1. Group EIA 1: Screening for Annex 2 Both:- case-by-case - thresholds < 10% goes to EIA All Countries have problems with “Salami Slicing” Little Information from proponent (in some countries) Public Participation in all countries: Publication with information, Possibility to comment Decisions taking in local level is sometimes problematic. Mostly decision is taken on regional/central level

2. Group EIA 2: Cumulative Effects Problems of definitions Approach to identify cumulative effects Practices – Existing modelling systems Guidelines SynergeticCumulative  Connection to SEA (Spatial Planning, Environmental Action Plans)  Case – by – case examination Gap: For example  Human health  Odour  Not existing in most of countries  EU has – but in English

3. Group EIA 3: EIA and Natura 2000 Legislation: Poor enforcement Availability and capacity of human resources Development versus environmental protection Integration of the screening stage Activities under Natura 2000 and EIA should be managed by one and the same authority

4. Group IPPC 4: Substantial Change New Substances: First evaluate effects on environment Special attention to new chemicals Evaluation guidance needed Increased Volume: Existing technology  Not substantial change New technology  substantial change Small concentrations or amounts in vulnerable (also industrial) areas may represent substantial change

5. Cont. Group IPPC 4: Substantial Change Increasing Negative Effect: Most important evaluation issue “Significant” and “negative” defined by case National guidelines needed Lower overall emissions  up-date permit General: Change in operation  up-date permit Substantial change  New permit Some tools exist: environmental quality standard (EQS) (water, air) Amendment to Aarhus convention: Above Annex 1 Thresholds  Substantial change Operator responsible for reporting changed environmental impacts

6. Group IPPC 5: What to Do in Case of No BREFs or No Translated BREFs Operator = Choose BAT! Permitter (CA) = Confirms or not! Principles = Pollution prevention!! Case by Case (preamble, text, definitions, annex IV) Wg № 5

7. Cont. Group IPPC 5: What to Do in Case of No BREFs or No Translated BREFs Choices: Use other sources >< Create own Higher protection = BAT Minimum Requirements Lower protection = Not BAT (ELV, waste etc) Draft BREFs BAT = US EPA, UK, WB, Helcom home pages CP = reports, books etc. Other = reports, benchmarking, standards etc. ActivityUsed technology at process Chosen BATCompl. --------xxxxxxx Comparison Table

8. Cont. Group IPPC 5: What to Do in Case of No BREFs or No Translated BREFs Problems: 1.Quality BREFs and translations 2.Need of many specific skills of Competent Authority (technical, ecological, economical, psychological, sociological, public relations etc.)

9. Group IPPC 6: Interaction between Application form and the Permit – Standard Templates etc. 1.Format of application & permit: compulsory or recommended nationally 2.Need for adjustments: flexibility 3.Guidance needed 4.Electronic submission  usage of database 5.Verification of application  long use  Pre-application consultation Conclusion