It is not an easy task to compare Environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems and Environmental impact statements (EISs) between countries. The systems are neither the same nor the way of doing EISs.

Since 1985 countries within the European Union (EU), and later members states of European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well, have had their EIA systems based on the EU Directive on EIA (85/337/EEC).

Despite of the Directive there is still a considerable difference between the countries in terms of method of implementation of the EIA directive, the EIA process, legislative framework and the way authorities handle EISs.

One approach to compare EIA between countries is by comparing the number of EISs each country is preparing. Shows number of EISs pr. 100.000 habitants pr. year in 19 countries over the first decade of EIA systems in each countries.

The average number of EISs within these 22 countries is 4.2 pr. 100.000 hab/yr. Within the 14 EU Member States the number is 4.4, with Luxemburg at the top with 25.6 EISs and Denmark and UK at the bottom with only app. ½ EIS pr. 100.000 hab/yr or 50 times fewer than Luxemburg.

This comparison should though be considered provisionally. For that are some reasons, e.g.:

• In Japan, USA and Canada only projects prepared by federal agencies are subjected to EIA. Within EU (and EFTA) all developers have to prepare EISs if their projects are included in the Annex I or II in 85/337/EEC.
• Only 10 EISs (0,2%) in Canada can be compared to the EIA process according to 85/337/EEC, the rest of the projects undergo a less detailed EIA process.
• The number of EISs in US the first decade of NEPA was around 1,000 pr. year, since then the number has reduced, down to about half ten years ago.
• Though Australia is at the bottom of the list, the EIA system in West Australia is generally known as being on of the most successful.
• Despite judgments from the Court of Member States incorrect transposition of the 85/337/EEC, some states have removed whole list of projects in Annex II or put various thresholds which exempt in advance certain whole classes of projects listed in Annex II. The list of projects subjected to EIA is therefore not the same.

Another scale to compare EIA between countries is the types of projects for which EISs have been prepared. EISs are being reviewed by local planning officers in many countries, not by single institutions or commissions. It can therefore be troublesome to find reliable data.

The types of projects can naturally vary between nations, reflecting local differences in activities and implementations of the EIA Directive. Many EISs are related to waste in the Netherlands, the majority of EISs in Iceland are on roads, and 3/5 of EISs in UK are on waste, roads and industrial and urban projects. Iceland has also projects on avalanche protections and projects related to the utilisation of the island's hydraulic energy for heavy industry.

To mention classes of projects in other countries are here two other Nordic countries; In Denmark most of the EISs in 1997 were on racing tracks, waste disposal, sludge deposition, roads, natural gas storage and shopping centres, but the majority were related to pig rearing installations. Most of the EISs in Norway between 1997 and 1999 were on roads, hydraulic power plants, material extraction, industrial and urban projects, and golf courses. @

• Arbok for konsekvensutredninger, 1999, NIBR, Oslo 2000
• Bertona, A. M., Environmental Management Consulting, Argentina (www.enviroconsul.8m.com/).
• Directive 85/337/EEC: Report, The European Commission, 1999.
• Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd ed., UCL Press Ltd 1999
• International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, CEAA and IAIA, 1997 (www.environment.gov.au/epg/eianet/eastudy).
• Jain R.K., Urban, L.V., Stacey, G.S., Balbech, H.E., Environmental Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1993.
• NEPA-A, Study of it's Effectiveness After 25 Years (CEQ, 1997)
• The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (www.acee.gc.ca).
• Thorsteinsson, EAplan.com, Iceland.
• Wood, C., 1996. Progress on EIA since 1985 - A UK Overview.