit.

Existing InstallationsAccording to the IPPC Act., paragraph 42 (1) the operator of an installation for which (s)he submitted an application for a construction permit pursuant to the special regulation (Construction Act) by October 30, 1999 and which (s)he brought into operation at the latest by October 30, 2000, if he intends to operate this installation after October 30, 2007, has a duty to obtain an integrated permit by the October 30, 2007. No deadline for applying is explicitly specified by the IPPC Act or connected legislation. According the Communication No. 6 of Legislative department of the MoE, the operator is obliged to apply with such logical timing in advance to obtain the legally binding integrated permit by the deadline established.

There is no difference regarding the deadline among categories listed in the Annex 1 to the IPPC Act No.76/2002 Coll. No exemptions from deadlines are allowed.

“Old New” InstallationsAccording to the IPPC Act., paragraph 43, the operator of an installation who has commenced operations by the 1st of January 2003, where this is not simultaneously an installation set forth in § 42 (existing installation), and who has not commenced operations by the 1st January 2003, but for which a construction permit has been issued, was obliged to submit an application for granting of an integrated permit by March 31st, 2003.

D.6. Procedural Issues

D.6.1. The Integrated PermitLegal requirements for individual items of IPPC concept are as follows:

assessing the permit application – according to the IPPC Act., paragraph 5, 6 and 11 there is an involvement of Authorized person providing the expert opinion in the assessment of the application.

determining permit conditions – applicant is obliged to propose binding conditions of the operation and to substantiate these (paragraph 4 (1)m).

determining ELVs - emission limits are identical or more stricter than in general binding regulations. The CA lay down emission limits for pollutants specified in Annex No. 2 to the IPPC Act, if these are emitted from the installation, and other emission limits which are laid



down on the basis of other regulations. The CA may also lay down emission limits for other groups or categories of pollutants, vibrations, noise, heat or other forms of non-ionizing radiation (paragraph 14 (1) of the IPPC Act).

ensuring that BAT is applied – IPPC Act, paragraph 4 (self-assessment - “k) comparison of existing or proposed installations with the best available techniques”), paragraph 14 (3) – “In setting the binding conditions of operation, in particular the emission limits, CA bases its considerations on the use of the BAT on the basis of the aspects set forth in Annex No. 3 – “Considerations for determining of best available techniques”. Paragraph 27 Systems for Exchange of Information on the BAT.

determining compliance schedule – the installation must be operated according to the permit – paragraph 16 (1)a), an exemption - IPPC Act, paragraph 14 (4) – “The CA may lay down exemptions from the emission limits for a period of a maximum of six months if the operator of the installation plans to carry out measures leading to a decrease of the pollution in this given period (e.g., bringing the installation into operation, short-term interruption or definitive termination of operation of the installation).”

determining conditions for self-monitoring – paragraph 13(4) In the binding conditions for operation CA lies down “i) the manner of monitoring emissions and transfers and/or technical measures, as appropriate, including specification of the measuring method, including its frequency, keeping records and monitoring.”

determining if a ‘substantial change’ applies – paragraph 19 (3) – “If CA finds that there has occurred a substantial change in the operation of the installation, it requests the operator of the installation to submit an application for a change in the integrated permit pursuant to paragraph 2 (b) above. If CA finds that there has occurred a substantial change in the operation of the installation as a consequence of breach against the conditions of the integrated permit, it requires that the operator of the installation submit an application for a change in the integrated permit pursuant to paragraph 2 (b) above or issues a decision on stopping operation of the installation or part thereof pursuant to paragraph 2 (c) above. A substantial change is any change that can have a significant detrimental effect on the environment or human health. A change that was or is to be subject to environmental impact assessment of a plan pursuant to the special regulation is always be considered a substantial change.” No more guidance or methodology for determining of “substantial change” is available.

reviewing the permit conditions – paragraph 18 (1) (2): “(1) In cooperation with the relevant public health authorities and the Agency, CA carries out controls at least once every 8 years to ensure that there has been no change in the circumstances that could lead to a change in the integrated permit. (2) Further, in cooperation with the relevant public health authority and the Agency, CA always controls an integrated permit or the operation of an installation, a) if it is considered that there has been a serious breach of the conditions of the integrated permit or that an installation is operated without a valid integrated permit, b) if the operator notifies them of a planned change in the installation.”

In terms of any ‘internal’ procedures manual prepared to help the authorities address specific issues, it can be said for the following: checking whether the installation required an integrated permit (threshold levels,

boundaries of installations, etc) – no such manual is available dealing with the situation when an enterprise has more than one installation on the

premises – there are only training materials from Phare 2000 Twinning project. dealing with the situation when there are no national BREFs that apply to the installation

There is an informal “manual” from the Phare 2000 Twinning project. No national BREF or other official BAT documents are foreseen by valid legislation. The Czech IPPC legislation is based on direct use of BREFs, available in the Czech translation on public web site www.ippc.cz. This field is covered by the Government Order No. 63/2003 on the BAT Information exchange system which came into force in January 2003. Within this system a set of technical working groups (TWGs) was established for each IPPC installation category or clusters of categories (branches). TWGs provide a preparation of background documentation for respective European TWG, monitor BAT development in respective field in the Czech republic or on the level of EC or international organizations, prepare translations and professional proofing of translation of relevant BREF, ensure the authorization of BREF translation, prepare a proposal of its explanation, provide comments and information communication on the development of BAT.

dialogue with operators Early started consultations (before application delivery) are generally recommended. Further, paragraph 11 (2) states: “ …. The Agency is obliged to promptly inform the operator of the installation of a prepared draft statement and to discuss


http://www.ippc.cz/


this draft statement with him (her), if the operator of the installation expresses interest therein within 5 days of being informed thereof, and to prepare its statement on the basis of the results of this deliberation.” No specific guidance to this topic is available.

determining compliance schedule – no manuals or guidance are available. determining conditions for self-monitoring - no manuals or guidance are available. determining if a ‘substantial change’ applies - there are only training materials from Phare

2000 Twinning project. reviewing the permit conditions - no manuals or guidance are available.

For Ambient Air Quality Assessment Modelling three dispersion models according to Government Decree 350/2002 Coll. are available (SMOS´97, ATEM and canyon model AEOLIUS). The modelling is mandatory when there is an expected important impact on ambient air quality. In the field of water pollution/discharges there are not prescribed any modelling methods. In individual projects/cases the use of specific type of modelling depends on the decision of the project developer.

There is a procedural tool – oral discussion - which would help in optimising of formulation of permit conditions and, in particular, to ensure that the permit conditions are written in clear, precise, unambiguous terms that are capable of enforcement. The IPPC Act - paragraph 12 - Oral Discussion of the Application: Within 5 days of the date of obtaining the statement of the Authorized person, CA arranges for an oral discussion to deliberate the application. In addition to the participants in the procedure, it also invites the Authorized person and the relevant administrative authorities to the oral discussion.

The CEI offers an opinion on Air protection issues (CEI is a permitting authority for non IPPC subjects in air protection). Otherwise, the inspectors do not have any input into writing permit conditions.

There are no procedural defects identified at this stage at either the national or regional levels.

D.6.2. Trans-Boundary Considerations

Installation Likely to Have Significant Negative Effects on Another Member StateThe legislation and procedures for such cases are summarised below.

Procedure for providing information to another Member State (and accession countries). The IPPC Act provides basic rules to this issue in paragraph 10: Statement of an Affected State: “If an affected state requests deliberation on its statement on a submitted application, CA proceeds in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in accord with international agreements binding the Czech Republic. The deadlines for granting an integrated permit laid down in this Act is prolonged by the period of deliberation of the application with an affected state”. Responsibilities of MoE are provided in paragraph 29 (b) and e): “b) makes decisions on applications for integrated permits for installations whose operations could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, e) carries out control of an integrated permit or the operation of an installation, whose operation can significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, and proceeds pursuant to this Act on the basis of the results of the control.”

Information that must be sent to the affected member state, and to whom - According to the IPPC Act, paragraph 8, ad (1)d) “Forwarding the Application and Disclosure to the Public”, “Within 7 days of the date of receiving an application containing all the prescribed requisites and within the same deadline after the date of supplementing of an incomplete application with all the prescribed requisites, CA sends the application for evaluation to: d) a country whose environment could be significantly detrimentally affected by operation of the installation (hereinafter an "affected state").”

According to the IPPC Act, paragraph 8, ad (3) “In cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the CA (MoE) also provides the application to the affected state for public disclosure, where it proceeds in accord with international agreements binding the Czech Republic.” No more details are provided.



Time period for sending this information (must be no later than informing your own public) –Within 7 days of its receipt, the information must be sent to the affected state. No further details are provided. There is no experience with the issue (no one asked by now).

Time period for the affected member state to decide whether it wishes to enter into consultations - No details are provided. There is no experience with the issue (no one asked by now).

Procedure for entering into consultations with the affected member state - No details are provided. There is no experience with the issue (no one cast by now).

Ensuring that any comments received are taken into consideration in the decision making process. - No details are provided. There is no experience with the issue (no one asked by now).

Making decisions on integrated permits available to the other member state, and what information is made available - No details are provided. There is no experience with the issue (no one asked by now).

Detailed arrangements for implementation of Article 17of the IPPC DirectiveAccording to IPPC, paragraph 10 (Statement of an Affected State): “If an affected state requests deliberation on its statement on a submitted application, CA proceeds in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in accord with international agreements binding the Czech Republic. The deadlines for granting an integrated permit laid down in this Act is prolonged by the period of deliberation of the application with an affected state.”

Concerning consultation with other (non EU) states that are likely to be negatively affected by the operation of the installation. It can be said that there are currently no detailed guidance or procedures in place. It is supposed that the regime would be similar to the regime of transboundary EIA (Espoo Convention).A guidance note for assessment of transboundary issues is recently under preparation in the frame of (2003) Phare Twinning Covenant CZ02/IB/EN/03 (to be finished and available by the end of May 2004).

Installations in Another Member State Likely to Have Significant Negative Effects on National TerritoryThis issue is not addressed at all by the IPPC Act. It is under discussion and is generally recommendable that in further amendment to IPPC Act it would be covered in analogy to EIA Act No. 100/2001 Coll. (as amended), paragraph 14.

D.6.3. Issues of Confidentiality According the IPPC Act, paragraph 8 (4) CA is obliged to ensure protection of business secrets, personal information and other information protected pursuant to the special regulations, if this information is designated as protected in the application. Information pursuant to § 4 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (m) may not be so designated. The type of information which can be asked by the applicant for protecting as confidential is marked in the following list by italics letters.

§ 4 (1) prescribes what the application must contain:a) the company name etc.b) the name and surname in case of the operator - natural person, d) a description of the installation and the activities connected etc.e) a brief summary of information f) a description of raw and auxiliary materials, other substances and energy used or

produced in the installation,g) a list and description of sources of emissions and other effects of the installation etc.,h) the characteristics of the state of the territory (in particular a description of the existing

imission conditions), where the installation is or will be located, including delimiting of basic conflicts in the territory,

i) a description of the technology and other techniques to prevent the production of emissions and, where this is not possible, to reduce emissions polluting the environment,



j) a description of current or proposed measures to prevent the production of waste, to treat or to utilize waste produced by the installation,

k) a description of current or proposed measures for measuring and monitoring emissions discharged into the environment,

l) comparison of existing or proposed installations with the best available techniques,m) a description of other planned measures to ensure compliance with obligations of a

preventative nature, such as efficient use of energy, prevention of accidents and reducing their potential consequences, where possible, elimination of the risk of potential environmental pollution and endangering of the health of humans arising from the installation after cessation of its activities to the greatest possible degree, and/or proposals of waste management plans and emergency plans for prevention of significant accidents or such plans that have already been approved, if appropriate, in case of if an installation set forth in Annex No. 1 to this Act or if it is required for the installation by the special regulations,

n) a proposal for the binding conditions of operation of the installation (§13),o) decisions, standpoints, statements and consents issued pursuant to the special

regulations, and documentation therefore, if they can replace information set forth in this paragraph,

p) documentation required for issuing decisions, standpoints, statements and consents pursuant to the special regulations which the integrated permit is to replace, if these are not contained under the requisites set forth under (a) to (n) above.

If the operator of the installation has to provide data protected pursuant to special legal regulations (except for data pursuant to Section 8 (4) second sentence of the Act), then he/she shall include such data into a separate special annex to the application, which shall be labelled as the annex containing protected data.

No specific, additional procedural arrangements are adopted for the integrated permitting system. The generally valid Administration Act rules are used.

D.6.4. Emission ModellingFor Ambient Air Quality Assessment Modelling there are three approved dispersion models according to government decree 350/2002 Coll. – SMOS´97, ATEM and canyon model AEOLIUS. The modelling is mandatory when there are expected important impacts on ambient air quality.

The ATEM mode is regarded as suitable for highly populated areas, SYMOS´97 shall be more applied in open landscape. AEOLIUS is strictly applied for canyon modelling in urban areas.

Regarding water pollution/discharges there are not prescribed any modelling methods. In individual projects/cases the use of specific type of modelling depends on the decision of the project developer.

There are no special procedures in place for dealing with situations when ‘better than BAT’ is required to comply with environmental quality standards.

Noise modelling is generally asked for in complex issues of expected high noise emissions/imissions.

D.6.5. Access to Information and Public Participation

Applications for Integrated PermitsThe following procedural arrangements are specified for access to information and public participation:

1. ensuring all applications for new installations and for substantial change are made available to the public - According to IPPC Act, paragraph 8 (2) “)” CA discloses information to the public on the portal of the public administration. It provides for disclosure of a brief summary of application and information on when and where the application may be perused, and excerpts, written copies or photocopies may be made therefrom, on its official notice board and on the official notice board of the municipality in whose territory the installation is or is to be located.



The CA and the municipality displays this information on their official notice boards for a period of 30 days. Within this period of time, any person may send CA his(her) opinion on the application. In cases of doubt, the date of commencement of public disclosure is the date on which CA disclosed the application on the portal of the public information.

2. what information is made available to the public - summary of application and information on when and where the application may be perused, and excerpts, written copies or photocopies may be made therefrom.

3. determining the ‘public’ who can comment - According to IPPC Act, paragraph 7 (1)d): “The participants in a procedure to issue an integrated permit always include: civic associations, public benefit societies, federations of employers or chambers of commerce, whose sphere of business consists in enforcing and protecting professional interests or public interests pursuant to the special regulations (E.g., Act No. 20/1987 Coll., on state memorial care, as amended, Act No. 301/1992 Coll., on the Chamber of Commerce of the Czech Republic, as amended, Act No. 17/1992 Coll.), and also municipalities or regions in the territory of which this installation may affect the environment, if these participants applied in writing to CA competent to grant the integrated permit within 30 days of the date of disclosing information from the application to the public pursuant to § 8.”

4. specifying the places where the information can be consulted – the place where the application may be perused, and excerpts, written copies or photocopies may be made therefrom is not prescribed, usually it is relevant department of Regional Office.

5. .specifying the way(s) in which the public may be informed - CA discloses the application to the public on the portal of the public administration, on its official notice board and on official notice board of the municipality in whose territory the installation is or is to be located.

6. determining the manner in which the public is to be consulted - According to IPPC Act, paragraph 9 (3), participants in the procedure (including public represented by civic associations, public benefit societies etc.) may send to CA their statements at the latest within 30 days of obtaining the application.

7. what are the time period(s) for public consultation – as the other participants in the procedure - at the latest within 30 days of obtaining the application.

8. ensuring that public comments are taken into account in the decision making process - According to IPPC Act, paragraph 11 (2), the Agency is obliged to prepare a draft statement on the entire content of the application and on the statements of the relevant administrative bodies and participants in the procedure. According to paragraph 11 (4), after receiving the statement of the Agency, CA discloses it for a period of 30 days on its official notice board and on the public administration portal. According to paragraph 13 (5), part of the reasoning for the integrated permit also consists in dealing with comments on the application contained in the statements submitted, in the full extent thereof.

According to the IPPC Act there is no difference between new and existing installations regarding the availability of the application and public consultation (see above).

Permit DecisionsAccording to IPPC Act, paragraph 13 (8), CA discloses a decision on integrated permit within 5 days of the date of legal enforcement thereof for a period of 60 days on the portal of the public administration and discloses on its official notice board information on when and where it is possible to look in to the decision.

National Emission Pollutant RegisterIn the IPPC Act 76/2002 Coll. there is a special chapter III on Integrated Pollution Register (paragraphs 21 – 26). On the base of paragraph 47 - Enabling for Issuing of Implementing Regulations, ad (1) the Government issued ORDER (Regulation) No. 368/2003, Coll. on integrated register of pollution. According to paragraph 47 (2) the Government may issue a Regulation for implementation of § 24 (2). - “The Government may lay down in a Regulation the manner of keeping the integrated pollution register and other records so as to ensure the uniformity of the information system in the area of environment.”

According to the IPPC Act, paragraph 29 (i). the MoE is the responsible body (“shall establish and maintain the integrated pollution register”).



ORDER (Regulation) No. 368/2003, Coll. on integrated register of pollution is fully compatible with the EPER Decision 2000/479/EC, although the scope is slightly broader – 88 registered substances.

The register is not accessible on-line at the moment. The first obligatory report by the user of a registered substance shall be submitted by February 15, 2005. The reporting is established as electronic (public accessible distance access on electronic address), followed with signed hard copy. According to IPPC Act, paragraph 21, establish and maintain the integrated pollution register as a publicly accessible information system of the public administration. According to paragraph 26 (1) “MoE shall disclose data reported to the integrated pollution register by September 30 of the current year on the public administration web site. The Ministry of the Environment shall annually publish in written or electronic form information received and processed on the basis of the data reported to the integrated pollution register.”

According to IPPC Act, paragraph 26 (2) “MoE shall make available and submit data from the integrated pollution register to other administrative authorities.” No duties / responsibilities of regional/ local authorities regarding reporting to the central authority are determined.

According to IPPC Act, paragraph 26 (3) “MoE shall provide for submission of information from the integrated pollution register in accordance with international commitments (e.g. Commission Decision 479/2000/EC on the implementation of a European Pollutant Emission Register according to Article 15 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 on integrated pollution prevention and control)”. According to IPPC Act, paragraph 29 k) the MoE shall fulfil tasks following from the relation to the European Communities in the area specified by the IPPC Act, submit reports on compliance with the relevant Directives of the European Communities and coordinate transposition and implementation of the legislation of the European Communities in the area specified by IPPC Act.

D.6.6. AppealsIn general, there are no specific provisions in the IPPC Act concerning appeals: these are dealt with under the general provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The IPPC Act No. 76/2002 Coll. provides in paragraph 46 (6) “Unless this Act explicitly states otherwise, the Code of Administrative Procedure (Act No. 71/1967 Coll.) shall apply to procedures pursuant this Act.

The case when the operator does not agree with the decision that an IPPC permits is required for the project: This may occur e.g. in construction permitting based on the opinion of the construction office (competent authority). The operator can appeal at a superior administration body within 15 days after the decision of the construction authority being issued.

§30 of the Code of Administrative Procedure states: Administrative Authority will stop the procedure if the participant has withdrawn the proposal for its initialization (in the case when the procedure has been initialized on the incentive of the participant) and under the condition that other participants agree or if the reason for initialization of the procedure has disappeared in the case of procedure iniciated by the Administrative Authority.

The case when the public does not agree with the decision that an IPPC is not required for the project, or does not agree with the decision made on commercial confidentiality, or does not agree that a permit should have been issued or the conditions of the permit: In all cases “public” is the participant in a procedure to issue an integrated permit -: civic associations, public benefit societies, federations of employers or chambers of commerce, whose sphere of business consists in enforcing and protecting professional interests or public interests pursuant to the special regulations, and also municipalities or regions in the territory of which this installation may affect the environment, if these participants applied in writing to the CA competent to grant the integrated permit within 30 days of the date of disclosing information from the application to the public.”

If the public is a party to proceedings (i.e. a civic association, a generally beneficial society, provided it applies to the relevant office within 30 days of the publication of an application), it is entitled to give its opinion on a plan. After a decision is issued, it is entitled to a remedy – appeal, application for review – the Ministry of the Environment decides on appeals against land registry office rulings in co-operation with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture and/or the Ministry of Health, in accordance with their remits. Following an appeal,



the whole decision is reviewed from the viewpoint of the appeal and also from the viewpoint of its correctness (whether the correct decision was made). A decision on an appeal is made in accordance with the administrative code (i.e. by the deadlines set out in the Administrative Code). In proceedings, administrative bodies are under a duty to co-operate closely with citizens and organisations and also to give them the opportunity to effectively defend their rights and interests, in particular to express their opinion on documents on which decisions are based and to make proposals. Administrative bodies have to provide citizens and organisations with help and advice, so they do not suffer detriment in proceedings due to a lack of knowledge of legislation. Appeals have to be made within 15 days of the day a decision is announced. An administrative body, which issues a contested decision, can decide on an appeal if it decides to allow the appeal in full, provided the decision does not concern a party to proceedings other than the appellant or if the other parties to proceedings agree to it. If the administrative body that issued a decision does not decide on an appeal, it submits it, the results of supplementary proceedings and the file to the appeal body no later than 30 days after the day on which the appeal was made. The conditions apply to the whole process of integrated permitting, unless provided otherwise. For example, section 46(6) says that the Administrative Code does not apply to Section 6. This means that the inclusion of a legal entity on the list of professionally competent persons is not governed by the Administrative Code – there are no deadlines set by the Administrative Code, no appeal can be made against a decision on registration on the list of authorised persons.

In both cases it is generally valid that if an operator makes an application for an integrated permit, then it decides itself whether it does this under Section 2 of Act No. 76/2002, as a facility under Annex No. 1, or as a voluntary application outside Annex No. 1. If it wants a construction permit and the building control department decides that it wants an issued integrated permit before issuing the construction permit, it will find that the application for issue of construction permit is incomplete: Section 60 of Act No. 50/1976: If an application for a construction permit does not contain, in particular, sufficient source documents for assessing the construction project or maintenance work or if the conditions of a zoning decision are not met in documentation, the building control department will ask the developer to supplement the application with a reasonable period of time, or to bring it into line with the conditions set out in the zoning decision, and inform it that it will otherwise halt construction proceedings. If an application is not supplemented by the specified date, the building control department may decide to halt proceedings on a permit for a building; an appeal can be made against such decision to the superior authority within 15 days.

The case where the operator does not agree with the decision not to grant an integrated permit, does not agree with the conditions in the integrated permit or does not agree with an enforcement decision: The operator has the right to appeal against such decisions. According to IPPC Act, paragraph 13 (7) MoE sends an appeal against a decision on an application for granting an integrated permit, including such decision, to the Ministry of Industry and Trade or the Ministry of Agriculture according to the sphere of competence thereof and the Ministry of Health for evaluation as to whether a misinterpretation has occurred in use of the best available technique in establishing the binding conditions for operation. These central bodies of the state administration send their statements within 15 days from the date of obtaining the appeal against the issued decision. In issuing a decision on an appeal, the Ministry of the Environment or Minister of the Environment bases its decision-making on these statements.

D.7. Fines

§ 37 of the IPPC Act(2) The Region shall impose a fine on the operator of an installation or the Inspectorate shall impose a fine on the operator of an installation, the operation of which could significantly detrimentally affect the environment of an affected state, in an amount of up to 1 000 000 CZK, if

a) (s)he fails to comply with the reporting obligation pursuant to § 16 (1), b) to d) of this Act,b) states false information in the application pursuant to § 4, that could affect a decision on

an integrated permit, orc) fails to submit an application for a change in an integrated permit within the deadline laid

down by the Authority pursuant to § 19 (2) (b).



(4) The Inspectorate shall impose a fine of up to 4 000 000 CZK on the operator of an installation who operates the installation without a valid integrated permit or who fails to comply with the conditions of the integrated permit.(5) The Inspectorate shall impose a fine of up to 7 000 000 CZK on the operator of an installation who

a) through failure to fulfill the conditions of an integrated permit or through operation of an installation without a valid integrated permit, has endangered or endangers the environment,

b) through failure to fulfill the conditions of an integrated permit or through operation of an installation without a valid integrated permit, has damaged or damages the environment,

c) within the set deadline, fails to carry out measures for a remedy or fails to stop operation of the installation or part thereof pursuant to § 19, or

d) fails to limit or terminate the operation of an installation on the basis of a decision pursuant to § 34 (b).

(6) The Regional Hygiene Officer shall impose a fine of up to 7 000 000 CZK on the operator of an installation who:

a) through failure to comply with the conditions of an integrated permit or through operation of an installation without a valid integrated permit, has endangered or endangers human health,

b) through failure to comply with the conditions of an integrated permit or through operation of an installation without a valid integrated permit, has damaged or damages human health, or

c) does not limit or terminate the operation of an installation on the basis of a decision issued pursuant to § 35 (1) c).

D.8. Main Sources of Information

Phare Twinning Covenant CZ02/IB/EN/03. Reinforcement of IPPC implementation. 2004, project website http://sharepoint.infomil.nl/eu/czech/IPPC/

Phare Twinning project CZ/2000/IB/EN01 (Phare 2000 Programme). Implementation Structures for IPPC and IRZ Register. CD ROM, 2003.

Integrated Pollution Agency website www.ceu.cz/IPPC

Ministry of Industry and Trade – Information Exchange Forum website www.ippc.cz

Ministry of Environment website www.env.cz/IPPC


http://www.ippc.cz/

http://www.ceu.cz/IPPC

http://sharepoint.infomil.nl/eu/czech/IPPC/


ANNEX 1Total number of installations in the Czech Republic by category

Categories of industrial activitiesAnnex I code of the sector

Definition Total number of installations

1.1. Combustion installations with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW 1631.2. Mineral oil and gas refineries 41.3. Coke ovens 41.4. Coal gasification and liquefaction plants 12.1. Metal ore (including sulphide ore) roasting or sintering installations. 22.2. Installations for the production of pig iron or steel (primary or secondary

fusion) including continuous casting, with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour

12

2.3.(a). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Hot-rolling mills with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes of crude steel per hour

11

2.3.(b). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Smitheries with hammers the energy of which exceeds 50 kilojoule per hammer, where the calorific power used exceeds 20 MW

4

2.3.(c). Installations for the processing of ferrous metals. Application of protective fused metal coats with an input exceeding 2 tonnes of crude steel per hour

15

2.4. Ferrous metal foundries with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

58

2.5.(a). Installations for the production of non-ferrous crude metals from ore, concentrates or secondary raw materials by metallurgical, chemical or electrolytic processes

8

2.5.(b). Installations for the smelting, including the alloy age, of non-ferrous metals, including recovered products, (refining, foundry casting, etc.) with a melting capacity exceeding 4 tonnes per day for lead and cadmium or 20 tonnes per day for all other metals

30

2.6. Installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m3

57

3.1. Installations for the production of cement clinker in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 500 tonnes per day or lime in rotary kilns with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day or in other furnaces with a production capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day

18

3.2. Installations for the production of asbestos and the manufacture of asbestos-based products

1

3.3. Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

23

3.4. Installations for melting mineral substances including the production of mineral fibres with a melting capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

4

3.5. Installations for the manufacture of ceramic products by firing, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain, with a production capacity exceeding 75 tonnes per day, and/or with a kiln capacity exceeding 4 mł and with a setting density per kiln exceeding 300 kg/mł

35

4.1. Chemical installations for the production of basic organic chemicals 924.2. Chemical installations for the production of basic inorganic chemicals 474.3. Chemical installations for the production of phosphorous-, nitrogen- or

potassium-based fertilizers (simple or compound fertilizers)9

4.4. Chemical installations for the production of basic plant health products and of biocides

9

4.5. Installations using a chemical or biological process for the production of basic pharmaceutical products

17

4.6. Chemical installations for the production of explosives 25.1. Installations for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste as defined in

the list referred to in Article 1 (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC, as defined in Annexes II A and II B (operations R1, R5, R6, R8 and R9) to Directive 75/442/EEC and in Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, with a capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day

37



Annex I code of the sector

Definition Total number of installations

5.2. Installations for the incineration of municipal waste, with a capacity exceeding 3 tonnes per hour

4

5.3. Installations for the disposal of non-hazardous waste as defined in Annex II A to Directive 75/442/EEC under headings D8 and D9, with a capacity exceeding 50 tonnes per day

6

5.4. Landfills receiving more than 10 tonnes per day or with a total capacity exceeding 25 000 tonnes, excluding landfills of inert waste

140

6.1.(a). Industrial plants for the production of pulp from timber or other fibrous materials

21

6.1.(b) Industrial plants for the production of paper and board with a production capacity exceeding 20 tonnes per day

19

6.2. Plants for the pre-treatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles where the treatment capacity exceeds 10 tonnes per day

14

6.3. Plants for the tanning of hides and skins where the treatment capacity exceeds 12 tonnes of finished products per day

-

6.4.(a). Slaughterhouses with a carcase production capacity greater than 50 tonnes per day

23

6.4.(b). Treatment and processing intended for the production of food products from:animal raw materials (other than milk) with a finished product production capacity greater than 75 tonnes per dayvegetable raw materials with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 tonnes per day (average value on a quarterly basis)

11

6.4.(c). Treatment and processing of milk, the quantity of milk received being greater than 200 tonnes per day (average value on an annual basis)

11

6.5. Installations for the disposal or recycling of animal carcases and animal waste with a treatment capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day

9

6.6. Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs with more than:40 000 places for poultry2 000 places for production pigs (over 30 kg), or750 places for sows

405

6.7. Installations for the surface treatment of substances, objects or products using organic solvents, in particular for dressing, printing, coating, degreasing, waterproofing, sizing, painting, cleaning or impregnating, with a consumption capacity of more than 150 kg per hour or more than 200 tonnes per year

28

6.8. Installations for the production of carbon (hard-burnt coal) or electrographite by means of incineration or graphitization

-

Others Any other categories of installations subject to national integrated permits, not covered by the IPPC Directive

-

TOTAL NUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS 1348


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – TNA EIA – Czech Republic

E. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment – EIA’

E.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in EIA Determination in the Czech Republic

The total number of staff (project trainees) involved in EIAs in the 7 pilot regions in the Czech Republic was found to be 12. However, this number relates to number of submitted questionnaires, but not to the total number of EIA staff at the respective Regional Offices. Moreover, on the list of EIA staff there are two experts, who deal both with EIA and IPPC at the Regional Office and submitted questionnaires for both EIA and IPPC. Of the above experts 2 are forestry engineers, 4 are agricultural engineers with different specialization (water management, agricultural and forestry hydrology, etc.) 2 are mechanical/technical engineers and 4 represent other professions (technical ecology, agro-ecology, biology and geology). Their media specialisation is 7 in water, 7 in waste, 5 in air and 2 in other areas. The majority of experts stated more than one specialisation.

The average professional experience of the staff involved in EIA determinations are 15,7 years (but ranges from 1 year experience to 36 year of experience), the average professional experience at the Regional Office (EIA Competent Authority) are 3,1 years. The majority of the staff is medium ranking (6), 1 is junior ranking and 1 is high ranking. There was no reply concerning ranking from 4 experts. Involvement of experts in EIA determination as lead, and number of contributions to other EIA determinations is presented in the table below.

Summary table 1: Relevant experience

2.1.1

Number of EIA, in which the expert has been involved as main responsible

0 0-9 10-49 50-99 > 100

Number of experts 4 1 3 1 3

2.1.2

Number of EIA, in which the expert has been contributing to by giving advice

0 0-10 10-50 50-100 > 100

Number of experts 9 1 0 1 0

Due to limited number of questionnaires/trainees in total and only single questionnaires from 3 regions it is hardly possible to make any representative comparison of training variations between regions. Both on the basis of questionnaires and interviews carried out at the Regional Offices it can be concluded that the level of training in different regions is comparable. One of the reasons of this status is that majority of trainings is organized/arranged by the Ministry of Environment, which is trying to involve experts from regions in the training evenly.

In the table below, there is presented an overview of the training to which the staff in question has been exposed.

Summary table 2: Previous training - exposure and provision2.2.1 Have you previously been exposed to any training

in EIA procedures?Yes - 7 No - 5

Titles of courses – specific topics

Conflict Resolution Management – Conflict resolution in the environment, Cooperation with public (5 days)2x EIA - Application of Act on EIA, Public participation (2 + 2 days)Cleaner production – Inputs and technologies, outputs – quality, level of exposure of environment by selected technologies (5 days)Economy for decision making in environmental protection – Input and output cost assessment, acceptable level of costs for new technologies, Cost for protection of individual environmental sectors (5 days)Waste management and EIA – Risk assessment, remediation methods, EIA procedure (2 days)



EMS Auditor – Evaluation of production technologies, negotiation with employees and/or public, audit procedures (4 days)Public participation within EIA (3 days)2x Twinning project EIA Best ways of public participation (2 days)Communication skills, public participation (several days)Public participation in decision making (several days)Public participation in Germany (duration not specified)

Summary table 3: English language capacitiesGood/very

good sufficient not enough not at all

3.1.1 Speaking 5 4 33.1.2 Reading 2 7 1 23.1.3 Writing 4 6 2

Summary table 4: Computer knowledge and familiarity

3.2.1 I am experienced computer user and I am using the full office package, including e-mail and internet facilities 6

3.2.2 I am a using only few of the office package facilities however I am conversant with word. I am also using the e-mail and the internet. 6

3.2.2 I am an inexperienced and only occasional computer user. I am not conversant with e-mail and internet facilities -

3.2.3 I do not use computers at all. -

Summary table 5: Internet and e-mail equipment

3.3.1 At my office, I have my own PC with necessary peripherals and an office package installed. 12

3.3.2 I am using a windows version later than win95. 73.3.3 I have e-mail facilities. 113.3.4 I am connected to the internet. 113.3.5 I do not have - or I have only rarely - access to IT facilities. 2

Based on the above, the conclusion from 12 questionnaires and information collected within interviews at the Regional Offices it can be drawn that staff numbers in majority of regions are more or less sufficient. In 2 regions (region 4 - Pardubický kraj and region 5 – Královéhradecký kraj) the staff numbers seems to be insufficient.

Regarding media specialization there is usually an appropriate media mix among trainees; the majority of experts involved in the project are specialized in more than one media. Expert specialisation (background) is more or less balanced with the exception of a strong group of 4 (from 12) agricultural engineers. Among trainees selected for the project there are no lawyers, chemists or planners at all. However, it is a common approach at Regional Offices to consult environmental sector specialists and/or other specialists like lawyers, planners, etc. in case of need.

The composition of positions of staff involved in EIA is found to imbalanced (1 high ranking, 6 medium ranking, 1 junior ranking, 4 not specified). However, it should be noted that the number of replies in questionnaires is relatively very limited (8 replies from 11 questionnaires).

Based on the figures on frequency of participation in EIA, either as lead or as contributors, the conclusion can be drawn that slightly less than one half of the experts submitting questionnaires are novices (5) and slightly more than one half (7) are skilled experts, who have already been involved in dozens of EIA as main responsible.

Seven of experts involved in the project took part in relevant training so far. Extent of the training alternates between 4 and 12 days altogether. One reply to the question related to duration of the training was several days and twice there was no reply concerning duration of



the training. The remaining 4 trainees did not participate in any relevant training (3 of them are novices at the Regional Office).

Regarding English language skills the majority of trainees express only sufficient ability and/or low/no ability to communicate/read/write in English at all (see the summary table 3 above). Very good/good knowledge is mentioned rarely (2 times) and only in terms of reading. The general conclusion is that English language skills are insufficient and should be substantially improved.

Computer and Internet/e-mail literacy seems to be very satisfactory both in general and in individual regions. The same is valid for computer and Internet/e-mail accessibility.

E.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences

The following paragraphs present the details of the Training Needs Assessment (TNA). Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables (questionnaires). In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise.

TNA tick-off tables were filled in the K (knowledge) and E (experience) boxes with “very knowledgeable/very experienced”, or - 3“knowledgeable/some experience”, or - 2“novice”/very little experience”, or - 1“unknowledgeable/no experience” - 0

The below tables of TNA are filled in the K (knowledge) and E (experience) boxes using the following scale:(a) - “very knowledgeable/very experienced”(b) - “knowledgeable/some experience”, or(c) - “novice”/very little experience”, or(d) - “unknowledgeable/no experience”,

Signs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are determined by computing the average values of all sub-boxes in the TNA table including one decimal as follows: an average score of 3,0 –2,8 equals (a),an average score of 2,7-1,8 is ranked (b);an average score of 1,7- 0,8 is ranked ( c),everything lower than 0,8 is ranked (d).

Cross mark is used if there is no reply to the questions in the sub-box.

In the tables below, there are presented both overview of regions participating in the training project and overview of participants in the project, who submitted the questionnaires, and their respective regions



Overview of regions participating in the training project

RegionNo.

Training cluster

Name in Czech Name in English Abbrevia-tion

No. of re-spondents

Region 1

I Moravskoslezský kraj

Moravian-Silesian Region

MSK 2

Region 2

II

Olomoucký kraj The OlomoucRegion

OLK 2

Region 3

Jihomoravský kraj

Southern Moravia Region

JHM 2

Region 4

III

Pardubický kraj The Pardubice Region

PAK 1

Region 5

Královéhradecký kraj

The Hradec Králové Region

KHK 1

Region 6

Ústecký kraj The Ústí Region ULK 1

Region 7

Středočeský kraj Central Bohemia Region

SCK 3

Overview of participating in the training project and the respective regions

Region 1 Moravskoslezský kraj Kulík, ŠubrtováRegion 2 Olomoucký kraj Kunčarová, StudenýRegion 3 Jihomoravský kraj Hájek, RichterováRegion 4 Pardubický kraj KašparRegion 5 Královéhradecký kraj VeselýRegion 6 Ústecký kraj VeltruskýRegion 7 Středočeský kraj Fuchs, Švingrová, Veverková

K ERelevance of EU membership to EIA pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b cpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 c cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 c c

K EKey principles of EIA pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 a bpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 a apilot region 7 c c

K ELegal acts - knowledge pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 a apilot region 7 c c



K EEIA procedures pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 c c

K EEU directives pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 b dpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 d d

K EScreening pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 a bpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 a apilot region 7 c d

K EScoping pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 a bpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a bpilot region 6 a apilot region 7 c c

K EReporting pilot region 1 c d

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 d d

K EMitigation measures pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 d d



K EEIA reviews pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 d dpilot region 7 d d

K EDecision making pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 d d

K EMonitoring pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b cpilot region 4 a bpilot region 5 a apilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 d d

K EPublic Participation pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b cpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 d d

K EPreparation of plans for Public Participation pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 b bpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b apilot region 6 x xpilot region 7 d d

K ESubstantial changes* pilot region 1

pilot region 2pilot region 3pilot region 4pilot region 5pilot region 6pilot region 7

* Question box related to substantial changes has been missing In the Czech version of the questionnaire



K EProcedures error pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a cpilot region 6 d dpilot region 7 d d

E.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with EIA Determination

Staff in Pardubický and Ústecký pilot region(s) accumulated the greatest amount of experience in EIA determination. In terms of knowledge the same applies to the same regions. The result however depends very much on the fact that only one questionnaire form from each of the mentioned regions was filled in by a skilled expert with substantial experience.

The greatest deficiencies pertain to staff in Středočeský region both concerning experiences and knowledge. The major reason is that novices in terms of EIA were appointed for training from this region.

Staff in Moravskoslezský, Olomoucký, Jihomoravský and Ústecký regions reached medium-ranks both with a view to experience and with a view to knowledge.

Staff in Středočeský region had novice level knowledge and only very little experience.

From three pilot (Pardubický, Královehradecký, Ústecký) regions there was only one questionnaire submitted per region. From remaining regions there were submitted 2-3 questionnaires per region. No substantial deviations were recognized within regions.


Capacity Building in Implementation of the Environmental Acquis Capacity Review Annex I – TNA IPPC – Czech Republic

F. Annex II: Conclusions on the Training Needs Assessment - IPPC

F.1. Overall Staff Capacities, i.e. Characteristics of Staff Involved in IPPC Permits in Czech Republic

The total number of staff involved in IPPC permitting in the 7 pilot regions in the Czech Republic was found to be 31. From that number 15 persons are participating in IPPC training in the framework of this project, of these 5 are chemists, 3 engineers, and 7 are representing other professions (from them 1 is environmentalist, 5 are agro-ecologists or agricultural engineers). Their media specialisation is 7 in water, 5 in waste and 5 in air (in several cases one specialist declares more than one media specialization).

The average professional experience of the staff involved in IPPC training is 40 years (9 respondents), the majority of the staff is medium (10), 3 of junior and 1 of high ranking.

They have been involved in a total of 85 IPPC permits as lead (12 respondents, average 6,4 permits), and they have contributed to another 87 IPPC permits (12 respondents, average 6,3 permits).

Summary table: Previous training - exposure and provision2.2.1 Have you previously been exposed to any training in IPPC

procedures?Yes 8 No 4

Titles of courses

6 Twinning projects1 public participation EIA/IPPC1 Phare IPPC 2 several courses (4 courses BAT/BREF - 4 weeks ,4 trainings MoE -4 weeks)

Summary table: English language capacitiesGood/very

goodsufficient not enough not at all

3.1.1 Speaking 1 2 8 33.1.2 Reading 2 7 3 33.1.3 Writing 5 7 3TOTAL 3 14 18 7

Summary table: Computer knowledge and familiarity3.2.1 I am experienced computer user and I am using the full office package,

including e-mail and internet facilities7

3.2.2 I am a using only few of the office package facilities however I am conversant with word. I am also using the e-mail and the internet.

8

3.2.2 I am an inexperienced and only occasional computer user. I am not conversant with e-mail and internet facilities

-

3.2.3 I do not use computers at all. -

Summary table: Internet and e-mail equipment3.3.1 At my office, I have my own PC with necessary peripherals and an

office package installed.15

3.3.2 I am using a windows version later than win95. 93.3.3 I have e-mail facilities. 143.3.4 I am connected to the internet. 143.3.5 I do not have - or I have only rarely - access to IT facilities. -



IPPC Expert AssessmentBased on the above the conclusion can be drawn that staff numbers in the majority of regions are sufficient. In two regions – region 4 - Pardubický kraj and region 5 – Královéhradecký kraj the staff numbers are insufficient. Regarding media specialization there is usually an appropriate media mix among trainees. Expert specialisation is balanced with the exception of a strong group of 5 (from 15) agro-ecologists and agricultural engineers. Among trainees selected for the project there are not any lawyers and biologists at all. The composition of positions of staff involved in IPPC permitting is generally found to be rightly balanced – half of total number of permitting procedures (85) done by the trainees was led by trainees as the main responsible person, half as contributing and advising persons. In individual cases there is the whole spectrum of the shares in leading and/or participating in the permit procedure – from 22 leading roles (head of division – region 4/PAK) to 15 contributing/advising role (expert of region 7/SCK).

Based on the figures on frequency of participation in IPPC permits, either as lead or as contributors, the conclusion is that in their majority they are experts.(of medium staff position).

Two thirds of the total number of trainees has previously been exposed to training (dominantly within Phare Twinning projects). So far, they have been trained sufficiently but some of experts are not trained enough. Two experts from Olomoucký kraj (region 2) and Jihomoravský kraj (region 3) have not taken part in any specialized IPPC training. But this does not relate to the general situation in training in their offices. In many cases their colleagues from the office (not nominated to this training project) have been trained to a considerable scale – usually 2-4 from each office in the frame of twinning projects, including excursions abroad in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and UK.

Regarding English language capacities, statistically - the majority of trainees express their ability as “not sufficient enough” or they have no capacity at all. Sufficient capacity is announced by 1/3 of trainees, while very good/good knowledge is rare (3 times).

Computer knowledge/familiarity and Internet/e-mail equipment seem to be satisfactory in general and also in individual regions.

F.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Capacities and Experiences

The following paragraphs present the details of theTNA. Reference is made to the TNA tick-off tables. In order to do justice to the particularities of the pilot regions, the tables are arranged region-wise.

LegendK = knowledgeE = experience

(a) “very knowledgeable/very experienced”, or (b) “knowledgeable/some experience”, or (c) “novice”/very little experience”, or (d) “unknowledgable/no experience”

And where:An average score of 3.0 –2,8 equals (a),an average score of 2,7-1,8 is ranked (b);an average score of 1,7- 0,8 is ranked ( c).Everything lower than 0,8 is (d).

Overview of regions participating in the training project

Region Training Name in Czech Name in English Abbrevia- No. of re-



No. cluster tion spondentsRegion

1I Moravskoslezský

krajMoravian-Silesian Region

MSK 3

Region 2

II

Olomoucký kraj The OlomoucRegion

OLK 5

Region 3

Jihomoravský kraj Southern Moravia Region

JHM 3

Region 4

III

Pardubický kraj The Pardubice Region

PAK 1

Region 5

Královéhradecký kraj

The Hradec Králové Region

KHK 1

Region 6

Ústecký kraj The Ústí Region ULK 1

Region 7

Středočeský kraj Central Bohemia Region

SCK 1

Summary tables in individual fields

K ELegal acts pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a bpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K ECompetent authorities and contacts details pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 a apilot region 7 b b

K EApplications pilot region 1 b a

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 a apilot region 7 a a

K EPermit in general pilot region 1 c b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 a a

K EEmission limit values (ELVs) pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b b



pilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K EBAT and BREFs pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 a apilot region 7 b b

K ESelf-monitoring programmes and EMS pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 a bpilot region 5 b cpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 b c

K ETrans-boundary pollution pilot region 1 b d

pilot region 2 c dpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 a a

K EConfidentiality pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 c dpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 b b

K EPrevention of accidents pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a bpilot region 5 a bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K EPublic participation procedures pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 b b

K E



EPER pilot region 1 c dpilot region 2 c dpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 c c

K ERelations to other permits pilot region 1 a a

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a apilot region 5 a apilot region 6 a apilot region 7 a a

K EReview of permits pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 a bpilot region 5 a cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K ESubstantial changes pilot region 1 a b

pilot region 2 b bpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 c dpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K ECessation of operation and financial security pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 b dpilot region 3 c cpilot region 4 a cpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 a a

K EOdour – knowledge and experience pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 b dpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 a dpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 a apilot region 7 b b



K ELinks to other directives pilot region 1 c c

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K EAir and water spreading models pilot region 1 c d

pilot region 2 b cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 c c

K ENoise pilot region 1 b b

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b cpilot region 5 a bpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 b b

K EEU priority list of dangerous substances pilot region 1 b c

pilot region 2 c dpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b cpilot region 5 b bpilot region 6 c cpilot region 7 c c

K EVoluntary schemes – EMS and EMAS pilot region 1 c d

pilot region 2 c cpilot region 3 d dpilot region 4 b bpilot region 5 b cpilot region 6 b bpilot region 7 c c

F.3. Conclusion on Knowledge and Experience of Staff Dealing with IPPC

Staff in pilot regions 4 - Pardubický kraj, 7 - Středočeský kraj, 6 – Ústecký kraj and 5 - Královéhradecký kraj accumulated the greatest amount of experience in IPCC permits. In terms of knowledge the same applies to region 4 -Pardubický kraj followed by region 6 - Ústecký kraj, 5 -Královéhradecký kraj and region 7 - Středočeský kraj. However, these conclusions have a limited statistic validity because of the fact that in Ústecký kraj and Středočeský kraj there is only one respondent - expert nominated for this project in each of these 4 regions.

The greatest deficiencies pertain to staff nominated to the training within this project in region 3 - Jihomoravský kraj and region 2 - Olomoucký kraj (experience) and in Jihomoravský kraj (knowledge).



Staff in region 1 - Moravskoslezský kraj reached medium-ranks with a view to experience and in region 1 - Moravskoslezský kraj and region 2 - Olomoucký kraj with a view to knowledge.


files.gamta.ltfiles.gamta.lt/aaa/Tipk/Capasity_ECDG/1SummaryCRR/cz_capacity... · Web viewThis...

Documents

Transcript of files.gamta.ltfiles.gamta.lt/aaa/Tipk/Capasity_ECDG/1SummaryCRR/cz_capacity... · Web viewThis...