The grass is always greener on the other side: Access to Environmental Assessment Documents in Germany in International Comparison vorgelegt von M.Sc. Environmental Planning Lisa Friederike Odparlik geb. in Bielefeld

von der Fakultät VI – Planen Bauen Umwelt der Technischen Universität Berlin zur Erhaltung des akademischen Grades

Doktorin der Ingenieurwissenschaften – Dr.-Ing. –

genehmigte Dissertation

Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Heiland Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Johann Köppel Gutachterin: Prof. Dr. Clare Ryan

Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 8. Dezember 2016

Berlin 2017

“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family”. Kofi Annan (1997)

Abstract

I

Abstract Since the first European Directive on EIA was transposed into German national law in 1990, projects with potentially harmful consequences must undergo an EIA before approval is granted. Since than, it has developed and established as a central tool of environmental policy. Furthermore, as of 2004, relevant plans and programs must undergo a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). For Environmental Assessments (EIA & SEA) a wide range of data and documents is gathered, processed, and produced. The results of an EIA/SEA are documented in an environmental report, which together with other project documents builds a basis for approval decisions by planning authorities. An integral part of any Environmental Assessment (EA) is statutory public participation. Discussions about the why, when, and how to integrate participation in the planning process of projects, plans and programs have dominated the debate regarding fair and effective participation. Albeit, one essential aspect has been underrepresented in Germany: Participation needs information. Kofi Annan (1997) pointed out that knowledge equals power. Information in this context is liberating and education is the premise of progress in every society. Information is not only a prerequisite for a successful democracy, but can affect perceptions in advance of a decision and foster the planning process at all levels and stages. Consequently, the provision of information for the public increases the fairness in public participation by greater transparency, empowerment to participate, and creating environmental and societal awareness. Besides general provision and accessibility of EA documents and process information (e.g. public hearing transcripts), aspects like ‘fair notice’, ‘time to prepare’, and the ‘readability’ of documents play an important role. International practice examples have shown an increasing use of web-based EA registries or project websites to provide information. They inform when participation is possible, provide the relevant documents, and increase the accessibility and continued availability of information. The goal of this PhD thesis has been to generate, improve and communicate a common understanding of the requirements and functions of web-based systems to provide information for fair and effective public participation in EA processes. It analyzed current practice, existing legal requirements and perceived barriers, ending with conclusions on how to overcome existing shortcomings by implementing a meta-information system in Germany. The findings indicate that progressively more German responsible agencies at federal and state level use the Internet to provide information. But, there is still a great lack of enforcement of legal minimum requirements when it comes to the active provision of environmental information in the context of EA and barely any effort to provide information exceeding legal requirements. If information is provided, it is often scattered across manifold lead agency websites and varying scope from case to case. Through comparison with international practice examples, it becomes apparent that there is a great potential to improve the German planning and decision-making practice through web-based information systems and the way how they are run and maintained.

II

Abstract

The amended European Directive 2014/52/EU and the obligation to implement central portals providing the public with easy and electronic access to relevant information is an initial step fostering the active provision of information. But as research has shown, there is a wide interpretation what, how, and by which means information should be provided. Instead of proving the legally required minimum, this research offers suggestions for the active information provision in support of participation for the four functions: 1. Notice of projects and status updates; 2. provision of documents; 3. additional services to support participation; and 4. e-participation.

Zusammenfassung

III

Zusammenfassung Die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung wurde 1990 als Umsetzung europeäischer Umweltpolitik eingeführt. Seit dem hat sie sich zentrales umweltpolitisches Instrument in Deutschland etabliert und ist Standard-Prüfverfahren zur Umweltfolgenabschätzung umweltrelevanter Projekte. Des Weiteren sind Pläne und Programme seit 2004 einer strategischen Umweltprüfung (SUP) zu unterziehen. Im Rahmen der Umweltprüfungen (UVP & SUP) wird ein breites Spektrum an Daten und Dokumenten gesammelt, verarbeitet und produziert. Die Ergebnisse der Umweltprüfung werden in der Umweltverträglichkeitsstudie/Umweltbericht erfasst und dienen, zusammen mit den weiteren Antragsunterlagen, als Grundlage für die Zulassungsentscheidung der zuständigen Genehmigungsbehörde. Ein integraler Bestandteil der Umweltprüfungen ist die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Diskussionen darüber, warum, wann und wie die Beteiligung bei der Planung vom Projekten, Plänen und Programmen integriert werden kann, haben die Debatte über faire und wirksame Beteiligung bisher dominiert. Ein zentraler Aspekt wird bei der zunehmenden Diskussion zur Verbesserung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im konkreten Kontext der Umweltprüfungen in Deutschland jedoch noch wenig diskutiert: Beteiligung braucht Information. Wie schon Kofi Anan (1997) betonte, kann Wissen Macht bedeuten. Information ist befreiend und Bildung is die Vorraussetzung für Fortschritte in jeder Gesellschaft. Information ist nicht nur eine Voraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche Demokratie, sie kann auch die Wahrnehmungen schon im Vorfeld einer Entscheidung und somit den Planungsprozess auf allen Ebenen und in allen Schritten beeinflussen. Folglich führt die Bereitstellung von Informationen für die Öffentlichkeit zu einer deutlichen Verbesserung der Transparenz, einer verbesserten Möglichkeit, sich zu beteiligen, und zur Schaffung von Umweltbewusstsein. Neben der allgemeinen Bereitstellung und Zugänglichkeit von Dokumenten und Prozessinformationen der Umweltprüfung (z.B. Protokolle von öffentlichen Anhörungen), spielen auch Aspekte wie eine „faire Bekanntmachung“, „Zeit zur Vorbereitung“ und die „Lesbarkeit“ von Dokumenten eine wichtige Rolle. Internationale Praxisbeispiele zeigen eine zunehmende Verwendung web-basierter Register oder Projektwebseiten zur Bereitstellung von Informationen. Diese informieren darüber, wann Beteiligung möglich ist, stellen Dokumente bereit, erhöhen die Zugänglichkeit und die kontinuierliche Verfügbarkeit von Informationen. Das Ziel dieser Dissertation war es, ein Verständnis für die Anforderungen und Funktionen webbasierter Informationssysteme für eine faire und effektive Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im Umweltprüfungsverfahren zu generieren, verbessern und zu kommunizieren. Im Rahmen der Arbeit wurden die aktuelle Praxis, bestehende gesetzliche Anforderungen und Barrieren untersucht. Sie endet mit Schlussfolgerungen wie die bestehenden Mängel durch die implementierung eine MetaInformationssystems in Deutschland überwunden werden können.

IV

Zusammenfassung

Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass, zunehmend mehr deutsche Genehmigungsbehörden auf Bundes- und Länderebene das Internet nutzen, um Informationen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Allerdings gibt es, besonders bei der aktiven Informationsbereitstellung in der Umweltprüfung, immer noch ein großes Vollzugsdefizit und wenige Bemühungen mehr als die gesetzlichen Mindestanforderungen umzusetzen. Werden Informationen bereitgestellt, sind diese über die vielen Webseiten der informationspflichtigen Stellen verstreut und variieren im Umfang von Fall zu Fall. Im Vergleich mit internationalen Praxisbeispielen wird deutlich, dass in der Einführung (zentraler) web-basierter Informationssysteme, der Art wie diese Systeme umgesetzt und gepflegt werden, ein großes Potential für die Verbesserung der deutschen Planungs- und Genehmigungspraxis liegt. Die Änderungsrichtlinie 2014/52/EU und die damit verbundene erforderliche Umsetzung zentraler Portale, die der Öffentlichkeit einen einfachen und elektronischen Zugang zu den relevanten Informationen eröffnen soll, ist ein wichtiger Schritt zur Förderung der aktiven Informationsbereitstellung. Aber die Forschungsergebnisse dieser Dissertation haben gezeigt, dass es vielfältige Interpretationsmöglichkeiten gibt, welche Informationen, wie und mit welchen Mitteln zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollen. Statt lediglich den gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Mindestanforderungen zu entsprechen, bieten die vorgestellten Forschungsergebnisse Anregungen für die Informationsbereitstellung zur Unterstützung der Beteiligung für die vier Funktionen: 1. Bekanntgabe laufender Planungen und Status-Updates, 2. Bereitstellung von Dokumenten, 3. Zusatzleistungen zur Unterstützung der Beteiligung und 4. Online-Beteiligung.

Acknowledgements

V

Acknowledgements The making of this PhD would not have been possible without the assistance and support of various people. I would like to express my gratitude for their aspiring guidance, constructive criticism, and friendly advice throughout the process! First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Johann Köppel, who has not only guided my work, but supported my ideas and nourished my interest in this topic, for the trust in my work, critical feedback, and suggestions for improvement of this PhD thesis. Thank you for giving me the possibility to join the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group at the TU Berlin and for giving me time to grow into the task. I furthermore want to thank Prof. Dr. Clare Ryan for her trust and the freedom she gave me in developing my ideas. Especially her work on the readability of EA documents was a great inspiration for this PhD and infigorated my interest in the topic. I want to thank my current and former colleagues at the environmental assessment and planning research group. The members of the research group have contributed immensely to my personal and professional time at the Berlin Institute of Technology. The group has been a source of good advice and collaboration as well as friendship. I would especially like to thank Gesa, Anke, Jule, Julie, Verena, Victoria, Maria and Marianna for always lending me an open ear whenever I needed it, as well as the professional discussions and feedback on my draft manuscripts. I would also like to thank my student assistants Sabine and Denise for their support of my work. I would like to thank Kevin Hanna and Bram Noble for their inspiring vision of the ideal registry, and especially Kevin for his interest in my research and motivating conversations during IAIA conferences. I would further like to thank Andreas for his interest in the topic and his contributions to my last paper, as well as the pre-testers and participants of my online survey. And last but not least, möchte ich meiner Familie, den Dittberners und besonders Rena Danken. Herzlichen Dank für euer Vertrauen in mich, eure Unterstützung und wachsendes Interesse an meiner Arbeit. Lisa Friederike Odparlik September 2016

VI

Content

Content Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................I Zusammenfassung .......................................................................................................................................................... III Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................... V Content ................................................................................................................................................................................. VI List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................... IX List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................... X List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................... XI Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.

2.

3.

Access to information and procedural documents of environmental assessments ............... 2 1. 1

The role of Information in the process of EA................................................................................. 4

1. 2

Information as a prerequisite for participation ........................................................................... 6

1. 3

Laws and Regulations on access to information ........................................................................ 10

State of Research and Motivation .............................................................................................................. 15 3. 1

International situation .......................................................................................................................... 17

3. 2

Situation in Germany ............................................................................................................................. 18

Overall Goal and Research Design ............................................................................................................. 18 3. 1

Confinement of the topic...................................................................................................................... 19

3. 2

Methods and research questions...................................................................................................... 20

4.

Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................................................... 21

5.

References ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 2 The role of registries in the provision of access to EA information for public participation in selected international examples .............................................................................................................................. 33 1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 34

2.

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

3.

Results and discussion ................................................................................................................................... 38 3. 1

Framework conditions ......................................................................................................................... 38

Content

VII

3.2

Notice of projects .................................................................................................................................... 39

3.3

Provision of documents ........................................................................................................................ 40

3.4

Accessibility of information ................................................................................................................ 41

3.5

Ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment ...................... 43

4.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 43

5.

References ........................................................................................................................................................... 44

Chapter 3 Analysis of the active information provision by lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors .................................................................................................... 47 1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 48

2.

Legal regulations defining access to information ............................................................................... 50

3.

Method .................................................................................................................................................................. 52 1. 1

Step 1: Case selection ............................................................................................................................ 52

1. 2

Step 2: Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 53

2.

Case Study: EA for Energy Grid and Federal Road Projects ............................................................ 54

3.

Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 56

4.

3. 1

Accessibility of information ................................................................................................................ 57

3. 2

Notice of projects .................................................................................................................................... 58

3. 3

Provision of documents ........................................................................................................................ 59

3. 4

Ongoing information ............................................................................................................................. 61

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 62 4. 1

Accessibility of information ................................................................................................................ 62

4. 2

Notice of projects .................................................................................................................................... 63

4. 3

Provision of documents ........................................................................................................................ 64

4. 4

Ongoing information ............................................................................................................................. 64

4. 5

A central portal ........................................................................................................................................ 65

5.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 65

6.

References ........................................................................................................................................................... 66

Chapter 4 Prerequisites and barriers to access to EA documents and process information ............................... 69 1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 70

2.

The online survey ............................................................................................................................................. 73 2.1

Method and databasis ........................................................................................................................... 73

2.2

Results of the online survey ............................................................................................................... 74

2.3

Supporting factors for the provision of information ................................................................ 79

2.4

Hindering factors for the provision of information .................................................................. 80

VIII 3.

4.

Content Analysis of the legal situation ...................................................................................................................... 81 3.1

Which documents are to be published online?........................................................................... 81

3.2

Timing of the notice and duration of the provision of information ................................... 83

3.3

Constitutionally secured protection obligation.......................................................................... 83

3.4

Possibilities to raise objections online? ......................................................................................... 84

Conclusion & Outlook ..................................................................................................................................... 85

Chapter 5 Synthesis: Availability and access to documents and process information in EA – Good practice and quality management? ........................................................................................................................................... 87 1.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 89

2.

Method .................................................................................................................................................................. 89

3.

Results ................................................................................................................................................................... 90

4.

3. 1

Notice of projects and status updates ............................................................................................ 90

3. 2

Provision of documents ........................................................................................................................ 92

3. 3

Additional services to support participation............................................................................... 96

3. 4

e-Participation....................................................................................................................................... 101

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 103 4. 1

Notice of projects and status updates ......................................................................................... 103

4. 2

Provision of documents ..................................................................................................................... 104

4. 3

Additional services to support participation............................................................................ 105

4. 4

e-Participation....................................................................................................................................... 107

5.

Conclusion and Further Research........................................................................................................... 108

6.

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 111

Author contribution Statement ............................................................................................................................... XIV Curriculum Vitae and List of Publications .......................................................................................................... XVI Author’s Declaration ................................................................................................................................................. XVIII Annex ................................................................................................................................................................................. XIX Annex 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................XX Annex 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ XXXVI Annex 3 ................................................................................................................................................................................. LI Annex 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................. LIV Annex 5 ............................................................................................................................................................................. XLII Annex 6 ........................................................................................................................................................................... LXIX

List of Tables

IX

List of Tables Table 1: Overarching objectives of public participation .................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Public and affected public's opportunities for participation ...................................................... 15 Table 3: List of investigated cases ............................................................................................................................ 37 Table 4: Overview of the provision of documents in the investigated cases ......................................... 41 Table 5: Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment. Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 6: Overview of planning levels, legal provision and responsibilities for electricity grid expansion and federal road planning. .................................................................................................................... 55 Table 7: Results on the accessibility of information in the investigated cases...................................... 58 Table 8: Results on the notice of projects in the investigated cases. ......................................................... 58 Table 9: Results on the provision of ongoing information in the investigated cases. ........................ 62 Table 10: Overview of inquiry and response to the online survey in the three planning phases 74 Table 11: Stated legal reasons for the web-based provision of information ........................................ 79 Table 12: Ideal registry information and German legal requirements ..................................................... 94 Table 13: Additional web-based services to support participation and selected practice examples ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 Table 14: Different forms of e-Participation used in international practice examples................... 102 Table 15: Document readability requirements .............................................................................................. 105 Table 16: With this example WS Dot shows how one can engage the reader by making them a character in the story ................................................................................................................................................ 106

X

List of Figures

List of Figures Figure 1: Worldwide development of EIA legislation in 1996, 1991 and 2016 ..................................... 2 Figure 2: Eight rungs on a lagger of citizen Participation ................................................................................ 8 Figure 3: In your opinion, when did you hear about wind energy projects in your neighborhood? .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4: In your opinion, to what extent were you informed about the wind energy projects in your neighborhood?....................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: The tree pillars of the Aarhus Convention ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 6: Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 7: Screenshot of the Canadian environmental assessment registry with cartographic localization of projects. ................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 8: Provision of documents in the phase II (corridor planning) in both sectors. .................... 60 Figure 9: Provision of documents in the phase III (plan approval procedure) in the two sectors: Electricity grid expansion planning and federal road planning .................................................................. 61 Figure 10: Medium for the notice in planning processes ............................................................................... 75 Figure 11: Type and scope of the provision of relevant information and documents of the licensing procedure and the Environmental Assessments ............................................................................................... 77 Figure 12: Reasons given for the limited or lacking online provision of information........................ 80 Figure 13: Method of the Synthesis ......................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 14: Public participation procedure according to §9 EIAA in conjunction with §73 & 74 APA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 92 Figure 15: Criteria for the evaluation of e-participation ............................................................................. 108

List of Abbreviations

XI

List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Expression 3D AufenthG APA BbgUVPG BBI BDSG BerlStrG BImSchG BLM BMUB BMVI BMVIT BNatSchG BNetzA BremIFG BremUIG BVerwG CEQ cf. CFR DEIS De-Mail-G DOE EA EBA EC ed. EEG e.g. EgovG EIA EIAA

Three-dimensional space Residence Act/ Aufenthaltsgesetz Administrative Procedures Act/ Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz VwVfG Environmental Impact Assessment Act Brandenburg/ Brandenburgisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung Airport Berlin-Brandenburg-International Data Protection Law/ Bundesdatenschutzgesetz Roads Act of Berlin/ Berliner Straßengesetz Immission Control Act/ Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz The Bureau of Land Management Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety/ Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit Federal Ministry of Transport and digital Infrastructure Germany/ Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur Deutschland Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology Austria/ Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie Österreich Nature Conservation Law/ Bundesnaturschutzgesetz BNatSchG Federal Network Agency/ Bundesnetzagentur Freedom of Information Act Bremen/ Bremer Informationsfreiheitsgesetz Environmental Information Act of Bremen/ Umweltinformationsgesetz für das Land Bremen Federal Administrative Court/ Bundesverwaltungsgericht US Council of Environmental Quality conferre, ‘compare’ Code of Federal Regulations Draft Environmental Impact Statement DE-Mail-Act/ De-Mail-Gesetz Department of Energy Environmental Assessment Federal Railway Authority/ Eisenbahnbundesamt European Commission editor Renewable Energy Act/ Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz Exempli gratia, ‘for example’ E-Governance-Law/E-Governance-Gesetz Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Act/ Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung UVPG

XII EIS EnLAG EnWG EPA et al. et seqq. EU EWG FAQ FOIA FRP FStrAbG FStrG FTIP GDR GIS HmbTG IFG i.a. i.e. IT KMZ LBV LNG max. MEP min. n n.d. NABEG NEPA NOI NPS NSW NUVPG PAuswG PDF PEIS PEPC PlafeR PLGs PlVereinhG PortalU ROD ROG

List of Abbreviations Environmental Impact Statement Power Grid Expansion Act/ Energieleittungsausbaugesetz Energy Industry Act/ Energiewirtschaftsgesetz Environmental Protection Agency Et alii, ‘and others’ Et sequentia, ‘and those which follow’ European Union European Economic Community/ Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft Frequently Asked Questions Freedom of Information Act Federal Requirements Plan Highway Expansion Act/ Fernstraßenausbaugesetz Federal Highway Act/ Bundesfernstraßengesetz Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan German Democratic Republic Geographic information system Tranparency Law Hamburg/ Hamburgisches Transparenzgesetz Federal Freedom of Information Act/ Informationsfreiheitsgesetz Inter alia Id est, ‚that is‘ Information Technology Keyhole Markup Language State Office for Building and Transport Brandenburg/ Landesamt für Bauen und Verkehr Brandenburg Liquefied Natural Gas maximum Master Environmental Planning minimum number of observations included in a statistical sample no date Grid Expansion Acceleration Act/ Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetz US National Environmental Policy Act Notice of Intend National Park Service North South Wales Environmental Impact Assessment Act Lower Saxony/ Niedersächsisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung ID Act/ Personalausweisgesetz Portable Document Format Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site Guidelines for project approval under the Federal Highways Act /Richtlinien für die Planfeststellung nach dem Bundesfernstraßengesetz Plain Language Guidelines Plan Unification Law/ Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung und Vereinheitlichung der Planfeststellungsverfahren former Environmental portal of Germany Record of Decision Regional Planning Act/ Raumordnungsgesetz

List of Abbreviations RSS SEA SenStadtUm sentc. SEPA SEQR StUG SUP TRI TSO TU Berlin UDK UIG UK UK DECC UmwRG UN UNECE US/ USA U.S.C. UVP UVPG UVS v. a. VBD VIE VwVfG WSDE WS DoT ZIP

XIII

Rich Site Summary Strategic Environmental Assessment Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment Berlin/Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin sentence State Environmental Policy Act New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act Stasi-Documentation-Law/ Stasi-Unterlagen-Gesetz German Strategic Environmental Assessment/ Strategische Umweltprüfung Toxic Release Inventory Transmission system operator Institute of Technology Berlin /Technische Universität Berlin German Enviornmental data catalog/ Umweltdatenkatalog German Environmental Information Act/ Umweltinformationsgesetz United Kingdom United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change Public Appeal Act/ Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz United Nations United Nation Economic Commission for Europe United States of America Code of Laws of the United States of America German Environmental Impact Assessment/ Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung German Environmental Impact Assessment Act/ Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung German Environmental Impact Statement/ Umweltverträglichkeitsstudie vor allem German Regulation on accessible documents in the federal administration/ Verordnung über barrierefreie Dokumente in der Bundesverwaltung Vienna International Airport Administrative Procedure Act/ Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Transportation Archive file format

CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1

2

CHAPTER 1

1. Access to information and procedural documents of environmental assessments Francis Bacon said “Knowledge is Power” (Scientia potentia est) - This realization and its importance for public participation has played a crucial role in the introduction of the United States’ National Environmental Policy Act (1969). The 1960s represented a time where not only the Vietnam War was causing controversy and conflict in American society but also concerns about the quality of the environment were increasing. Through new technologies and ever-larger development schemes, the growing and cumulating human impacts were rapidly causing damage to ecosystems and wildlife. Several environmental problems and disasters, such as the Santa Barbara Oil Spill (January 28, 1969), the deteriorated water quality of Lake Erie (1960s), and the burning Cuyahoga River in Ohio (June 22, 1969) were catalysts to a change in public sentiment (Köppel 2011). As a reaction to the problems of rapidly increasing development, pollution, and destruction of the natural environment as well as a growing environmental movement, the US first introduced a project-by-project evaluation of significant environmental impacts via their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970 (Köppel et al. 2014). “NEPA was the first major environmental law in the United States and is often called the ‘Magna Carta’ of environmental laws” (CEQ 2007). This directive requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be carried out before an approval can be granted for certain public and private projects. But the sole purpose of NEPA and its EIA is not only to contribute to environmentally sound development, but also to provide information for decision-making and to promote transparency and participation in decision-making. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines better informed decisions and public participation to be the two main objectives of NEPA (CEQ 2007): The “two major purposes of the environmental review process are better informed decisions and citizen involvement, both of which should lead to implementation of NEPA’s policies”. NEPA’s foundation also represents the birth of project and programmatic environmental assessment. The problems NEPA was intended to address were perceived as universal, with many countries following the American model (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Worldwide development of EIA legislation in 1996, 1991 and 2016 (Source: NCEA 2016)

While the US can look back on 45 years of environmental assessments, EIA regulations in the EU are only 30 years old and 25 years old in Germany (cf. Köppel 2011). Since the first European Directive on EIA was transposed into German national law with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA – Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung UVPG) in 1990, projects with potentially harmful consequences must undergo an EIA before approval is granted. As of 2004,

CHAPTER 1

3

plans and programs with potentially harmful environmental effect have to undergo a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) (cf. Geißler et al. 2016). Since its initial introduction and development, EIA has become a central tool of environmental policy. The EA1 itself represents an integral part of procedures applied by authorities when deciding upon approval of projects, plans, and programs (§2 (1) & (4) EIAA). EIA results are documented in an environmental impact statement (EIS2), the results of an SEA are documented in an environmental report. The EIS or environmental report, together with other project documents, builds the basis for the approval decision by the planning authority. Projects, plans, and programs which fall within the scope of the law according to §3 (1) sentence 1and (1b) sentence 1 EIAA, are defined in Annex 1 in the list of projects subject to EIA and respectively, Annex 3 in the list of plans and programs subject to SEA. In Germany, participation is as well an integral part of EA procedures prescribed by law and takes a key position in terms of quality, scope, and effectiveness of EAs. However, a whole series of current references gives the impression that public participation in the German EA is facing new challenges. It is criticized that a lack of transparency poses an obstacle to effective participation. Prominent examples are the railway and urban development project ‘Stuttgart 21’ and the nontransparent determination of flight paths at the Berlin-Brandenburg-International (BBI) Airport; both examples show that information presented too late or the lack of information presented to the general public leads to delays and tensions during the approval processes (Böhm 2013; Koch et al. 2014; Köppel et al. 2012; Renn 2013; Schlacke 2013; Odparlik 2015). Discussions about the why, when, and how to integrate participation in the planning process of projects, plans, and programs have dominated the debate regarding fair and effective participation. Albeit, one essential aspect has been underrepresented in the context of EA - Participation needs information. This includes timely and findable documents of EIA and SEA3, easy access, and the completeness of documents not only environmental studies and reports but also the arguments, comments, opinions, and answers put forward during the process, subsequently delivered facts and the availability of follow-up questions such as the monitoring and evaluation. But what constitutes ‘good practice’? As Ma et al. (2011) have pointed out, one of three distinct factors which are critical to an effective EIA practice is “to provide a practical framework that encourages responsible government agencies to acknowledge potential environmental impacts to the public and other relevant regulatory bodies, thus opening up the decision-making process related to specific proposals”. International practice has shown an increasing use of web-based EA registries or project websites to serve as a basic tool in the provision of public access to EA decision-making processes (see Chapter 1 – 2.1). Motivated by first impressive international examples, this thesis analyzes and critically compares German national and international practice (implementation) of web-based information systems in providing access to documents and process information of EAs. The following introduction to the topic will provide the theoretical background, the state of research, and the corresponding motivation of this dissertation. In parts based on initial findings

Environmental Assessment (EA) is used as an umbrella term owing to the different denotions in different countries. It comprises of environmental impact assessment, environmental assessment, strategic environmental assessment, programmatic environmental assessment, etc. 2 DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU introduced the term EIA-report, but as the Directive has not yet been transposed into national law and also the research presented in Chapter 2-4 refers to the report as EIS, this term will be used throughout this thesis. 3 Similar can be expected for instruments according to the nature conservation law (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz BNatSchG), such as the Impact Mitigation Procedure, EU Habitat Regulation Assessment, and the Protected Species Assessment. Often documents of these instruments are provided along side EIA and SEA documents, but there will be no differentiated discussion hereafter, as these instruments have no explicit legal requirement for public participation as the EIA Act. 1

4

CHAPTER 1

described in the article “The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich” (Odparlik et al. 2012), it develops the reasoning for the statement that successful participation requires information. Furthermore, the overall goal and research design that guide this PhD thesis are outlined.

1. 1 The role of Information in the process of EA The role of information in the EA process reflects two major purposes as intended by NEPA. In literature, discussions about information in EA are either concerned with the quality of information used in EA as a basis for decision-making, or providing different stakeholders with access to information. In planning theory, information is viewed to have a transformative function affecting perceptions in advance of a decision and thereby impacting the planning process at all levels and stages (Hanna 2000; Bartlett & Kurian 1999). The ascribed role or purpose of EA largely depends on the underlying model of interpretation (Bartlett & Kurian 1999, Morgan 2012, Jay et al. 2007). One theory that can be used to explain the role of information in the EA process is the information processing model, one of major models described by Bartlett & Kurian (1999). Discussions about the quality of information find their roots in this model. According to the information processing model, essentially the rationalist, decision-support model, EA is viewed as an instrument which gathers, processes, and relays information. Decisions are made based on information in an apolitical process, where better information will lead to better decision making. In this sense, the “[e]ffectiveness of the E[I]A depends on the identification and evaluation of baseline data to predict the biological, social, and physical impacts of development proposal prior to any environmental disturbance” (Chang et al. 2013: 142). Even though this model has been subject to significant criticism e.g. for ignoring power dimensions in EA processes, institutionalized EA in many countries is still strongly influenced by this model (Morgan 2012). But, there seems to be a significant gap between best-practice thinking represented in theory and in the application of EIA (Morgan 2012). One important topic, which is also closely connected with access to information, is incomplete data. Baseline environmental data may be non-existent, spotty, ambiguous, inconsistent, measured and recorded in incompatible formats, or held by different parties that may decline to disclose this information (Karkkainen 2008). However, discussions on the quality of information in EA are not only concerned with the timeliness and quality of baseline data, but also the use of best available science (cf. Delach et al. 2014; Francis et al. 2005; van Cleve et al. 2004; Wright 2014) and the communication of uncertainty (cf. Tenney et al. 2006; Duncan 2013; Leung et al. 2015); all of which are topics of debate. Within the EA process, information is not only vital for decision makers, it is also important for other stakeholders and the public to understand the potential impact of a proposed action (Chang et al. 2013), and therefore need access. With this aspect in mind, access to baseline data as well as produced information, e.g. impact studies, plays an important role to different stakeholders involved in the process. Agencies themselves could use EA process information to learn from decisions of other agencies. A transparent information provision would enable them to clearly identify the reasons for or against a project, which can in turn be used to argue their own decisions. A uniform system to provide access to information would make it easier to identify similar cases or, for example projects in the same region which might be relevant in a cumulative impacts analysis. It could also be used to provide EA information from different planning levels, thereby supporting the tiering between different levels. Arts et al. (2011) defines tiering as the “deliberate, organized transfer of information and issues from one level of planning to another […]. Tiering is not one-way traffic down

CHAPTER 1

5

the hill, but comprises two-way traffic, top-down and bottom-up”. This broader definition of tiering recognizes that next to vertical tiering between a hierarchy of levels, tiering can also take place horizontally at the same administrative levels as well as diagonally (Rehhausen et al. 2015). Providing the necessary information at each planning level is an important prerequisite to enable these different forms of tiering. A uniform system to provide information could also simplify fulfillment of reporting obligations (Kramer et al. 2011). There are two primary reporting obligations: on the one hand reports on the use of EA that are required to be presented to the EU; on the other hand, certain process documents need to be provided for participation (according to §9 EIAA). The information provision often occurs by public display in the competent authority and are noticed in local media (DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU §6 (5)). By providing a single web-based system, these documents can be viewed by a broad mass of people, regardless of the authority’s office hours and location (i.e. availability). In addition, nature conservation organizations could use these same databases for research and commenting during EA participation processes. Economically, the provision of environmental information in a publicly accessible system allows for the activation of value added potential of administrative data (Kramer et al. 2011). For many project planners, the EIA is considered to be a formal hurdle in the approval process (Ryan et al. 2011). However, the legislation’s aim is to determine the most environmentally friendly approach when conducting a project. In fact, it is even possible based on a project’s environmental impacts that the licensing authority can decide against the project approval, or the authorization can be subject to specific conditions, e.g. mitigation measures. Access to process information of other plans or projects can provide future project planners with useful insight into expected decisions, possible requirements, estimated timeframes, and associated costs. A comparison with similar projects and their responses to expected environmental impacts provides the opportunity to better anticipate possible impact, to respond earlier (e.g. with a change in project design), and thus to avoid lengthy investigations and to possibly accelerate decision-making. In addition, EA documents and process information often hold a lot of vital information which can contribute to improving research in the field of environmental planning. As debates on good quality information and best available science show, an important function of research is the link between science, policy, and practice. In this regard, a failure to base analysis on best available science is reason for critique of environmental impact statements (Delach et al. 2014). US regulations on environmental protection and management even require using the best available state of research in policy design and decision-making (Sullivan 2006). Improved access to EA documents provides a basis for comprehensive efficiency analysis of the practical implementation of legislation and the use of best available science with a substantive definition of strengths and weaknesses and proposal development to improve legislation and practice, thus contributing to the policy cycle (Findlay 2010). Some research questions are concerned with improving the implementation of legal provisions in practice. In turn, to learn from practice and to see if developed approaches improving the process are actually used and to which extent, requires a comprehensive examination of examples, which in the case of EA in Germany often fails due to the availability of documents (Bedke et al. 2006). One example of a substantial study of this kind is the triennial report on the enforcement of EIA in Austria, written by the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management to the National Council in accordance with §44 UVP-G 2000 (Lebensministerium Österreich 2009, 2006). Such reports become a relevant example when updating the German EIAA. According to Hanna (2000: 399), “Information gathering plays an important role in affecting agency decisions, and information development and participation are essential aspects of an effec-

6

CHAPTER 1

tive integrated planning process, even if such activities are oblique or hidden.” Noticeably, theoretical debates have been pointing to move away from the overly rationalist/mechanistic mode towards a more participatory and collaborative way of operating (Morgan 2012).

1. 2 Information as a prerequisite for participation Public participation means involving people in decisions that affect their lives, some even say it is democracy at the simplest level (Hanna 2000). “Indeed, public participation is viewed as such an essential component of the planning or policy process that the degree to which it is included and its apparent influence are frequently seen as measures of success” (Hanna 2000: 398). Literature on the topic of participation in EA shows that different authors highlight different objectives (cf. Dietz & Stern 2008; O’Faircheallaigh 2010). Based on a comprehensive literature review, Glucker et al. (2013) broke down the long list of aims into nine overarching objectives and further divided them according to the respective underlying rationale: a) Normative rationale; b) substantive rationale; and c) instrumental rationale (Table 1).

Instrumental rationale

Substantive rationale

Normative rationale

Table 1: Overarching objectives of public participation (Based on Glucker et al. 2013)

Influencing decisions

Public participation in EIA shall enable those that are affected by a decision to influence that decision.

Enhancing democratic capacity

Public participation in EIA shall enable participants to develop their citizenship skills (such as interest articulation, communication and cooperation) and, at the same time, provide participants with an opportunity to actively exercise citizenship.

Social learning

Public participation in EIA shall enable deliberation among participants and thus lead to social learning.

Empowering and emancipation marginalized individuals and groups

Public participation in EIA shall alter the distribution of power within society, thus empowering formerly marginalized individuals and groups.

Harnessing local information and knowledge

Public participation in EIA shall enhance the quality of the decision output by providing decision-makers with environmentally and socially relevant information and knowledge.

Incorporating experimental and valuebased knowledge

Public participation in EIA shall increase the quality of the decision output by providing decision-makers with relevant experimental and value-based knowledge.

Testing the robustness of information from other sources

Public participation in EIA shall increase the quality of the decision output by testing the robustness of information from other sources.

Generating legitimacy

Public participation in EIA shall legitimize the decision-making process thus providing legitimacy to the EIA authority and facilitating project implementation.

Resolving conflict

Public participation in EIA shall contribute to the identification and resolution of conflict before final decisions are made and thus facilitate project implementation.

Reflection

The participation process has to be designed in line with the objectives it shall fulfil. “It is difficult to see how one can pursue the issue of ‘effective participation’ without first differentiating clearly between different goals and considering what each involves and implies” (O’Faircheallaigh 2010).

CHAPTER 1

7

The role of information in participation highly depends on the objectives of participation. On the one hand, participation shall generate legitimacy by testing the robustness of information, while on the other hand the public can provide further useful information and value-based knowledge, thereby influencing the decision-making process. In the concept of environmental democracy, information is viewed as an integral part (Hazen 1997). Modern theory of democracy establishes an ideal of equality and the principle of equal opportunity to participate in political life and decisions. This ability to participate is of particular importance when regulatory decisions can have serious and long-term consequences on the environment (Hourdequin et al. 2012). Information builds the basis for an effective public participation in decision-making on environmental issues and is an elementary prerequisite for each citizen with the intention to participate (BMUB 2015; Hazen 1997). As Hourdequin et al. (2012: 39) asserts: “An informed citizenry is a prerequisite for a successful democracy, and popular sovereignty relies on citizens’ understanding how certain government actions will affect them and society as a whole. Autonomy depends on having information regarding how decisions meet or fail to meet individuals' conceptions of the good life, and equality requires that information is equally available to everyone.” Even though the mere provision of information falls into the category of ‘Tokenism’ in Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen participation4, it still constitutes a central part of participation. The often cited Ladder of Citizen Participation (Figure 2) recognizes that "there is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process". Also, Arbter et al. (2005) name ‘Information’ as the first stage of public participation prior to consultation and participation. Even though these two concepts of participation place information on the lower end of their “ladder” to indicate that information alone does not equal real participation, the importance of information should not be neglected. Literature supports this notion that the provision of information is one of the first elementary steps in participation that may actually trigger more genuine (formal or informal) forms of participation such as shared decision-making (Glucker et al. 2013; O'Faircheallaigh 2010).

Sherry Arstein (1969) defines citizen participation as a categorical term for citizen power. Her ladder of citizen participation is a concept used to categorize different forms of participation. 4

8

CHAPTER 1

Figure 2: Eight rungs on a lagger of citizen Participation (Source: own visualization based on Arnstein 1969)

Successful democracy relies on informed citizens who understand how certain government actions will affect them and the entire society (Redelfs 2005). It depends on information that is equally available to everyone and allows each citizen to form his or her own opinions. Equal access to relevant information supports stakeholders to understand potential impacts, differentiate various planning alternatives, and identify potential consequences of their own preferences and objectives (Hourdequin et al. 2012). Consequently, the provision of information leads to a significant improvement in participation by greater transparency, greater ability to actually participate, and creating environmental awareness (Kramer et al. 2011). Weston (2010) points to communicative planning theory, where public involvement in decision-making processes is seen as a mechanism for conflict resolution. In this theory, the provision of information to those affected by a development will help allay their fears over development and change. “Establishing trust may be gained through increases in transparency and understanding, preconditions that the stakeholder appear to seek to reach through providing more thorough information” (Olsen & Hansen 2014: 77). In this context, Walker et al. (2014) points out the importance of providing not only access to EA reports, but also final results as vital to participation, as it helps participants to observe how their input and opinions have been utilized. While participation is widely documented as being a valuable component of the EA process, its success in practice widely depends upon the methods used, the way they have been implemented, and a stakeholders’ personal beliefs. But in practice effective implementation of public participation often faces considerable barriers (cf. Chi et al. 2013; Cuppen et al. 2012; Ermolaeva 2014; Gauthier et al. 2011; Hartley & Wood 2005; Hoover & Stern 2014; Hughes 1998; Irvin & Stansbury 2004; O’Faircheallaigh 2010; Sinclair et al. 2012; Wiklund 2011). Basic knowledge about the process of EA, its legal aspects, and requirements are an important prerequisite for effective participation. Missing information on when and where to participate is a constraint in effective participation (Wiklund 2010). In fact, “results show that the insufficient knowledge of the EIA process and the opportunities of participation is the single most important reason for nonparticipation” (Wiklund 2010: 172).

CHAPTER 1

9

In this context, EIA regulations themselves can have a strong effect on the success of participation and can even be an obstacle. Too late and too short a window of opportunities to comment on proposed actions are often perceived as major barriers to effective participation (Hartley & Wood 2005). Timing proves to be an influential factor to participation, especially if it occurs too late in the process or if too few opportunities are provided (Rau et al. 2012; Schlacke 2013; Scholles 2008; Wiklund 2010). If an EIA study is the first opportunity for public participation, then most key decisions will already have been made. In these situations, participation is perceived as information on decisions rather than providing opportunities for constructive dialogue or opportunities to influence design and decision making (Hughes 1998). A recent study conducted by students in the Master Environmental Planning (MEP) at the Berlin Institute of Technology, investigated public acceptance of wind energy developments in the planning region Havelland-Fläming in Germany’s state of Brandenburg. The study relates acceptance towards wind energy to the time when people first heard about wind energy projects in their neighborhood (Figure 3). Results show a decreasing acceptance if people felt they were informed too little or when it seemed everything was already decided, and sadly the majority (n= 70) of respondents felt that way (Camargo et al. 2016). However, it needs to be noticed that the conducted study did not include empirical research to test whether information was actually late or only perceived as being late.

Figure 3: In your opinion, when did you hear about wind energy projects in your neighborhood? (Chi-square test: p = 0,00004 indicates a significant correlation between time of information and acceptance level) (Source: Camargo et al. 2016)

Poor provision of basic procedural information and documents can be regarded as another major barrier to effective participation (Hartley & Wood 2005). While many countries use web-based information systems and have legal requirements to provide information (Odparlik et al. 2012; Odparlik & Köppel 2013) for political or commercial reasons, the disclosure of information in environmental assessments can however face opposition from a variety of private and public stakeholders (Gauthier et al. 2010). Studies (Zschiesche & Sperfeld 2011) suggest that the protection of commercial and industrial information, intellectual property rights, protection of personal data, and public security and defense constitute obstacles in the provision of information via online databases. Also in this regard, the MEP study on the acceptance of wind energy provides valuable insight into planning practice. People were asked to what extent they were informed about wind energy projects in their neighborhood (Figure 4). The majority (n=80) felt they were informed too little or not at all (n=45); these answers also correlate with an increasing number of people which are against or rather against wind energy (Camargo et al. 2016).

10

CHAPTER 1

Figure 4: In your opinion, to what extent were you informed about the wind energy projects in your neighborhood? (Chi-square test: p = 0,000000000256 indicates a significant correlation between supply of information and acceptance) (Source: Camargo et al. 2016)

Access to information is especially important in situations where knowledge equals power. If equal access to information is denied, “control over information itself can represent a significant source of power” (O’Faircheallaigh 2010: 24). Hanna (2000) even says that participation in this context presents a paradox. ”It is viewed as an essential and influential part of planning success, but may not always be as significant to outcomes as hidden information systems, especially those that may be limited to institutional stakeholders” (Hanna 2000: 400). At the same time, equal participation in environmental decision-making procedures is often constrained by the so-called expertise barrier (Parthasarathy 2010). A general lack of expertise and an inability to understand the complex technical details associated with planning applications can prevent the public from interacting and participating effectively (Kengne et al. 2013; Wiklund 2010). Provided information is often perceived as technical, confusing, wordy, formal, and written in bureaucratic language (cf. Sinclair et al. 2012; Illsley et al. 2014; Kenge et al. 2013; Roach 2013). A mere provision of long, detailed planning documents fails to facilitate a learning process and create knowledge (Partidario & Sheate 2013). Lack of translations, e.g. in transboundary participation procedures, can furthermore hinder effective participation (Hourdequin et al. 2012; Walker et al. 2014; Kenge et al. 2013; Negev et al. 2013). These situations aggravate a lay-expert tension with the potential to generate mistrust and resentment (Hourdequin et al. 2012: 39), especially when this knowledge is used in decisions with general differences between values and objectives of the authority and those of the generally educated public. Thus, transparent provision of planning documents as well as education on how to locate, interpret, and effectively utilize this information, is an important prerequisite to overcome the expertise barrier in environmental decision making processes. “Informed and involved citizens become citizen-experts, understanding technically difficult situations and seeing holistic, communitywide solutions” (Irvin & Stansbury 2004: 56). Empowering citizens through the provision of information and knowledge attributes a control function over decisions concerning the environment. O’Faircheallaigh (2010) even identified the distribution of power and structures of decision making to be one of the three broad purposes of public participation in EIA.

1. 3 Laws and Regulations on access to information The importance of providing the public with access to governmental information has been recognized in several countries, which in turn have issued laws to regulate access to information - so called Freedom of Information Acts. These laws regulate that information held by public authorities should in principle be accessible to everyone (“Jedermannsrecht” – Every Men’s Right), unless

CHAPTER 1

11

certain defined exceptions apply, e.g. protection of data or state or private interests. The basic notion is to switch the burden of proof from the public asking for information to the administration which are obliged to state reasons if access to information is denied. Consequently, public interest in specific data does not need to be explained (Redelfs 2005; Schmillen 2003). At least 95 countries have established the right for the public to request and receive information held by governments as of 2013 (Open Society Justice Initiative n.d. online). Known as “Tryckfrihetsförordning”, Sweden was the first country to guarantee access to information held by the king in 1766 with their press law (Redelfs 2005). While the introduction in newer democracies is said to be a conscious decision against state control, countries with longer democratic traditions usually introduced these laws as a reaction to political scandals. In the US for example, the conflicts over the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal led to an amendment of the 1966 adopted Freedom of Information Act in 1974, which gave it its actual striking force. Today, the principle of the “public right to know” is culturally embedded in US administrations and thereby said to promote a strong service mentality (Redelfs 2005). Germany, in contrast to other industrialized nations, has long maintained the tradition of official secrecy. Over the years, this principle has only been breached in very few areas. For example, the Administrative Procedures Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz VwVfG) of 1976 grants affected parties a right for access to records, e.g. if affected by planned construction. The Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) as well as the Stasi-Documentation Law (Stasi-Unterlagen-Gesetz) grants affected parties the right to know what information governmental bodies or the Stasi in times of the GDR have stored about them. According to §4 of the press laws of the states (Landespressegesetze), media representatives have a right of access to information held by authorities during research to fulfill their role in the formation of public opinion. Ultimately it took a long legal effort until the German Bundestag finally passed a Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz IFG) in June 2005, next to Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus one of the last countries in the extended EU. Unfortunately, the federal law only applies to federal authorities and appears to be very restrictive with many exclusion clauses. It was even feared that in various cases there will still be no complete and easy access to records held by the government (Redelfs 2005). In contrast to the federal government, some of the states, especially the city states of Bremen and Hamburg, decided on a more pro-active approach when publishing their own Freedom of Information Acts with viewer restrictions and the obligation for agencies to publish data in a central registry (Kubicek 2014) Also, the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making has been formally recognized internationally in several environmental laws and conferences (cf. Goldmann 1992; Haklay 2003; Hartley & Wood 2005; Jobe 1999; Keene 1993; Sarokin & Schulkin 1991; Schlacke 2005). Milestones that established a link between environmental decisions and any interested party include the US’s NEPA (1969), the United Nations (UN) conference on ‘The Human Environment’ (Stockholm 1972) and the Conference on ‘Environment and Development’ (Rio de Janeiro 1992) (Odparlik & Köppel 2013). In the US next to NEPA, further environmental framing rules mandating and creating incentives for the production and disclosure of defined categories of information were enacted. One example includes the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) which is part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §11023) and the first legislatively mandated database in the history of the US government (Jobe 1999); however, it has been criticized for not being suited to the different needs of its users (Goldmann 1992). The provisions in the law itself are meant to increase the public’s knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, along with their uses and potential releases into the environment. However, only industries named in a list issued by the EPA must report their toxic releases

12

CHAPTER 1

into a database. Highly criticized in this context has been the EPA’s decision not to include the oil and gas extraction industry and their chemical releases during fracking (cf. Boudet et al. 2014; Rahm 2011). A major global event showing the US were not solely active during this political change in the early 1970s, was the UN’s 1972 conference held in Stockholm (Haklay 2003). The action plan of the conference mentions information and the exchange of information over 60 times (UN 1972). Current developments surrounding the ‘British Exit from the EU’ furthermore underline the importance of such international agreements. Even with their decision to leave the EU, and the accompanyig fear of withdrawl from existing EU regulations (Fischer et al. 2016), the UK will still have to honour their commitment given with ratification of these international agreements. On June 7, 1990, the EU published DIRECTIVE 90/313/EEC on the freedom of access to information on the environment. During the entire consultation process, Germany was one of the strongest opponents of this transparency directive and once more showed how much it opposed these new developments due to its secrecy traditions and fear that information might be abused. But pressure to open up decision-making processes by providing relevant information rose, and Germany became the last opponent: With the fear of losing its position as an environmental pioneer within the EU, Germany backed down in the end (Redelfs 2005). Two years after the EU published its directive on access to environmental information, the Rio Declaration also valued public participation in its 27 principles. Principle 10 clearly states the importance of access to information for public participation in environmental decision making (UN 1992): “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.” In 1994, after one and a half years of delay, Germany transposed the EU Environmental Information Directive into national law (Umweltinformationsgesetz 1994). Although very restrictive and departmentally specific, it introduced the right to access environmental information without presuppositions (Redelfs 2005). Nevertheless, the EU felt the restrictions were to strong and sued Germany, requesting a change (European Commission 1999). Another important milestone for Europe was the Aarhus Convention. The origins of this convention date back to the cited Article 10 of the Rio Declaration. This idea was further developed in 1995 during the third Ministerial Conference ‘Environment for Europe’ in Sofia, Bulgaria with the so called ‘Guidelines on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-making’. These guidelines were not legally binding, but served as a basis for negotiations drafting the Aarhus Convention (UNECE 2002). The United Nation Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Decisionmaking, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on June 25, 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus. The convention first went into effect on October 30, 2001. Next to the right to participate in environmental decision-making and the access to litigation, the convention provides the right to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities (Figure 5)(Hartley & Wood 2005).

•Allows the public to participate in decision making relating to the environment •Public has the right to be notified, submit comments and have the comments taken into account in a transparent process

13

Justice

•Public should be provided with a wider and easier access to environmental information •Public authorities must provide all the information required and collect and disseminate them in a timely and transparent manner

Participation

Information

CHAPTER 1

•Gives the public right to access administrative or judicial procedures •To challenge perceived violations of the information and participation right as well as general environmental law

Figure 5: The tree pillars of the Aarhus Convention (Source: own visualization)

As the EU is a member of the Aarhus Convention and has transformed the treaty through its own policies, there was a double commitment in the transformation into German law. The German Environmental Information Act (Umweltinformationsgesetz UIG) transforms the first column of the Aarhus Convention (access to environmental information) into national law. It entered into force on the February 14, 2004. Columns two and three were implemented in German law through the Public Participation Act (Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligungsgesetz) and Public Appeal Act (Umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz) on December 9, 2006. As part of the reform of federalism, German states have used their right to additionally adopt their own laws (UfU 2013). According to the UIG, responsible authorities are obliged to actively inform the public and in sufficient detail. Notwithstanding of the goal to fulfill the increased demand for transparency as a basis for better participation, access to information followed the practical goal to detect shortcomings in enforcement of the administration, thereby ascribing the public a control function (Schmillen 2003). The legal term Environmental Information of the Aarhus Convention was deliberately wide in scope, as it should exclude as little as possible (Keup & Zschiesche 2010). According to Article 3 (2) of the UIG, information on the environment includes all written or pictorial data or data stored on any other information medium concerning: 1. 2. 3.

The condition of water bodies, the air, soil, flora and fauna and natural habitats; activities, including those which cause nuisances such as noise, or measures which restrict or could have a negative impact on this condition; and activities or measures to protect these areas of the environment including administrative measures and programs for environmental protection.

Comparing the definition of environmental information of the Aarhus Convention and the UIG with the assets of protection described in the EIA Act (EIAA) as being part of the scope of every EA, one can see that both clearly go beyond the core reflection of classic environmental conditions such as the description of water, soil, and air. Information of EAs thus include several categories of environmental information according to the UIG and therefore represent an interesting medium of investigation.

14

CHAPTER 1

Furthermore, the Aarhus Convention requests for ‘early’ and ‘effective’ participation and emphasizes the need to (Hartley & Wood 2005: 325):      

“time participation programs to achieve ‘early’ participation; provide the public with access to all documentation relevant to the decision-making process; enter into discussions with the public concerned; allow the public to submit their opinions at public inquiries; consider the outcome of public participation in the decision-making process; and achieve ‘effective’ participation.”

These public participation requirements have been translated into DIRECTIVE 2003/35/EC. Article 3 of this Directive specifically addresses the EIA process and further amended the EIA Directive to ensure that timing and effectiveness of public participation procedures were enhanced to meet the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. The amendment of Article 6 (2) for example strengthened the EIA Directive to require the public to be informed early in the decision-making process regarding the following (Hartley & Wood 2005: 321):   

   

“the request for development consent; the fact that the project requires EIA; details of the competent authorities responsible for the decision-making process, an indication of where information can be obtained and details of where comments and questions can be submitted; the nature of possible decisions; details of the availability of information gathered pursuant to Article 5 of the EIA Directive; details of where and how the relevant information will be made available; and information regarding the public participation arrangements.”

In addition to outlining the reasoning behind a decision, information must also be supplied about the participation process as well as primary mitigation measures proposed according to Article 9. These requirements have also been translated into German law, but not without restrictions. Article 9 of the German EIAA regulates public participation. While the general public has the right to comprehensive information options, only the affected public according to §2 (6) EIAA have the right to express their opinion in the process of public participation (Table 2).

CHAPTER 1

15

Table 2: Public and affected public's opportunities for participation (Source: §2(6) EIAA, UVP-Gesellschaft e.V. 2006)

Term

Definition

Opportunities for participation

Public

One or more natural or legal persons and their associations

Comprehensive information options: On screening decisions On procedure and opportunities for participation in the approval process On documents of the environmental impact assessment On final decision of approval

Affected Public

Any person whose interests are affected and associations whose statutory remit is affected by a project subject to EIA

Comprehensive information options and right to express ones opinion in the process of public participation

The topic of transparency has again won worldwide political importance with the election of US President Obama. The US, who have already been amongst the first countries to establish a Freedom of Information Act, recognized that access to governmental information must be even easier. Citizens should not have to search through thousands of different databases until they find what they need. With new terms and other emphasis, the Open Government-Initiative 2009 mandates ministries and federal agencies to specific steps subject to progress review, especially in publications of information and data. A central element of this Open Government Data Initiative is a joined platform, through which access to government data is provided in a uniformly structured catalog (Kubicek 2014). In August 2016, the database www.data.gov contained nearly 190,000 data sets from 76 agencies and sub-agencies. Again, other countries followed the example of the US - Great Britain’s platform www.data.gov.uk went online in January 2010 and the EU decided on a digital agenda for Europe in 2011. Also in Germany, the government program “Vernetzte und transparente Verwaltung” entails Open Government as one of the 20 modernization projects and names specific milestones to reach the goal; however, these goals have not been reached (Kubicek 2014). In July 2013, Germany also passed an E-Government-Law (E-Governance-Gesetz EGovG) to promote electronic access to administrations. Nevertheless, not all topics on the law’s agenda must be implemented immediately. For example, §6 EGovG, which regulates the electronic management of records, only needs to be implemented by January 2020 (EGovG 2013). In addition, Germany has opened up access to government data on the joined platform www.govdata.de, but is currently still developing a common standard for open government data (Geschäfts- und Koordinierungsstelle GovData n.d., online). In the context of these different activities, a number of studies in international comparison show implementation shortcomings in Germany, predominantly criticizing Germany’s low set goals and long reaction periods. Often this observed reluctance of political and administrative heads promoting improved transparency is said to be a typical German problem rooted in the tradition of official secrecy as compared to the principle of public access (Kubicek 2014). Considering the resistance Germany showed during the implementation of the above described transparency regulations, it will be interesting to see if practice faces similar problems.

2. State of Research and Motivation While literature on participation in EA pointed to the importance of public access to information (Partidario & Sheate 2013; Gauthier et al. 2011; Glucker et al. 2013; Hourdequin et al. 2012; Nadeem & Fischer 2011; O’Faircheallaigh 2010; Rozema et al. 2012; Walker et al. 2014; Wiklund

16

CHAPTER 1

2010), the means by which this access should be provided has rarely been the center of attention (cf. Wester & Mörn 2013; Illsley et al. 2014). Several scholars have stated that instead of simply informing the public in a process of one-way communication, participation should actually be a two-way process where information flows from the communicators to the receivers and vice versa (cf. Gao et al. 2013). To & Chung (2014) stress the importance of actually knowing how to engage the public at early stages of participation and how to gain public acceptance in the consultation phase of an EA via the Internet. While there was web-based information provision since 1998, they found that Web 2.05 applications have never been adopted for public engagement during EIA in Hong Kong. They point out many advantages different applications can hold (e.g. public participation geographic information systems, volunteered geographic information, wikis, crowdsourcing, and games). They come to the conclusion that “Web 2.0 technologies render the Web as an effective platform for information exchange in which consensus can be reached and ambiguities can be clarified” (To & Chung 2014). A basic means in the provision of public access to EIA and SEA process information and documents, which has been chosen internationally by governmental agencies and project proponents, are centralized or decentralized web-based documentation and information systems. Nevertheless, literature on this topic is rare. In their article on the “Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment Registry” Hanna & Noble (2011) paint a picture of the ideal registry, defining the basic functions and principles that should be met by a good practice example: “The ideal registry would hold all documentation related to an EA, regardless of the stage of the application and review process. Thus very early stage information such as a notice of intent, terms of reference, or early correspondence would be included. Notices of hearings, impact studies and other supporting documentation, and the EA application itself, including public submissions, would be included as they were then completed. The decision and reasons for the decision, and monitoring and follow-up requirements and even monitoring results would also be added. The perfect registry would be an organic and adaptive entity— one that grew with the availability of project information; it would be open to all, inclusion of material would be a requirement of proponents and relevant agencies. It would be complete; information would be posted in easily accessible formats and would be readable for broad audiences.” (Hanna & Noble 2011: 222). A similar description can be found in a study titled, “Mehr Transparenz und Bürgerbeteiligung – Prozessanalysen und Empfehlungen am Beispiel von Fernstraßen, Industrieanlagen und Kraftwerken” (More transparency and public participation – process analysis and recommendations on the example of highways, industrial facilities, and power plants) by the Bertelsmann Foundation. The study identifies the following characteristics of a central information system (Claus et al. 2012):  



Appoints all institutions involved in the process (decision makers and stakeholders) with their specific contacts (including contact data, tasks and responsibilities in the process); lists all official documents that are being produced in the process (reports, maps, weighting catalog, opinions, etc.) and includes a summary in plain language (as for documents according to §6 EIA Act); contains for each project an up to date unilateral abstract; and

Web 2.0 describes the fact that the Internet not only holds informations, but that users can actually contribute and produce new content. 5

CHAPTER 1 

17

illustrates the progress and the current state of the process.

Based on Hanna & Nobles depiction (2011) and the Bertelsmann Foundation study (Claus et al. 2012), the following principles in the provision of information can be derived:    

The public needs to be informed when and how to participate in which pending environmental decisions (‘fair notice’, Sinclair et al. 2012) They need to know where to find relevant information. The environmental data and relevant documents must be readable for everyone (‘readability’, Ryan et al. 2011, Hughes 1998) They need adequate ‘time to prepare’ before the short windows of opportunity for participation briefly open (Sinclair et al. 2012) and updates on the current state of the process (Claus et al. 2012).

This picture set the bar for an explorative investigation of international and national practice in the provision of EA information with web-based information systems. The following results were translated, summarized and originally published in German language in ODPARLIK, L., KÖPPEL, J.; GEISSLER, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-report, 26 (5): 236–243.

3. 1 International situation A notice of ongoing EA processes in the international arena is often associated with a legal obligation to provide documents and information (e.g. US NEPA, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Austrian EIA Law, New York State Environmental Conservation Law). These include notice on e.g. the availability of the draft EIS or environmental report and where it is provided, which participation windows are currently open, the intention to conduct an EA, screening or scoping. Information is collected in a database which is additionally accessible via the Internet. According to Hanna & Noble (2011) however, not only impact studies shall be provided, also notice of intend (NOI), guidelines and legal foundations, correspondence, notice of hearings, additional expert reports, public notices, the final decision and related reasons, as well as monitoring requirements and results (e.g. Information Center for the „Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS“ in the US). Information should be accessible to everyone (Hanna & Noble, 2011). This is achieved by the provision of protocols of the participation (e.g. Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS) via Audiostream (e.g. Mackenzie Valley Review Board) or Videostream (e.g. California Energy Commission). Other systems allow rapid localization of currently active processes using maps on which they are noted (e.g. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry; US National Park Service – Planning, Environment & Public Comment (PEPC); Hong Kong EIA Ordinance). Apart from the technical accessibility to information and documents, it should also be reader-friendly and written in simple language that is understandable to everyone. Guidelines describe simple tools for creating readerfriendly environmental documents (e.g. Washington State Department of Transportation). Finally, it is important to stay up-to-date on process developments. Again, technical solutions offer help, as new information can be communicated via e-mail, RSS Feed, Twitter or facebook (e.g. Mackenzie Valley Review Board; British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office; US National Park Service; Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS).

18

CHAPTER 1

3. 2 Situation in Germany First initial research results show a strong backlog demand for Germany in many of these points. While the Freedom of Information Act (IFG), the Environmental Information Act (UIG) and the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIAA) put down legal rules on access to information, unlike for example in Canada and Austria, none of these regulations include the establishment of a standardized access and the availability of documents and process information in EAs. It is believed that up to now, several thousand EIA procedures were performed (GHK 2010). However, since no comprehensive EIA documentation exists (Bedke et al. 2006), there are no statistics or empirically reliable studies on the number of performed EAs. Explicit regulations don’t exist in Germany for ‘fair notice’ (information when and what environmental decision is pending and how the public can participate) and how long data should be available before participation and after the final decision. Once the competent authority, project developer or civil institutions such as environmental organizations or interest groups are known, it is also possible in Germany to find information for environmental review on the Internet (e.g. Federal Railway authority/Eisenbahnbundesamt, regional councils/ Regierungspräsidien of Baden-Württemberg, Airport Munich/Flughafen München GmbH, citizens initiative/Bürgerinitiative „Autobahn B213 Nein!“). Further examples include more frequently occuring processes of online participation (e.g. the process for the coastal motorway A22/Küstenautobahn A22). Zschiesche & Sperfeld (2011) analyzed the practice of the environmental information law in Germany (passive access) and sent 33 different requests for environmental information throughout the country to 178 agencies liable to provide information. Only 40% answered this request within the given time period and supplied the requested information. The remaining requests were rejected with arguments such that data was not available, the information obligation has been rejected, they did not have jurisdiction, the request was too vague, the requested data is still being processed, and the requested data is not considered to be environmental data or confidential. Kramer et al. (2011) extend this list with the following justifications for confidentiality:    

protection of commercial and industrial secrecy, intellectual property rights, protection of personal data, public safety and national defense.

Also these responses describe refusal in the area of passive access to information, it is likely that there are certain parallels to be drawn to the arguments in the case of a lack of active provision of EA information and documents.

3. Overall Goal and Research Design The motivation to grant access to documents and process information of EAs is of a versatile nature. In addition, there are different legal regulations that provide initial conditions for the provision of such documents. For Germany however, good implementation and evaluation of provided access to information in EA is lacking. Here begins the starting point of the outlined dissertation with the hypothesis;

CHAPTER 1

19

A web-based (meta-) system for access to documents and process information of environmental assessments may fulfill valuable functions for the public participation according to the EIAA and may significantly contribute to the improvement of the instrument. However, implementation in Germany currently fails due to various shortcomings. The goal of this PhD thesis has been to generate and communicate a common understanding of the requirements and functions of web-based systems to provide information for fair and effective public participation in EA processes. It analyzed current practice, existing legal requirements and perceived barriers, ending with conclusions on how to overcome existing short-comings by implementing a meta-information system in Germany.

3. 1 Confinement of the topic Access to environmental and process information in many cases is regulated with laws. This regularized access to environmental information can be ensured either passive or active. On the one side, environmental information is to be provided at the request of information seekers (passive access). On the other side, agencies can actively and independently provide users with access to their data (active access), for example via the use of electronic databases (Zschiesche & Sperfeld 2011). The progressive digitalization and especially the development of the Internet opened up opportunities for the provision of information which were unthinkable only 20 years ago (Von der Helm, n.d. online). “Web 2.0 has transformed the way people obtain, understand, analyse and respond to information from a broad range of sources” (To & Chung 2014: 1). Prevailing statistics on the extent and nature of Internet-use show not only steadily rising numbers of users (77.6% Internet users in Germany 2015)(Initiative D21 e.V. & TNS Infratest 2015), but also describe a trend towards the digitalization of everyday life (van Eimeren & Frees 2011). Expectations that information is directly available over the Internet and at any time can be seen across all ages of the population (Mende et al. 2012). It seems almost obvious to use the Internet to realize unrestricted access to environmental information. This notion is also supported by the results of a survey conducted by the polling institute Emnid on behalf of the Bertelsmann Foundation. Although 87% of respondents still named local newspapers as their primary source of information, two out of three people consider a nationwide information platform on the Internet to be useful (TNS Emnid 2012). Whether the use of the Internet is already the case in practice, is investigated within this dissertation. It seems appropriate to focus on the information available on the Internet, as so far there is no other medium, which is incredibly well suited to actively provide information to a wide range of users. Since this requires an active and independent provision of information by authorities, planning agencies, and independent institutions (e.g. environmental associations and interest groups), the primary focus within this thesis will lie on the active access to information as defined by Zschiesche & Sperfeld (2009). Furthermore, focus shall be on the procedural information and documents of environmental assessments (EIA and SEA). A typical EA procedure in Germany consists of the following steps (Köppel et al. 2004):     

Determination of the obligation to conduct an EA (Screening); disclosure on the documents which are expected to be provided (Scoping); identification and description of the environmental impacts; participation of other authorities and the public; summary description of the environmental impacts; and

20

CHAPTER 1 

assessment of the environmental impacts by the authority.

The topics, discussions, and results of the various process steps are often documented but not necessarily integrated in decisions or its reasoning. However, for different stakeholders of an EA (public, authorities, researchers, business), they may well be of interest as outlined above. One challenge in the provision of information to the public is the compromise between formal accessibility, e.g. when relevant information is available on agency websites or in government documents, and accessibility with regards to contents (substantive accessibility). It is important to understand that formal accessibility does not automatically lead to substantive accessibility. This is the case when information is provided but the public is unaware of that fact, does not know how to access the information, or is missing the expert knowledge to understand that information (Hourdequin et al. 2012). Within this thesis, both formal and substantive accessibility will be addressed. However, the analysis of substantive accessibility will be limited to certain aspects of information provision within registries and will not address the readability of single documents. It will however be addressed via the provision of background information enabling a better understanding of the EA process. In addition, practice examples that provide guidance on document readability will be highlighted.

3. 2 Methods and research questions Firstly, literature analysis was used to develop a review framework (cf. Geißler 2013; Kolhoff et al. 2013) for assessing good practice in providing access to information via web-based (meta-) systems/registries. The framework consists of different evaluation categories and indicators, recognizing specific requirements of effective participation as identified in academic literature, as well as connecting them to specific functions that registries can fulfill. A detailed description is outlined in Chapter 2. In a next step, this review framework was applied in case study analysis with a multiple-case design (Yin 2009). In the first rather explorative case study analysis, already known international practice examples were investigated and further examples identified with a defined search engine strategy (cf. Eysenbach et al. 2002; Nachmias & Gilad 2002; Niermann et al. 2012), also detailed in Chapter 2. Research presented in Chapter 2 has been guided by the following questions:    

Which criteria of the ideal registry (as outlined in the review framework) are already fulfilled by international practice examples? How are criteria met, e.g. with the use of which technical solution? What is the legal basis for the administration of the documentation and information systems? What criteria are not met? And further, what are the possible reasons?

In the second case study analysis, the aim was to evaluate access to EA documents and process information in Germany with the developed review framework. In the absence of a central database, case selection (outlined in Chapter 3) was focused on websites of lead agencies in two sectors - electricity grid expansion and federal road planning - both subject to EIA and SEA at different planning levels. Research presented in Chapter 3 was guided by the questions:    

Do websites of German lead agencies and project developers provide access to EA documents and process information? What criteria of the outlined ideal registry are meet by the identified websites? What is the legal basis for the provision of documents? What criteria are not met? And further, what are possible reasons?

CHAPTER 1  

21

Is it possible to identify best practice examples? How good is the German EA information in international comparison?

Under the impression Germany might be caught in legal and administrative shortcomings when it comes to providing access to EA information and documents, promoting conditions and barriers were examined with an online survey (using the software Unipark6) addressing lead agencies identified in Chapter 3. Results were discussed based on an analysis of prevailing legal norms in Chapter 4. Research presented in Chapter 4 was guided by the questions:  

What prerequisites for the active provision of EA process information and documents are defined by law? How do lead agencies explain the limited or missing provision of information? And further, how can these reasons be explained?

4. Structure of the Thesis The Dissertation is structured into five chapters (cf. Figure 6). Chapters 2, 3 and 4 form the integral part of the PhD thesis (highlighted by the light blue color in Figure 6) and contain major contributions regarding the overall goal and questions of this thesis. Chapters 1 and 5 frame the thesis’ core by providing an introduction (Chapter 1) and overall conclusions comprising an outlook for further research (Chapter 5). Chapters 2 to 4 consist of articles published in scientific journals. The articles are listed at the end of this section. The article in Chapter 4 as well as two additional articles provided in the Annex have been published in German. As Chapter 4 is viewed as a core part of the thesis, a translation is provided. Major findings of the other two articles (Annex) have been translated and integrated in the Chapter 1 and Chapter 5. In the following, the chapters are briefly introduced: Chapter 1 provides the introduction to this thesis. The theoretical background, state of research, and the corresponding motivation are described. In parts based on the article “The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: the Access to Environmental Assessment Documents in Germany in International Comparison” (provided in the Annex), it presents reasoning for the initial statement that successful public participation requires information. The overall goal, research questions, and design that have guided the PhD thesis are outlined. The following chapters provide a structured case study analysis of international (Chapter 2) and national practice in Germany (Chapter 3). Chapter 2 – “The role of registries in the provision of acess to EA information for public participation in selected international examples“ builds on the blueprint of the ‘ideal registry’ and proposes a framework for assessing good practice in providing access to information via registries. It evaluates selected international examples based on a set of previously defined criteria of good practice and discusses shortcomings and future challenges. Chapter 3 – “Analysis of the active information provision by lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors” adapts the developed framework for assessing good practice in providing web-based access to information in Germany. The analysis focuses on

6 Unipark is the leading online survey software from the company questback exclusively for students and academic staff

at universities and colleges. For more information see http://www.unipark.com/de/

22

CHAPTER 1

the current implementation of legal requirements providing access to information on EAs in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors, using a criteria-based case study analysis of agency websites. Results of Chapter 3 showed a divergent interpretation of legal requirements to provide access to information by lead agencies. Chapter 4 – “Prerequisites and barriers to access to EA documents and process information” discusses the results of an online questionnaire disseminated amongst lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors. The presented study examines to what extent the legally required active information provision in Germany’s EA procedures faces an implementation deficit. Furthermore, it discusses the inhibiting and promoting factors for an active online provision of information by lead agencies as well as the proliferation of online participation. While there are existing studies investigating the reasons behind a limited passive information provision (e.g. Zschiesche & Sperfeld 2011), this study represents the first with a focus on web-based active information provision. To end, Chapter 5 summarizes and discusses the results of the preceding chapters, points out opportunities to overcome identified barriers, and outlines future research. Chapter 1 Introduction The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: German Access to Environmental Assessment Documents in International Comparison Access to EA Documents and Process Information – International Comparison Chapter 2 The role of registries in the provision of access to EA information for public participation in selected international examples Germanys Access to EA Documents and Process Information Chapter 3 Analysis of the active information provision by lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors Chapter 4 Prerequisites and barriers to access to EA documents and process information Chapter 5 Synthesis Availability and access to documents and process information in EA Good practice and quality management? Figure 6: Structure of the Thesis

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 were written as research papers published in national and international peerreviewed journals. For articles with more than one author, the “Author Contribution Statement” in the Annex provides details about each authors’ contributions. The articles were published as follows:

CHAPTER 1

23

Odparlik, L.F.; KÖPPEL, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (4): 324– 331. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.841028. Odparlik, L. F. (2015): Are Agencies Turning a Blind Eye to Public Access to Environmental Assessment Information? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17(3): 1550028. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500283. Odparlik, L. F.; Kerkemeyer, A. (2016): Voraussetzungen und Hindernisse beim Zugang zu UVPDokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen – Wo geht es zur Einheit in der Vielfalt? Natur + Recht 38: 529-538. DOI: 10.1007/s10357-016-3050-7. The following two articles can be found in the Annex of this thesis: Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J.; Geissler, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-report 26 (5): 236–243. Summary: This paper advances the reasoning behind the initial statement that successful public participation requires information. It further cites a blueprint of the ideal access to EA documents and process information and presents selected international practice examples. A rough comparison of these examples to the respective practice in Germany leads to the conclusion that there are indeed better approaches than the current German practice and thereby identifies the need for further analysis of this topic. Koch, S.; Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. Online: http://www.nul-online.de/Archiv/Archiv/Wo-steht-die-Partizipation-beim-Netzausbau Summary: This paper describes the process of public participation within the process of grid expansion in Germany. It presents an analysis of participation procedures in selected projects within the context of law on energy line extensions. As access to information presents only one of these aspects of this analysis, it is viewed as an excursus in the context of this thesis. Results show many projects provide comprehensive information. Altogether, consultation and cooperation however rarely comprise more than the legally required minimum requirements.

24

CHAPTER 1

5. References Annan, K. (1997): United Nations 3. Press Release SG/SM/6268 23 June 1997. Online: http://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19970623.sgsm6268.html [Accessed 17.07.2016] Arbter, K.; Handler, M.; Purker, E.; Trattnigg, R. (2005): Das Handbuch der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Die Zukunft gemeinsam gestalten. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und Österreichische Gesellschaft für Umwelt und Technik. ÖGUT-NEWS I/2005. Wien, Jänner. Arnstein, S. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216-224. Arts, J.; Tomlinson, P.; Voogd, H. (2011): Planning in Tiers? Tiering as a Way of Linking SEA and EIA. In: Sadler, B.; Aschemann, R.; Duisk, J.; Fischer, T.B.; Partidário, M.P. & Verheem, R. [eds.]: Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment: 415-433. London, Earth Scan. Bacon, F. (1597): Meditationes Sacrae Bartlett, R.V.; Kurian, P.A. (1999): The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy & Politics 27: 415-433. Bedke, N.; Dopfer, J.; Kellert, S.; Kober, D. (2006): Evaluation des Gesetzes über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung: Auswirkungen auf den Vollzug des Umweltrechts und die Durchführung von Zulassungsverfahren. UVP-Report 20(5): 211–214. BMUB - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2015): Kurzinfo Umweltinformationen. Online: http://www.bmu.de/umweltinformation/kurzinfo/doc/4031.php [Accessed 04.05.2016] Böhm, M. (2013): „Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Planungsverfahren – Bestand und Änderungsbedarf“. UVPReport 27(1+2): 34-37. Boudet, H.; Clarke; C.; Bugden, D.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Leiserowitz, A. (2014): “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65: 57–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017. Camargo, R.; Dienes, B.; Ebert, E.; Günther, M.; Hebrank, M.; Jeong, M.; Maack, A.; Melilli, G.; Möller-Lindenhof, T.; Renner, S.; Rodriguez Sotomayor, A.; Rubino, M.; Schniete, D.; Stachnio, K.; Thesen, J.; Thomas, L.; Tietjen, S.; van Ham, F.; Weber, J.; Willers, A.; Wüstenhagen, S.; Odparlik, L.F.; Köppel, J. (2016): Social acceptance: gone with the wind? Berlin Institute of Technology (TU Berlin), Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group. Online: http://lehre.umweltpruefung.tu-berlin.de/mapj2016/doku.php?id=introduction [Accessed 02.09.2016] Chang, T.; Nielsen, E.; Auberle, W.; Solop, F. I. (2013): A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 142-150. Chi, C. S. F.; Xu, J.; Xue, L. (2013): Public participation in environmental impact assessment for public projects: a case of non-participation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57(9): 1422– 1440. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.810550. CEQ – Council of Environmental Quality (2007): A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA. Online: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-CitizensGuide.pdf [Accessed 20.02.2015] Claus, F.; Hampe, J.; Hinzke, L.; Lühr, K.; Paust, A.; Renkamp, A.; Versteyl, A. (2012): Mehr Transparenz und Bürgerbeteiligung. Prozessanalysen und Empfehlungen am Beispiel von Fernstraßen, Industrieanlagen und Kraftwerken. Vorabversion der Studie. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. Online: http://www.dialoggestalter.de/fileadmin/Media/Downloads/Studie-Buergerbeteiligung-Prozessanalysen-Infrastruktur.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]

CHAPTER 1

25

Cuppen, M.; Broekhans, B.; Enserink, B. (2012): Public participation in EIA and attitude formation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30: 63–74. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.660348 Delach, A.; Matson, N.; Murray, H.; Colegrove, C. (2014): Reasonably Foreseeable Futures: Climate Change Adaptation and the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Practice 16: 52–76. Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C. (2008): Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington DC, The National Acadamies Press. Duncan, R. (2013). Opening new institutional spaces for grappling with uncertainty: A constructivist perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 151–154. DOI 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.004. Ermolaeva, P. (2014). Citizen (dis)engagement during assessment of sports mega-events: the case of the 2013 Universiade in Kazan, Russia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(1): 66–71. DOI 10.1080/14615517.2014.871810 European Commission (1999): Commission v Germany. Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 9 September 1999 in Case C-217/97. Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A61997CJ0217 [Accessed 26.08.2016] Eysenbach, G.; Powell, J.; Kuss, O.; Sa, E.-R. (2002): Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web. A Systematic Review. JAMA 287 (20): 2691-2700. Findlay, S. C. (2010): The CEAA Registry as a tool for evaluating CEAA effectiveness. Online: http://www.oaia.on.ca/documents/2010conf/Findlay%CEAA%20workshop [Accessed 17.07.2012] Fischer, T.B.; Therivel, R.; Bond, A.; Fotherill, J.; Marshall, R. (2016): The revised EIA Directive – possible implications for practice in England. UVP-report 30 (2): 106-112. DOI: 10.17442/uvp-report.030.19 Francis, T.; Whittaker, K.; Shandas, V.; Mills, A.V.; Graybill, J.K. (2005): Incorporating science into the environmental policy process: a case study from Washington State. Ecology and Society 10: 35. Gao, J.; Kornov, L.; Christensen, P. (2013): Do indicators influence communication in SEA? - Experience from the Chinese practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.004 Gauthier, M.; Simard, L.; Waaub, J.-P. (2011): Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(1): 48–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.006 Geissler, G.; Odparlik, L.; Günther, M.; Rehhausen, A.; Köppel, J. (2016): (Strategische) Umweltprüfung im internationalen Vergleich. In: Mitschang, S. [ed.]: UPDATE: Aktuelle Anforderungen des Umweltschutzes in der Bauleitplanung: 157-186. Frankfurt am Main, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Geißler, G. (2013): Strategic Environmental Assessment for Renewable Energy Development – comparing the United States and Germany. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15 (2): 1340003-1 – 1340003-31. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333213400036. Geschäfts- und Koordinierungsstelle GovData (n.d.): Das Datenportal für Deutschland. Open Government: Verwaltungsdaten transparent, offen und frei nutzbar. Online: https://www.govdata.de [Accessed 27.08.2016] GHK (2010): Collection of information and data to support the Impact Assessment study of the review of the EIA Directive. A study for DG Environment. London. Glucker, A. N.; Driessen, P. P. J.; Kolhoff, A.; Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013): Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 104–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003 Goldman, B. A. (1992): Community right to know: Environmental information for citizen participation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 12(3): 315–325. DOI: 10.1016/0195-9255(92)90023-Q

26

CHAPTER 1

Haklay, M. E. (2003): Public access to environmental information: past, present and future. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27(2): 163–180. DOI: 10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00023-0. Hanna, K. (2000): The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information: a case study. J Am Plann Assoc. 66:398–410. Hanna, K.; Noble, B. (2011): The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry: Promise and Reality. UVPReport 25(4): 222–225. Hartley, N.; Wood, C. (2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment---implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(4): 319–340. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002 Hazen, S. (1997): Environmental democracy. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) [ed.]. Our Planet 8 6. Online: http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/86/hazen.html [Accessed 06.09.2016] Hoover, K.; Stern, M. J. (2013): Constraints to public influence in US Forest Service NEPA processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57(2): 173–189. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.849232 Hourdequin, M.; Landres, P.; Hanson, M. J.; Craig, D. R. (2012): Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 35: 37–44. Hughes, R. (1998): Environmental Impact Assessment and Stakeholder Involvement. Environmental Planning Issues 11 (11). Illsley, B.; Jackson, T.; Deasley, N. (2014): Spheres of public conversation: Experiences in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44: 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.08.001. Initiative D21 e.V. & TNS Infratest [eds.] (2015): (N)ONLINER ATLAS 2015 als Teil der Studie D21-DigitalIndex 2015 der Initiative D21 e.V. & TNS Infratest. Online: http://www.initiatived21.de/portfolio/d21digital-index-2015/ [Accessed 24.08.2016] Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. (2004): Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administraion Review 64 (1): 55-65. Jay, S.; Jones, C.; Slinn, P.; Wood, C. (2007): Environmental Impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 287-300. Jobe, M. M. (1999): The Power of Information: The Example of the U.S. Toxics Release Inventory. Journal of Government Information 26 (3): 287–295. Karkkainen, B. C. (2008): Framing Rules: Breaking the Information Bottleneck. N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal 17: 75–106. Keene, M. L. (1993): Corporate environmentalism: Emerging responsibilities for public disclosure in the European community. Journal of Hazardous Materials 35 (2): 197–210. DOI: 10.1016/03043894(93)80005-Z Kengne, C. V. N.; Evouna, S. E. M.; Bitondo, D. (2013): Public hearings in environmental and social impact assessment for energy sector projects in Cameroon. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (1): 64–73. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.759454 Keupp, S.; Zschiesche, M. (2010). UFU-Papier: Die Aarhus-Konvention - Bürgerbeteiligung in neuer Qualität? Online: http://www.aarhus-konvention.de/media/content/files/Studien/Hintergrundpapier_Aarhus_Final.pdf [Accessed 27.08.2016] Koch, S.; Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. Köppel, J.; Peters, W.; Wende, W. (2004): Eingriffsregelung Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung. Stuttgart, Verlag Eugen Ulmer.

CHAPTER 1

27

Köppel, J. (2011): Editorial: Born in the USA. UVP-report 25 (4): 190-191 Köppel, J.; Geißler, G.; Helfrich; J.; Reisert, J. (2012): A Snapshot of Germany’ s EIA Approach in light of the United States Archetype. Journal of Environmental Policy and Management 14 (4): 1250022-1– 1250022-21. Köppel, J.; Burchartz, L.; Gartman, V.; Geißler, G.; Günther, M.; Odparlik, L.; Rehhausen, A.; Schuster, L.; Stamenkovic, M.; Wood, K. (2014): Forschungsfragen an die deutsche Umweltprüfung aus internationaler Perspektive. UVP-report 28 (3+4): 171-178. Kolhoff, A. J.; Driessen, P. P. J.; Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013): An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries-Illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.04.004 Kramer, H.-J.; Legat, R.; Naggy, M.; Mayer, J.;Schleidt, K.; Paneli, M. (2011): Die österreichische Umweltinformationspolitik als Vorreiter der Open Government Data Entwicklungen. Online: http://www.papers4you.at/uploads/tx_posseminar/CONECT_Legat_UI_Vorreiter_von_OGD_23112011.pdf [Accessed 01.08.2016] Kubicek, H. (2014): Verwaltungstransparenz und Verwaltungskultur. Erfahrungsgestützte Annäherung an ein diffuses Verhältnis am Beispiel der Freien Hansestadt Bremen. In: König, K.; Kropp, S.; Kuhlmann, S.; Reichard, Ch.; Sommermann, K.-R.; Ziekow, J. [e.d] (2014): Grundmuster der Verwaltungskultur. Interdisziplinäre Diskurse über kulturelle Grundformen der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. ISBN 978-3-8487-1463-6 Landeszentrale für Politische Bildung (n.d.): Landtagswahl 2011 in Baden-Württemberg. Online: http://www.landtagswahl-bw.de/ [Accessed 22.09.2014] Lebensministerium Österreich – Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Abteilung V71 (2009): 4. UVP-Bericht an den Nationalrat 2009. Bericht des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft an den Nationalrat gemäß §44 UVPG 200 über die Vollziehung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich. GZ BMLFUWUW.1.4.2/0041-V/1/2009. III-77 der Beilagen XXIV. Wien, GP - Bericht – Hauptdokument. Lebensministerium Österreich (2006): UVP-Bericht an den Nationalrat 2006. Bericht des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft an den Nationalrat gemäß §44 UVP-G 2000 über die Vollziehung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich. GZ BMLFUW-UW. 1.4.2/0024-V/1/2006. Wien. Leung, W.; Noble, B.; Gunn, J.; Jaeger, J. A. G. (2015): A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 116–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.005 Ma, Z.; Becker, D.; Kilgore, M. (2009): Characterizing the landscape of state environmental review policies: a national assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (8): 1035-1051. Mende, A.; Oehmichen, E.; Schöter, C. (2012): Medienübergreifende Informationsnutzung und Informationsrepertoires. Fernsehen, Radio, Zeitung und Internet im Vergleich. In: Media Perspektiven 1. Online: http://www.media-perspektiven.de/uploads/tx_mppublications/01-2012_Mende_Oehmichen_Schroeter.pdf. [Accessed 17.07.2012] Morgan, R.K. (2012): Environmental impact assessment: state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30: 5-14. Nachmias, R.; Gilad, A. (2002): Needle in a Hyperstack: Searching Information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34 (4): 475-486. Nadeem, O.; Fischer, T. B. (2011): An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31 (1): 36–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003 NCEA – Netherlands Comission for Environmental Assessment (2016): Worldmap of EIA/SEA legislation. Online: http://www.eia.nl/en/environmental-assessment [Accessed 09.09.2016]

28

CHAPTER 1

Negev, M.; Davidovitch, N.; Garb, Y.; Tal, A. (2013): Stakeholder participation in health impact assessment: A multicultural approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 112–120. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.002 Niermann, I.; Brinkmann, R.; Hurst, J. (2012): Windenergieanlagen im Wald und mögliche Beeinträchtigungen von Fledermäusen – eine Literaturauswertung. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 128: 159-184. Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J.; Geißler, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im Internationalen Vergleich. UVP-Report 26(5): 236– 243. Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(4): 324–331. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.841028 O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010): Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 19-27. Olsen, A. H.; Hansen, A. M. (2014): Perceptions of public participation in impact assessment: a study of offshore oil exploration in Greenland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32 (1): 72–80. Open Society Justice Initiatve (n.d.): Access to information laws: Overview and statutory goals. Online: http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-information-laws#_ftnref7 [Accessed 26.08.2016] Parthasarathy, S. (2010): Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Sci Pub Pol. 37(5): 355 – 367. Partidario, M. R.; Sheate, W. R. (2013): Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39: 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.02.002 Rahm, D. (2011): Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy 39 (5): 2974–2981. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.009 Rau, I.; Hildebrand, J.; Weingarten, E. (2012): Akzeptanz durch Beteiligungsverfahren beim NetzausbauMöglichkeiten und Grenzen des rechtlichen Rahmens. UVP-Report 26 (3+4): 166- 175. Redelfs, M. (2005): Informationsfreiheit: Deutschland als verspätete Nation. Warum die Bundesrepublik sich schwer tut mit dem Abschied vom „Amtsgeheimnis“. In: Ahrweiler, P.; Thomas, B. [ed.]: Internationale partizipatorische Kommunikationspolitik – Strukturen und Visionen. Vol. 29. Berlin, Münster, Wien, Zürich, London, Lit Verlag. ISBN 3-8258-9135-6 Rehhausen, A.; Albrecht, J.; Geißler, G. Hoppenstedt, A.; Köppel, J.; Magel, I.; Scholles, F.; Stemmer, B.; Syrbe, R.U. & Wende, W. (2015): SUP-Qualitätskriterien: Ansprüche an eine Strategische Umweltprüfung. UVP-report 29 (2): 96-103. Roach, I. (2013): Examining public understanding of the environmental effects of an energy-from-waste facility. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(3): 220–225. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.768402 Rozema, J. G.; Bond, A. J.; Cashmore, M.; Chilvers, J. (2012): An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 33(1): 80–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.003 Ryan, C. M.; Brody, D. O. B.; Lunde, A. I. (2011): NEPA Documents at the US Forest Service: A Blessing and a Curse? UVP-Report 25 (4): 192-197. Sarokin, D., & Schulkin, J. (1991): Environmentalism and the right-to-know: Expanding the practice of democracy. Ecological Economics 4(3): 175–189. DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(91)90050-O Schlacke, S. (2005): Aarhus-Konvention: Information, Beteiligung und Rechtsschutz in Umweltangelegenheiten: Auswirkungen von völker- und gemeinschaftlichen Vorgaben auf das deutsche Umweltrecht:

CHAPTER 1

29

Aarhus-Konvention, Espoo-Konvention und Richtlinie 2003/35/EG über die Beteil. UVP-Report 19(2): 67–72. Schlacke, S. (2013): Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Kommunikation und Rationalität von Planungsentscheidungen – eine Einführung. UVP-Report 27 (1+2): 32-33. Schmillen, M. (2003): Das Umweltinformationsrecht zwischen Anspuch und Wirklichkeit. Rechtliche und praktische Probleme des Umweltinformationsgesetzes unter Einbeziehung der UIG-Novelle und der neuen Umweltinformationsrichtlinie. UmweltRecht Band 10. Berlin, Erich Schmidt Verlag. ISBN 3-50307087-7 Scholles, F. (2008): Das System der Projektzulassung in Deutschland - Die Umweltprüfung. In: Fürst, D.; Scholles, F. [eds.]: Handbuch Theorien und Methoden der Raum-und Umweltplanung. Dortmund, Verlag Dorothea Rohn. Sinclair, A. J.; Schneider, G.; Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (2): 85–93. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.667238 Sullivan, P.J. (2006): Defining and Implementing
Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. Fisheries 31 (9): 460-465. Tenney, A.; Kværner, J.; Gjerstad, K. I. (2006): Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24 (1): 45–56. DOI: 10.3152/147154602781766627 TNS Emnid (2012): Bürgerbeteiligung und Infrastrukturplanung. Management Report August 2012. Online: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_36401_36402_2.pdf. [Stand: 05.09.2012] To, W. M.; Chung, A. W. L. (2014): Public Engagement in Environmental Impact Assessment in Hong Kong Sar, China Using Web 2.0: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16 (1): 1450002 1–13. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333214500021 UfU – Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen (2013): Umweltinformationsrecht. Online: http://www.umweltinformationsrecht.de [Accessed 27.08.2016] UN – United Nations (1972): Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Online: http://www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf [Accessed 26.08.2016] UN – United Nations (1992): Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro; Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Online: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 [Accessed 27.08.2016] UNECE – United Nations Economic Comission for Europe (2002): First Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention. Press Release ECE/ENV/02/11. Online: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/press.releases/env11e_h.pdf [Accessed 23.08.2016] UVP-Gesellschaft e.V. [ed.](2006): Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Informationen für die interessierte Öffentlichkeit. Hamm. Van Cleve, F.B.; Simenstad, C.; Goetz, F.; Mumford, T. (2004): Application of the “Best Available Science” in Ecosystem Restoration: Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Restoration Project Efforts in the USA. Technical Report 2004-1: Prepared in support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership (PSNP). Online: http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/lessonslearned.pdf [Accessed 05.11.2014] Von der Helm, D. (n.d.): Entwicklung des Internet. Online: http://dvdh.de/internet/entwicklung-des-internet.html [Accessed 24.08.2016] Van Eimeren, B.; Frees, B. (2011): Drei von vier Deutschen im Netz - ein Ende des digitalen Grabens in Sicht? Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2011. Media Perspektiven 7-8: 334–349.

30

CHAPTER 1

Walker, H.; Sinclair, A. J.; Spaling, H. (2014): Public participation in and learning through SEA in Kenya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 45: 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.10.003 Warner, M.B. (2011): Saying No to Noise: Resistance Builds to Planned Flight Paths at New Berlin Airport. Spiegel Online International. Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-749894.html [Accessed 22.09.2014] Wester, M.; Mörn, C. (2013): Gender and Public Participation: a Study of the Swedish Public Debate on the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline from a Gender Perspective. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 15 (3): 1–20. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333213500166 Weston, J. (2010): EIA Theories — All Chinese Whispers and No Critical Theory. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 12(4): 357–374. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333210003693 Wiklund, H. (2011): Why High Participatory Ideals Fail in Practice: a Bottom-Up Approach To Public Nonparticipation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(02): 159–178. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333211003833 Wright, G. (2014): Strengthening the role of science in marine governance through environmental impact assessment: a case study of the marine renewable energy industry. Ocean and Management 99: 23-30. Yin, R. K. (2009): Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage publications. Thousand Oaks. 4th edition. Zschiesche, M.; Sperfeld, F. (2011): Zur Praxis des neuen Umweltinformationsrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. ZUR 2: 71–78.

Laws & Regulations Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG)[Data Protection Law] in der Fassung vom 14. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 66), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 25. Februar 2015 (BGBl. I S. 162). Bundesgesetz über die Prüfung der Umweltverträglichkeit (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000 – UVPG 2000) [Austrian EIA Law], BGBl. Nr. 697/1993 idF BGBl. 773/1996, BGBl. I Nr. 89/2000, BGBl. I Nr. 108/2001, BGBl. I Nr. 151/2001, BGBl. I Nr. 50/2002, BGBl. I Nr. 153/2004, BGBl. I Nr. 14/2005, BGBl. I Nr. 149/2006, BGBl. I Nr. 2/2008, BGBl. I Nr. 87/2009, BGBl. I Nr. 144/2011, BGBl. I Nr. 51/2012, BGBl. I Nr. 77/2012, BGBl. I Nr. 95/2013, BGBl. I Nr. 14/2014 und BGBl. I Nr. 4/2016 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, enacted by section 52 of chapter 19 of the Statutes of Canada, 2012, in force July 6, 2012, see SI/2012-56. DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. OJEU L 26/1, January 28. 2012 DIRECTIVE 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. OJEU L41/24, February 14. 2003 DIRECTIVE 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment. OJEU L158, June 23. 1990 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, U.S.Code Title 42 Chapter 116 Pub. L. 114-38 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. §552, as amended by public law No. 104-231, 110 STAT. 3048 Gesetz über die Freiheit des Zugangs zu Informationen für das Land Bremen (Bremer Informationsfreiheitsgesetz – BremIFG) [Freedom of Informtion Act Bremen]vom 16. Mai 2006 (Brem.GBl. 2006, 263), mehrfach geändert durch §§6b, 11a und 12 (neu eingefügt) durch Gesetz vom 28. April 2015 (Brem.GBl. S. 274) Gesetz über die Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Umweltangelegenheiten nach der EG-Richtlinie 2003/35/EG (Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligungsgesetz) [Public Participation Act] vom 9. Dezember 2006 (BGBl. I S. 2819). Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVPG) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA)] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 24. Februar 2010 (BGBl. I S. 94), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 21. Dezember 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2490).

CHAPTER 1

31

Gesetz über die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (Stasi-Unterlagen-Gesetz – StUG) [Stasi-Documentation-Law] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 18. Februar 2007 (BGBl. I S. 162), geändert durch Artikel 4 Absatz 37 des Gesetzes vom 18. Juli 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1666). Gesetz über ergänzende Vorschriften zu Rechtsbehelfen in Umweltangelegenheiten nach der EG-Richtlinie 2003/35/EG (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz – UmwRG) [Public Appeal Act] in der Bekanntmachung vom 8. April 2013 (BGBl. I S. 753), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 20. November 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2069). Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BNatSchG) [Nature Conservation Law] vom 29. Juli 2009 (BGBl. I S. 2542), geändert durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 4. August 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1972). Gesetz zur Förderung der elektronischen Verwaltung (E-Governance-Gesetz – EgovG) [eGovernance Act] vom 25. Juli 2013 (BGBl. I S. 2749). Gesetz zur Regelung des Zugangs zu Informationen des Bundes (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz – IFG) [Freedom of Information Act] vom 5. September 2005 (BGBl. I S. 2722), geändert durch Artikel 2 Absatz 6 des Gesetzes vom 7. August 2013 (BGBl. I S. 3154). Hamburgisches Transparenzgesetz (HmbTG) [Transprency Law Hamburg] vom 19. Juni 2012 (HmbGVBl. 2012, 271) Landespressegesetze [press laws of the states]. Online: http://www.presserecht.de [Accessed 03.09.2016] National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. Umweltinformationsgesetzt (UIG) [Environmental Information Act] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 27. Oktober 2014 (BGBl. I S. 1643). Umweltinformationsgesetz [Environmental Information Act] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 8. Juli 1994 (BGBl I 1994, 1490) aufgehoben durch Artikel 9 Absatz 1 Halbsatz 2 Gesetz vom 22. Dezember 2004 I 3704 mWv 14.2.2005 US Information Quality Act - Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) [Administrative Prodecures Act (APA)] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 102).

Case Studies British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. Online: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca [Accessed 05.09.2016] Bürgerinitiative „Autobahn B213 Nein!“ Online: www.bi-b213.de [Accessed 01.09.2012] California Energy Commission. Online: http://www.energy.ca.gov [Accessed 05.09.2016] Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry. Online: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm [Accesssed 05.09.2016] Eisenbahnbundesamt. Online: http://www.eba.bund.de/DE/Home/home_node.html [Accessed 05.09.2016] Flughafen München GmbH [Airport Munich GmbH]. Online: http://www.munich-airport.de/de/company/index.jsp [Accessed 05.09.2016] Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department - EIA Ordinance. Online: http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/index.html [Accessed 05.09.2016] Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry. Online: http://www.reviewboard.ca [Accessed 05.09.2016] Regierungspräsidien Baden-Württemberg. Online: https://rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Seiten/Startseite.aspx [Accessed 05.09.2016] US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE) & US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center. Online: http://solareis.anl.gov/index.cfm [Accessed 05.09.2016]

32

CHAPTER 1

US National Park Service - Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site. Online: https://parkplanning.nps.gov Washington State Department of Transportation (2014): Reader-Friendly Environmental Documents. Online: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/ReaderFriendly.htm [Accessed 05.09.2016]

CHAPTER 2

33

Chapter 2 The role of registries in the provision of access to EA information for public participation in selected international examples 7

published as Odparlik, L.F.; Köppel, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (4): 324–331 on 09/10/2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14615517.2013.841028 7

34

CHAPTER 2

Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation Lisa F. Odparlik* and Johann Köppel Abstract International practice shows an increasing use of web-based Environmental Assessment (EA) registries or project websites to provide public access to information. In support of statutory public participation, registries inform when to participate and provide relevant documents and the continued availability of information. However, what constitutes good practice in this field? This article proposes a framework for assessing good practice in providing access to information via registries. Based on performance indicators for an ‘ideal’ registry, the framework allows evaluation in the review categories: framework conditions, notice of projects, provision of documents, accessibility of information and ongoing information regarding the status of the environmental assessment. An explorative case study analysis applies the framework and presents results on the performance of international practice examples. Keywords: access to information; public participation; EA registries; EA documents

1.

Introduction

Environmental assessment (EA) registries are documentation and information systems that serve as a basic tool in the provision of public access to Environmental Assessment decision-making processes8. Today, there is an increasing use of web-based registries or project websites to provide such access. In addition to the provision, accessibility and ongoing availability of EA documents and process information (e.g. when to participate, public hearing transcripts), EA registries provide support for statutory public participation. Access to information has been an important parts of the environmental debate since the environmental movement began in the late 1960s. ‘[T]here have been legislative and practical moves to open access to environmental information for all stakeholders that are involved in environmental decision making processes’ (Haklay 2003: 2). International legislation and conventions establishing a link between environmental information and any interested party include the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969) and, in Europe, the Aarhus Convention, which along with the right to participate in environmental decision-making and the access to litigation, provides the right to receive environmental information held by public authorities (Hartley & Wood 2005). The fact that ‘information increases the effectiveness of participation’ has been widely accepted (Hadden 1981: 538). Hourdequin et al. (2012) even consider it to be a prerequisite for a successful democracy. Hartley and Wood (2005) and Wiklund (2011) found the poor provision of information to be one of the key barriers to effective participation in practice and a reason for nonparticipation in EA. Although the mere provision of information falls into the category of ‘Tokenism’

* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group, Technische Universität Berlin (Berlin Institute of Technology), Secretariat EB 5, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany 8 The term Environmental Assessment (EA) is used as an umbrella term owing to the different denotations in the investigated countries. It comprises environmental impact assessment, environmental assessment, strategic environmental assessment, programmatic environmental assessment, etc.

CHAPTER 2

35

in Arnstein’s (1969) ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’, it constitutes an inevitable prerequisite. Access to relevant information enables stakeholders to understand potential impacts, differentiate various planning alternatives and identify the potential consequences of their own preferences and objectives (Hourdequin et al. 2012). The provision of comprehensive information leads to greater transparency and a greater ability to become involved (Kramer et al. 2011). However, formal accessibility of information on agency websites or in government documents does not automatically lead to substantive accessibility. This may be the case when information is provided but the public is unaware of it, does not know how to access it or is missing the expert knowledge to understand it (Hourdequin et al. 2012). The transparent provision of planning documents as well as education on how to locate, interpret and effectively utilize this information are important pre- requisites to overcoming the ‘expertise barrier’ (the lack of scientific, technical or political knowledge; Parthasarathy 2010: 355) and lay – expert tensions in environmental decision-making processes. This leads to the overall question, what constitutes good practice in the provision of access to information? How can EA registries be used to provide access to information? What information should be provided and what functionalities support the access? Hanna and Noble (2011: 222), for example, pictured an ideal registry defining the basic functions and principles that should be in place, including holding all documentation related to an EA, regardless of the stage of the application and review process: notices of hearings, impact studies and supporting documentation, the EA application itself, the decision and reasons for the decision, follow-up requirements and even the monitoring of results. The perfect registry ‘would be complete; information would be posted in easily accessible formats and would be readable for broad audiences’ (Hanna & Noble 2011: 222). This article proposes a framework for assessing good practice in providing access to information via web-based EA registries. Based on Hanna and Noble’s picture of the ideal registry, additional literature review leads to performance indicators for an ‘ideal’ (best practice) registry. An explorative case study analysis is used to apply the framework, presenting results on good practice and shortcomings as well as remaining challenges.

2.

Methodology

A review framework (Box 1) of relevant evaluation categories and indicators was developed (cf. Geißler 2013; Kolhoff et al. 2013) based on academic literature (Findlay 2010 [1]; Hanna & Noble 2011 [2]; Ryan et al. 2011 [3]; Claus et al. 2012 [4]; Odparlik et al. 2013 [5]). The framework allows for an evaluation of registries (cases) in five review categories: framework conditions, notice of projects, provision of documents, accessibility of information and ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment. Each category includes indicators to assess practice performance. An ideal registry fulfils all of the stated indicators and thus Hanna and Noble’s (2011) three essential notions of completeness, accessibility and readability.

36

CHAPTER 2

Box 1. The ideal registry… Framework conditions 

has a legal obligation for project developers and lead agency to provide documents and information on the project, plan, program and policy (obligatory part of the process) [1,2,4]

Notice of projects with an EA in progress (open cases) 

gives a systematic overview on ongoing and completed projects with EA [2].



provides basic information about a specific project (abstract) [1,2,4].



supports the cartographic localization of projects [2].

Provision of documents 

contains all EA documents [2,4,5]. o early stage information (e.g. notice of intent, terms of reference, early correspondence, screening document) [2]. o notices of hearings [2]. o transcripts and other material of public hearings [5]. o scoping documents [5]. o impact studies [2,4]. o other supporting documentation (additional studies, technical information, maps) [2,4]. o EA application [2]. o public submissions/comments [2,4]. o response to public comments (reasons for in- or exclusion) [5]. o decision and reasons for the decision (list with assessment criteria) [2,4]. o monitoring and follow-up requirements [2]. o monitoring results [2].



contains a list of unpublished documents (e.g. on the basis of copyright protection) [1,2].

Accessibility of information (easily accessible formats, readable for broad audiences) 

gives basic information about the process of environmental impact assessment, legal aspects and requirements [4].



Lists all institutions involved in the process (e.g. responsible authority, project proponent) with their specific contacts (including contact data, tasks and responsibilities in the process) [4].



gives instructions how to use the registry [5].



provides additional services to improve the user experience (e.g. audio or video transmission of public hearings on the Internet) [5].



enables on-line entry of comments/opinions on the process or to the procedural documents [5].



provides instructions on plain language to enhance readability[3].

Ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment 

includes an illustration of the general sequence of the process and the current status of progress [4].



offers digital information services (e-mail alerts, RSS feeds) in order to follow the activities within the process and provide fair notice [5].

The identification of cases (EA registries or websites) was based on a web search conducted between September 2012 and February 2013. For the search engine strategy (cf. Eysenbach et al. 2002; Nachmias & Gilad 2002; Niermann et al. 2012), a predetermined selection of keywords was used separately or in combination, and Google served as the search engine. Keywords included different terms and abbreviations for the assessment and documents (e.g. environmental assessment, EA, environmental impact assessment, EIA, strategic environmental assessment, SEA, programmatic environmental assessment, PEIS, EIA documents, environmental impact statement,

CHAPTER 2

37

EIS, environmental impact report, EIR, record of decision, ROD). Grounded on already known examples or legal requirements, keywords were paired with names of countries or lead agencies in a subsequent search. The identified dataset was classified into four categories:   



Websites, mainly provided by lead agencies, containing a list of projects or EA process information without search or filter function; Project websites providing information on a single project (e.g. the Scottish Government Offshore Wind SEA Report); EA register containing databases with information on EA cases and supported by a search or filter function to browse through the referenced projects via keywords and framework data (e.g. agency, location, reference number, date, topic or sector, status, proponent); General register containing searchable databases with relevant EA information but also other non-EA related information (e.g. the World Banks Project Database).

According to the defined inclusion criteria, 38 cases in seven countries and three global institutions were identified for further analysis. These included 18 EA registers, four general registers, six project websites and 10 agency websites (Table 3). This merely represents an explorative assessment and cannot be regarded as conclusive. All 38 cases were examined against the criteria for an ideal registry, identified in Box 1. It was determined whether: (1) the criterion was met; (2) the criterion was not met; or (3) the criterion was partly met (e.g. if a specific type of document, such as a scoping document, was provided only for less than half of the sample, or if there was a legal obligation to provide information but the law did not clearly state that this had to be presented via the Internet). Table 3: List of investigated cases

Country

Name of Registry/Website (Heading)

Australia

Government of Western Australia – Environmental Protection Authority: EPA Reports Queensland Government – Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Assessments and Approvals – Coordinated Projects New South Wales Government – Planning & Infrastructure: Major Project Assessments Tasmania – Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources: Infrastructure Projects Tasmania – Environmental Protection Authority: EPA Approval Process Broken Hill City Council (New South Wales): Planning Proposals Open for Public Comment Australia Pacific LNG (Origin + Conoco Phillips, Sinopec): Environmental Impact Statement Incitec Pivot Limited (Kooragang Islands NSW): Library – Environmental Impact Statements

Austria

Umweltbundesamt Österreich: UVP-Datenbank Umweltbundesamt Österreich: UVP-Feststellungsverfahren BMVIT (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie): Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen Niederösterreich: Umweltrecht aktuell Niederösterreich: UVP Flughafen Wien Flughafen Wien AG: VIE (Vienna International Airport)

38

CHAPTER 2

Country

Name of Registry/Website (Heading)

Canada

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR) Ontario Government: Environmental Registry Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Environmental Assessments British Columbia Government: Project Information Centre (e-PIC) Mackenzie Valley Review Board (Northwest Territories): Public Registry

China

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Environmental Protection Department: Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

Italy

Autonome Provinz Bozen Südtirol – Abteilung Landesagentur Umwelt: UVP-Veröffentlichung von Plänen und Projekten

UK

Forestry Commission: Register of Environmental Impact Assessments Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: Environmental Impact Assessment – Public Register The Scottish Government: SEA Database The Scottish Government: Offshore Wind – SEA Report

USA

U.S. Government Printing Office: U.S. Federal Registry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA EIS Database U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: Land Use Planning and NEPA Register U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: NEPA Documents Bureau of Land Management + Department of Energy (both Washington Office): Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center U.S. National Park Service: Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site (PEPC) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: SEQR Environmental Impact Assessment in New York State Californian Energy Commission: Energy Facilities Siting/ Licensing Process Washington State Department of Transportation: WSDOT Projects Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE): SEPA Register

Global

Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty: EIA Database European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Environmental and Social Impact Assessments World Bank: Projects & Operations

3.

Results and discussion

The results show that none of the cases satisfied all indicators of the ideal registry. Only 10 cases clearly scored more than 50% (this excludes cases that achieved a ‘partly’ for some of the criteria). Two cases, namely the Project Information Centre in British Columbia and the Energy Facilities Siting and Licensing Process website by the Californian Energy Commission showed the best compliance (22 criteria), closely followed by the Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry (21).

3. 1 Framework conditions The notice to participate is often based on a legal obligation to provide documents and information on the project, plan, programme or policy. To determine whether the provision of information was based on such a legal obligation, respective laws referred to on the website as well as applicable EA laws were investigated.

CHAPTER 2

39

Legal requirements clearly asking to publish information on the Internet were present in six of the investigated countries (e.g. New South Wales (Australia) – Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Regulation 2011 No 510; and UK – Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 Paragraph 10 (2)(b)). Nine cases indicated a legal obligation or a general statement in a policy to disclose information but not necessarily via the Internet (e.g. Tasmania (Australia) – Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, Part 5 EIA; 74. (7); Western Australia – Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV, Division 1, 44 (3a)). In the USA, NEPA prescribes informing interested parties about planned hearings and the availability of environmental documents. All of the important steps of a project or programmatic EA are published in the US Federal Registry: ‘Published daily and available on-line, the Federal Register contains hundreds of pages [ ...] announcing the availability of agency documents, the location of upcoming meetings, and the text of proposed and final regulations’ (Gardner 2011: 24). Additionally, the US Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Federal Activities) has been designated as the official recipient of all EISs prepared by federal agencies (EPA 2013, online). Information is published in the EIS Database. Other Federal Departments (e.g. US Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management or US National Park Service) follow the requirements under Section 5089 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794D), ensuring that the electronic and information technology allows access to information and data. In the states of California, New York and Washington, further requirements have been set up. Since 2006, the ‘EIS on the web requirement’ in the New York SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review Act) has triggered the publication of DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statements) and FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statements) on publicly accessible websites. Documents must remain online for at least one year after the final decision. Legal obligations to register EA processes in one central register can also be found in Canada (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry), for federal EAs. In Austria, the EIA Act (UVPG, §43) assigns this task to the Environmental Protection Agency. The information is collected in an online accessible database with search functions, allowing for retrieval of information on current approval processes.

3.2

Notice of projects

A systematic overview of ongoing and completed projects with EA provides initial information where participation might be possible. The majority of cases examined offered this overview. Twenty-three cases provided an overview of ongoing and 24 of completed projects, either with a list of projects and the indication of their status or with a specific filter function for project status. The geographic location of projects was shown in 13 of 38 cases (e.g. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry –Figure 7). Basic information about a specific project (e.g. name, reference number, proponent) was generally provided, whereas the provision of a short abstract was not the rule.

Under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794D), Federal departments and agencies shall ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that the electronic and information technology allows access to information and data, regardless of the type of medium of technology, subject to the provisions as outlined in Section 508. 9

40

CHAPTER 2

Figure 7: Screenshot of the Canadian environmental assessment registry with cartographic localization of projects (Source: http://www. ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm; cited 29 November 2012). Used with the kind permission of the CEAA.

3.3

Provision of documents

The analysis showed (Table 4), that the online registries and websites were mostly used for notice of hearings (19 yes/4 partly – less than half of the sample), to provide impact studies (20/7) and other supporting documents, technical information or maps (20/4), and to announce and publish the decision (19/3). Published information on participation was only provided in a few cases:

CHAPTER 2

41

transcripts and other material of public hearings (8/4), public submission comments (11/6) and the response to these comments (7/3). The range of documents provided varied greatly. An outstanding example of good practice was the Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center for six western states of the USA. It provided additional information on the PEIS process and participation, general information on solar energy and thematic maps and detailed minutes of public participation, which would also allow anyone who did not attend participation meetings to keep track of the discussions. Another example of comprehensive document provision was the website of the Californian Energy Commission: projects were listed according to their approval status. A hyperlink on the project led to a specific project information site with general information (e.g. status, contact information, key dates, general description) as well as information on notices, orders and announcements, documents and reports, a docket log (listing of all the documents filed in a proceeding), committee schedules and a proof of service list (providing contact information). There was only one registry that (partly) supplied documents in all of the defined categories (some documents were only supplied for part of the projects). The Project Information Centre by the Province of British Columbia (Canada) additionally provided monitoring results in some samples. However, even this case was not consistent in the provision of documents and underlined the general shortcoming of the whole sample: document provision considerably varied between the projects registered, whereby recent projects often showed a better performance than older entries. Depending on privacy policies, lead agencies in some countries are not allowed to publish certain documents on the Internet (e.g. on the basis of trade secrets). In addition, to provide transparent information about missing documents, four of the 38 cases made use of a list of unpublished documents (e.g. California Energy Commission provided a Docket Log, listing all documents filed in a proceeding). Table 4: Overview of the provision of documents in the investigated cases

Documents

Yes

Partly No

very early stage information

15

3

20

notices of hearings

19

4

15

transcripts and other material of public hearings

8

4

26

scoping documents

12

3

23

impact studies

20

7

11

other supporting documentation

20

4

14

EA application

16

4

18

public submissions/comments

11

6

21

response to public comments

7

3

28

decision and reasons for the decision

19

3

16

monitoring and follow-up requirements

13

7

18

monitoring results

1

0

37

3.4

Accessibility of information

Basic knowledge about the process of EA and its legal aspects and requirements is an important prerequisite for effective participation. In fact, ‘results show that the insufficient knowledge of the

42

CHAPTER 2

EA process and the opportunities of participation is the single most important reason for nonparticipation’ (Wiklund 2011: 172). This finding was recognized with the provision of basic information in 28 of the cases. To increase the transparency of the environmental assessment process, a website should list all institutions involved in the process (e.g. responsible authority, project proponent) with their specific contacts, tasks and responsibilities. In 16 cases this criterion was entirely fulfilled. The registry for screening decisions by the Federal Environmental Agency Austria informed of the responsible authority, affected communities, project developers and the environmental lawyer. While five cases did not provide any contact information, 17 cases designated one primary contact (e.g. responsible authority). Understanding how to use the registry establishes another good practice prerequisite. Simple instructions were provided with 64% of the EA and general registries. The Land Use Planning and NEPA Register of the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, offered a video tutorial on the entry of online comments and how to use the register. Other websites provided intuitive lists of information and downloadable documents. Besides the general provision of documents and FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions), 14 cases used a variety of IT services for a better usability. Additional services included:   



audio recordings of hearings and audio webcasts (e.g. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, Mackenzie Valley Review Board – Public Registry); explanatory videos (e.g. Australia Pacific LNG – Environmental Impact Statement, Flughafen Wien AG – Vienna International Airport); interactive panorama pictures (e.g. Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center) and 3D visualizations (e.g. Chinese Environmental Protection Department – EIA Ordinance); information in different languages (e.g. Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty – EIA Database, World Bank Projects Database).

While innovatively using technology constitutes an important part of e-participation, the ability to use new forms of communication and interactions establishes another part (Macintosh 2004). Although the ideal registry promotes these ways of e-participation, only four cases enabled the direct online entry of comments on the process or the procedural documents. The US National Park Service as well as the New South Wales Government provided an online form for submitting comments for each case or document open for public involvement. These forms either asked for the commenter’s name or provided an option to withhold the name when comments were published on the website. The aforementioned US Bureau of Land Management Register provided the most advanced e-participation technology. The Comment Submission Wizard of this Register allowed direct marking of specific text passages in the planning document and commenting on it. Even the attachment of files to a comment was possible. A video tutorial and help page provided useful instructions. Apart from the technical capabilities to enable the accessibility to information and documents of environmental assessments, their readability is often criticized owing to their scope and technical language only coherent to an expert minority (e.g. Ryan et al. 2011). To assist document preparation and define a common standard, five of the cases examined offered instructions about the use of plain language, for example the guidelines on document quality and reader friendliness by the Washington Department of Transportation. Others offered help for people with disabilities to access information (e.g. Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site), an Aboriginal language glossary and plain language handouts on the EA process (e.g. Mackenzie Valley Review Board – Public Registry).

CHAPTER 2

3.5

43

Ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment

Last but not least, it is important for the user to stay in the loop about the progress and status of the environmental assessments. Many of the registries and websites presented are organic and adaptive units, which grow with the availability of project information. The New South Wales Planning and Infrastructure Major Project Assessments registry might serve as a role model. Here, a schematic figure of the EA process indicates the status. The indication of the status alone would require visiting of the registries and websites on a regular basis but new information can also be comfortably received via email alert, RSS Feed, Twitter or Facebook in 16 of the investigated cases.

4.

Conclusion

Although none of the investigated cases received the status of an ‘ideal registry’, web-based EA registries and project websites provided several good practice examples that might serve as role models and illustrations. Ideally a meta-information system, as in Canada or Austria, would inform about ongoing or completed environmental assessments. If meta-information is missing or information is simply not accessible via the Internet, access to information becomes much more challenging. Considering the need for adequate ‘time to prepare’ before the short windows of opportunity for participation briefly open (Sinclair et al. 2012), knowledge on where to find relevant information and a clear indication of which cases are open for participation become important functions of information systems. While some cases have shown an innovative use of IT services to improve the user experience, specific support for improving the readability of documents (e.g. instructions on plain language) is still rare. Overall, the consistent provision of information still remains a significant task for improvement. The basic framework from Hanna and Noble (2011) for well-shaped registries provides valuable aspects to be further enhanced and elaborated. In addition, what remains to be improved is consideration of the factors of management and maintenance of registries, to assess why some registries perform better than others. Hanna and Noble (2011) point out that budget constraints and limited staff training might be a reason for this inconsistency of document provision and quality control procedures would be a supplemental option. For the majority of the cases, the establishment of information systems could be explained with respective legal requirements to publish information on the Internet. For political or commercial reasons, however, the disclosure of information in environmental assessments can face opposition from a variety of private and public stakeholders (Gauthier et al. 2011). Preliminary results suggest that the protection of commercial and industrial information, intellectual property rights, protection of personal data, and public security and defence constitute obstacles in the provision of information via online databases. Our further research aims to identify supporting and inhibiting factors for active information provision on the Internet as well as offline supplements and alternatives. At the same time, we hope not only to draw on Hanna and Noble’s ‘ideal registry’ vision, but also to enhance this approach with ingredients from other cases used in our analyses that would make these qualities work.

44

CHAPTER 2

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Kevin Hanna and Bram Noble for their inspiring vision of the ideal registry. We are grateful to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for authorizing Fig. 1. We would also like to thank Marija Stamenkovic, Julie Donner and Marie Dahmen for their feedback throughout the research. Finally, we thank IAPA’s editors and our anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

5.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969): A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners 35(4): 216 – 224. Claus, F.; Hampe, J.; Hinzke, L.; Lühr, K.; Paust, A.; Renkamp, A.; Versteyl, A. (2012): Mehr Transparenz und Bürgerbeteiligung. Prozessanalysen und Empfehlungen am Beispiel von Fernstraßen, Industrieanlagen und Kraftwerken. Vorabversion der Studie, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. [cited 2012 September 5]. Online: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_36399_36400_2.pdf [Accessed 08.09.2016] EPA- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013): National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Basic Information [Internet] Washington: US EPA, [updated 2012 June 26; cited 2013 March 22]. Online: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html [Accessed 08.09.2016] Eysenbach, G.; Powell, J.; Kuss, O.; Sa, E.-R. (2002): Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. A Syst Rev JAMA 287(20): 2691 – 2700. Findlay, S. C. (2010): The CEAA registry as a tool for evaluating CEAA effectiveness. Workshop Presentation. [cited 2012 July 17]. Online: http://www.oaia.on.ca/documents/2010conf/Findlay%20CEAA%20workshop Gardner, R. C. (2011): Lawyers, swamps and money: US Wetland law, policy, and politics. Washington (DC), Island Press. Gauthier, M.; Simard, L.; Waaub, J.-P. (2011): Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31(1): 48 – 60. Geißler, G. (2013): Strategic environmental assessments for renewable energy development — comparing the United States and Germany. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt 15(2): 1340003. Hadden, S. G. (1981): Technical information for citizen participation. J Appl Behav Sci 17(4): 537 – 549. Haklay, M. E. (2003): Public access to environmental information: past, present and future. Forthcoming in ‘Computers, Environment and Urban Systems’. [cited 2013 April 17]. Online: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/10972/ [Accessed 08.09.2016] Hanna, K.; Noble, B. (2011): The Canadian environmental assessment registry: promise and reality. UVPReport 25 (4): 222 – 225. Hartley, N.; Wood, C. (2005): Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus convention. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25(4): 319 – 340. Hourdequin, M.; Landres, P.; Hanson, M. J.; Craig, D. R. (2012): Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 35: 37 – 44. Kolhoff, A. J.; Driessen, P. P.J.; Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013): An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries—illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev 38: 1 – 15. Kramer, H.-J.; Legat, R.; Naggy, M.; Mayer, J.; Schleidt, K.; Paneli, M. (2011): Die österreichische Umweltinformationspolitik als Vorreiter der Open Government Data Entwicklungen. [cited 2012 February 13]. Available from: http://www.conect.at/uploads/tx_posseminar/CONECT_Legat_UI_Vorreiter_von_OGD_23112011.pdf [Accessed 08.09.2016] Macintosh, A. L. (2004): Characterizing e-participation in policy- making. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. [cited 2013 March 21]. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼1265300&isnumber¼28293 [Accessed 08.09.2016]

CHAPTER 2

45

Nachmias, R.; Gilad, A. (2002): Needle in a hyperstack: searching information on the World Wide Web. J Res Technol Educ 34 (4):475 – 486. NEPA- U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (1969). 42 USC § 4321. Niermann, I.; Brinkmann, R.; Hurst, J. (2012): Windenergieanlagen im Wald und mögliche Beeinträchtigungen von Fledermäusen – eine Literaturauswertung. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 128: 159 – 184. Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J.; Geißler, G. (2013): The grass is always greener on the other side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs- Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-Report 26(5): 236 – 243. Parthasarathy, S. (2010): Breaking the expertise barrier: under- standing activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Sci Pub Pol 37(5): 355 – 367. Ryan, C. M.; Brody, D. O.B.; Lunde, A. I. (2011): NEPA documents at the US forest service: a blessing and a curse? UVP-Report 25(4): 192 – 197. Sinclair, A. J.; Schneider, G.; Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 30(2): 85 – 93. Wiklund, H. (2011): Why high participatory ideals fail in practice: a bottom-up approach to public nonparticipation in EIA. J Env Assmt Pol Mgmt 13(2): 159 – 178.

46

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

47

Chapter 3 Analysis of the active information provision by lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors 10

published as Odparlik, L. F. (2015): Are Agencies Turning a Blind Eye to Public Access to Environmental Assessment Information? Preprint of an article submitted for consideration in the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17, 3, 2015, 1550028. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500283. © World Scientific Publishing Company. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/jeapm 10

48

CHAPTER 3

Are Agencies Turning a Blind Eye to Public Access to Environmental Assessment Information? Lisa Friederike Odparlik Abstract For environmental assessments (strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA)) a wide range of data and documents is gathered, processed, and produced. In planning theory, this information is viewed to have a transformative function: It can affect perceptions in advance of a decision, thereby impacting the planning process at all levels and stages. The role of this information in supporting transparent public participation is often neglected. This paper analyses the current implementation of legal requirements providing access to information on environmental assessments (EAs) in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors, using a criteria based case study analysis of agency websites. The 92 analysed websites primarily provide general planning information, technical information, and final decisions. One third of the websites provided EA documents, and show a clear need for improvement in information provision about and in support of public participation. Keywords: Access to information; public participation; environmental assessment documents.

1.

Introduction

For environmental assessments (EAs) (strategic EA (SEA); environmental impact assessments (EIA)) a wide range of data and documents is gathered, processed, and produced. In addition to the environmental impact study (EIS), further technical information, maps, transcripts of hearings, and comments build the basis for the approval decision of the competent planning authority. The role of this information in supporting a transparent process of public participation, a statutory element of the EA processes, is often neglected. Ideally, public participation should be viewed as a continuous, two-way communication process. In the first step the public111 is fully informed about the status and progress of studies and possible impacts of project, plan, program, and policy formulation and evaluation activities, which promotes full understanding of the processes and mechanisms of EA applied by the responsible agencies. In the second step all concerned citizens are invited to state their opinions and perceptions of objectives, needs, and preferences regarding resource use, alternative development, management strategies, further information needs, and assistance relative to the decision (Gauthier et al., 2011). In planning theory, information is viewed to have a transformative function that can affect perceptions in advance of a decision, thereby impacting the planning process at all levels and stages (Hanna, 2000; Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). “Preparing and analysing data, interacting with nonagency players, and presenting information to the public can be transformative actions – even though their impact may not be explicit” (Hanna, 2000). Consequently, in support of consensus building among agency staff and the involved public, and especially to establish equal opportunities for informed decision-making, participation requires access to EA process information. Trans-

The term public was used without separation between public stakeholders and the general public, as the author argues that information should be available also beyond one single planning procedure, e.g. for comparison with similar projects. 11

CHAPTER 3

49

parent communication and access to process documents enable the public to understand potential impacts, differentiate various planning alternatives, and identify the potential consequences of their own preferences and objectives, thereby supporting a process of learning (Fischer, 2007; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Hourdequin et al., 2012). According to Kramer et al. (2011), the provision of comprehensive information ultimately leads to greater transparency and a greater ability to become involved. At the same time, information can become a limiting factor to effective participation (e.g. Hartley and Wood, 2005; Wiklund, 2011; Gauthier et al., 2011; Hourdequin et al., 2012). This may be the case if important background information on the process of EA is missing and the public does not know when or how to get involved (Wiklund, 2011; Wester and Mörn, 2013). Further, participation might be restricted if information is formally provided but the public is not aware of it, does not know how to access it, or the readability of reports is limited due to technical language and the public does not possess the expert knowledge to understand it (Hourdequin et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2014). Limited time to read, understand and prepare comments, illiteracy, and language barriers can further stand in the way of effective participation (Odparlik et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2014). In the past years, international practice with its increasing use of web-based EA registries and agency or project specific websites to provide public access to information has shown promising approaches to overcome some of the barriers related to information provision in EA. Registries or websites inform when to participate and provide basic information about the planning process, legal aspects and other requirements. They allow access to relevant documents, e.g. screening and scoping documentation, impact studies, technical information and maps, transcripts of public hearings and submitted comments, planning decisions, as well as the continued availability of information and updates, e.g. on monitoring results. Internet-based access allows participants to inspect planning documents and submit their opinions at any time and location, regardless of official opening times and the physical availability of the planning documents (Schulze-Wolf and Köhler, 2008). Legal provision has been shown to be a major driver in this development of web-based information provision (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013). With its amendments to the EIA directive, the European Union now also recognizes the fact that effective public participation needs information. As a result of the Aarhus Convention12 and Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, EA information shall now be provided electronically via central portals of the EU Member States13 (Directive 2014/52/EU). As a European Member State, Germany is also affected by this change in the directive. Since 1990, when the first European Directive on EIA was incorporated into German national law with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG14), projects with potentially harmful consequences have to undergo an EIA before approval is granted. Since 2004, plans and programs with potentially harmful environmental effects are also required to undergo a SEA. The EA itself represents an integral part of procedures applied by authorities when deciding upon approval of projects, plans, and programs (§2 (1) UVPG). While the German EIA today is considered to be an established instrument, literature still suggests that “substantial challenges to the further development of EIA, and to even stronger implementation of environmental

12 Next to the right to participate in environmental decision-making and the access to litigation, the convention provides

the right to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities (Hartley and Wood, 2005). 13 EU Directive 2014/52/EU Article 6 paragraph 5: “Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant information is electronically accessible to the public, through at least a central portal or easily accessible points of access, at the appropriate administrative level.” 14 The German abbreviations are used as official English abbreviations rarely exist for German laws.

50

CHAPTER 3

requirements in planning and decision-making practice […] still exist” (Wende et al., 2012), which makes Germany an interesting case for analysis. Inter alia, the German Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG), the Freedom of Information Act (IFG), and the Environmental Information Act (UIG), which transforms the first column (access to information) of the Aarhus convention into national law, provide legal regulations for the access to environmental information relevant to the decision making process. The existence of these legal provisions notwithstanding, it is often criticized that a lack of transparency is an obstacle to effective participation. Examples such as the railway and urban development project Stuttgart 2115 and the non-transparent determination of flight paths at the airport Berlin–Brandenburg–International (BBI)16 showed that delayed (Köppel et al., 2012) or missing information and public involvement can lead to delays and tensions in the approval process. Germany was chosen for further analysis based on the research hypothesis that a considerable gap between the conceptual legal requirement to provide information and the current implementation status of access to information on agency websites seems to exist. Drawing on a defined catalogue of best practice criteria, this paper analyses the provision of documents and information from the environmental assessment process for electricity grid expansion and federal road planning projects, two examples of EA in Germany’s multi-governance planning system. While federal road planning, as part of federal transportation planning (including railways and waterways as well), is an old-timer in the field of planning (first national Transport Infrastructure Plan in 1973), electricity grid expansion planning, as a direct result from the publicly debated “Energiewende” (energy transition towards more renewable energies), can be viewed as the new kid on the block with high attention on a transparent planning process, which makes them an interesting pair for comparison.

2. Legal regulations defining access to information Access to information in German planning and approval procedures is regulated in different laws. The German Freedom of Information Act (IFG) grants each person a legal right of access to official information from federal agencies, e.g. conventional documents, electronically stored information, drawings, graphics, diagrams and audio and video recordings. 11 of the 16 German states have adopted similar laws. A reason or justification is not required to bring a claim for information against federal agencies on the grounds of the Administrative Procedures Act (VwVfG), which regulates, for example, the planning procedure at the approval stage of an electricity grid or federal

15

The Stuttgart 21 project and especially the core of the project — a renewed central train station in Stuttgart — was the reason for heated debates on relative costs and benefits, geological stability and environmental concerns (protection of the cultural heritage of the existing train station and the adjacent Schloßgarten). Starting in 2007 several petitions and public demonstration lead to a ref- erendum in 2011 deciding whether the state of Baden-Württemberg should cease funding for the project. Even though the majority was in favor to continue with the project, following elections marked the Green Parties first majority in a German state, which is seen as a result of their opposition to the project and the hope for more direct democracy and transparent decision-making (Land- eszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg n.d.). 16

In the case of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport the German air-traffic control announced a change of aircraft arrival and departure paths after permission was granted on grounds of different routes. These new flight paths significantly differ from earlier ones and caused a wave of protests and a lawsuit from citizens in areas in southern Berlin. Citizens argue that this misinformation took their right of participation as they could not know who would be affected and planning information was not accessible to them. While access to planning documents was provided after courts threatened with a fine, the lawsuit on grounds of an unlawful planning process was still rejected (Warner, 2011).

CHAPTER 3

51

road project (see Table 6). However, the act contains numerous exceptions by which the right may be restricted or denied completely. For instance, freedom of information only refers to completed processes, therefore no open access to ongoing planning procedures is permitted (§4 IFG). The act further excludes personal data (§5 IFG) and company related data (§6 IFG). In parallel, the German Environmental Information Act (UIG) transforms the first column (access to environmental information) of the Aarhus Convention into national law and entered into force on 14th February 2004. According to the UIG, agencies with obligation to provide information are prompted to actively and systematically inform the public to an appropriate extent about the environment. They should ensure that information is increasingly published on the Internet via databases (§7 UIG). As part of the reform of the federal system, the states have made use of their right of deviation and additionally adopted their own state laws in the field of environmental information. While most state law regulations are similar to the national law (UfU n.d.) Bremen and Hamburg further regulate the implementation of a central electronic environmental information system (§4 BremUIG; §10 HmbTG). Document access as part of the EIA includes the dissemination of the comprehensive description and evaluation of environmental impacts and risk assessment in relation to the protected elements of the environment17 (§10 (2) No. 6 UIG). The Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG) further regulates access to information on projects, plans, and programs subject to an environmental assessment. According to the UVPG (§6 and §9) a project description, baseline description of the environment, expected significant environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, the most important alternatives and decision criteria, as well as other reports and recommendations relevant to the project have to be provided in the context of the public participation process. Deviating regulations in the states Brandenburg (§4(3) BbgUVPG) and Lower Saxony (§14i NUVPG) further regulate the web-based access to documents in the context of public participation in the SEA. In contrast to other countries (e.g. Canada, Austria), the German UVPG and UIG so far provide no regulations for the establishment of a central database for standardized access and availability of documents and process information from environmental assessments (Odparlik et al., 2012). Nevertheless, to meet the requirements of the Council Directive 90/313/EEC on public access to environmental information, Germany and Austria have developed an environmental data catalogue (called Umweltdatencatalog UDK), a meta information system for identifying and locating available environmental information of authorities, institutions, and organizations (for example, ministries and federal and state agencies) (Voell, 2004). Based on an agreement between the German states and the federal government, the UDK was further developed and enhanced with a web interface called PortalU. Established in 2006, the environmental portal of Germany (PortalU) offered the public simple, user-friendly access to environmental websites, metadata, and subject databases of public bodies, including information on EIAs. When the management agreement between federal and state governments on the operation of the portal expired on 31st December 2014, the website was shut down (www.portalu.de). More recently, the Brandenburg country office of recognized conservation associations has launched a website providing information for the participation in environmental issues. The website is part of a research project called “Associations participation 2.0: e-participation in the associations participation” funded by the Federal Environmental Agency and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. The website provides a systematic and cartographic overview of participation opportunities but is restricted to the state of Brandenburg.

17

According to §2 Abs. 3 Nr. 1 UVPG.

52

CHAPTER 3

It is believed, that as many as several thousand EAs have been performed in Germany (GHK, 2010). However, no comprehensive EA documentation exists (Bedke et al., 2006). There are no statistics or empirically robust studies on the number of EAs that have been completed. Since EIA procedures are generally integrated as a dependent part into existing licensing procedures and because the responsible authorities for the licensing process are the same as those for the EA process (Köppel et al., 2004), the responsibility for the EIA and, thus, the focal points for documents and procedural information can vary greatly (Voell, 2004).

3. Method A case study analysis method, with a multiple-case design, was chosen (Yin, 2009), with the aim of evaluating access to EA documents and process information in Germany and the difficulty of a missing central database, as well as varying responsibilities. The analysis consists of two steps: Case selection and evaluation.

1. 1 Step 1: Case selection Considering that, as discussed above, publicly available information on EIAs can be accessed via web-based information systems, websites of lead agencies in the two sectors electricity grid expansion and federal road planning were identified for each planning level. As previous analyses have indicated that legal requirements to provide information have an important influence on the implementation of web-based information distribution, this study compares two planning fields with diverging requirements: electricity grid expansion, with mandatory online provision of information, and federal road planning, without specific regulations demanding web-based access to information. Plans and projects in both sectors are subject to environmental assessment (SEA and EIA) at three planning stages (with the exception of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg, which lack sectoral spatial planning) and, at the same time, have a defined number of projects due to the respective federal requirements plan (FRP) (Table 6) that outlines the demand for a specific number of projects. These projects may have not necessarily entered the corridor planning (phase II) or approval phase (phase III), or they might be further divided into subprojects with separate approval procedures. Therefore, though the total number of conducted EIA/SEAs carried out is not known, there is a clear definition of who would be the lead agency and who should hold information once the planning process starts. In the first step of the analysis, 87 lead agency and five transmission system operator (TSO) websites were identified for further evaluation. For the requirements for planning in phase I, three websites were identified: The two websites of the federal agencies BNetzA and BMVI and one website that is jointly run by four TSOs to provide information on the grid development plan. As the EnWG also requires the TSOs to publish information on their websites, the four websites of 50hertz, Amprion, Tennet and transnetBW were evaluated as well. For the corridor planning in phase II, a total of 36 websites were identified, where 34 are lead agencies for both electricity grid expansion and federal road planning and two are specific to transportation planning. Bremen and Hamburg did not provide information, as this planning stage does not exist in these federal city states. According to §16 ROG Berlin falls under this exception as well, but provides information with the joined planning agency in Brandenburg. At phase III, 49 websites were identified. A great number of agencies are responsible for the plan approval procedure in both planning fields investigated here, but have assigned this task to different departments within the agency. As the provision of information can differ greatly among the departments, they were viewed as separate websites for better comparison of information provision in the two planning fields. Therefore, electricity grid expansion accounts for 19 websites and federal road planning for 30 websites.

CHAPTER 3

53

Documents for EA processes are also commonly provided in the agency offices but this form of information provision is not a subject of the analysis.

1. 2 Step 2: Evaluation The second step of the analysis is based on the proposition that the provided EA information on the Internet is of varying quality and can be evaluated using defined criteria. In the time between March and July 2014, the 92 identified websites were analysed based on a previously developed review framework (Table 5) of relevant evaluation categories and criteria (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013). The framework, which has been adapted to account for the fact that EA in Germany is not a stand-alone process, allows for an evaluation in four review categories: Accessibility of information, notice of projects, provision of documents, and ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment. Each of the categories contains best practice criteria for information access, derived from laws and for the most part from literature (e.g. Hanna and Noble, 2011; Findlay, 2010; Ryan et al., 2011; Sinclair et al., 2012; Claus et al., 2012; Odparlik et al., 2012), thereby going beyond the legislative requirements. To achieve ideal access to information, all criteria must be fulfiled. It must be noted that the analysis only represents a snapshot of a continuously changing source of information, as websites were analysed at one time and not over a period of time. Due to this fact, the analysis might miss information which had been provided for an active planning process, but which was deleted once the decision was made. This limitation of the analysis is discussed further below. Table 5: Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment. Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment Source: Based on Odparlik and Köppel, 2013

Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment (Source: Based on Odparlik and Köppel, 2013) Accessibility of information 

Gives basic information about the planning process, legal aspects and requirements (Clauset al., 2012)  Appoints all institutions involved in the process (e.g. responsible authority, project proponent) with their specific contacts (including contact data, tasks and responsibilities in the process) (Claus et al., 2012, §9 UVPG)  Gives instructions how to use the provided information (Odparlik et al., 2012)  Provides additional services to improve the user experience (e.g. audio or video transmission of public hearings on the internet; reading aid) (Odparlik et al., 2012; Rau et al., 2012)  Enables on-line entry of comments/opinions on the process or to the procedural documents (Odparlik et al., 2012) Notice of projects   

Gives a systematic overview on ongoing and completed projects (Hanna and Noble, 2011) – Provides a list (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013) – Provides a filter function/search mask (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013) Provides basic information about a specific project (abstract) (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Findlay,2010; Claus et al., 2012) Supports the cartographic localization of projects (Hanna and Noble, 2011)

54

CHAPTER 3

Catalogue of criteria for case study assessment (Source: Based on Odparlik and Köppel, 2013) - continued Provision of documents 

Contains documents of plan approval procedure – Notice of intent/application (Hanna and Noble, 2011,§9 UVPG) – Explanatory report (§73 VwVfG) – Other supporting documentation (additional studies, technical information, maps) (Hanna and Noble, 2011) – Notice of hearings (Hanna and Noble, 2011) – Transcripts and other material of public hearings (Odparlik et al., 2012) – Public submissions/comments (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Claus et al., 2012) – Response to public comments (reasons for in- or exclusion) (Odparlik et al., 2012; Rau et al., 2012) – Planning approval notice (decision and reasons for the decision þ list with assessment criteria) (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Claus et al., 2012)  Contains all E(I)A documents (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Claus et al., 2012) – Screening decision (Hanna and Noble, 2011; §9 UVPG) – Scoping documentation (Odparlik et al., 2012) – Impact studies (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Claus et al., 2012; §9 UVPG) – Mitigation requirements/measures (§9 UVPG) – Monitoring and follow-up requirements (Hanna and Noble, 2011) – Monitoring results (Hanna and Noble, 2011) – Non-technical summary (§9 UVPG)  Contains a list of unpublished documents (e.g. on the basis of copyright protection by consultants) (Hanna and Noble, 2011; Findlay, 2010) Ongoing information about the status of the environmental assessment  

2.

Includes an illustration of the general sequence of the process and the current status of progress (Claus et al., 2012) Offers digital information services (e-mail alerts, RSS feeds) in order to follow the activities within the process and provide fair notice (Odparlik et al., 2012)

Case Study: EA for Energy Grid and Federal Road Projects

In federal road as well as electricity grid expansion planning, there is a legal requirement to define the demand of developments on federal level (Grid Development Plan, Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (FTIP)). Both planning fields require corridor planning to delineate the route corridor of either the power line or the federal road (§1 RoV — Regional Planning Decree; §15 ROG — Spatial Planning Act; §4 NABEG; §16 FStrG) and final permission is granted in a plan approval procedure (§§72–78 VwVfG — Administrative Procedures Act; §§18ff. NABEG). All three levels are subject to either SEA or EIA (see UVPG) and therefore, apart from other regulations, require for public participation (Table 6). The necessity for the electricity grid expansion results from the publicly debated “Energiewende” (energy transition towards more renewable energies), which lead to broad media coverage and the aim of a transparent planning process (e.g. EU Grid declaration on transparency and public participation — Renewables Grid Initiative 2012). The Renewable Energies Act (EEG) mandates that renewable energy should account for at least 50% of production by 2030 and gives priority to feeding in and transporting electricity generated from renewables. These targets can only be met by expansion of the extra-high voltage grid. The legal framework (Table 6) is provided by the Energy Industry Act (EnWG), whereas planning and approval procedures are defined in the Power Grid Expansion Act 2009 (EnLAG) and the Grid Expansion Acceleration Act 2011 (NABEG). While the older process of transport infrastructure planning was initially used as a role model (SRU, 2011), the planning process for energy grids now consists of five consecutive steps (Table 6) with several opportunities for public involvement. “The aim is to equip the network landscape for the

CHAPTER 3

55

switch to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible and to reach the necessary decisions together with society as a whole” (BNetzA n.d.). The EnLAG contains 23 projects that have already been assigned a high priority status for future energy supply and necessity for the energy economy in the year 2009. Planning of these projects lies in the responsibility of the federal states. Furthermore, every three years the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMVI) passes the FRP according to NABEG. The FRP 2013 contains 36 projects with high priority. 16 projects are transnational or transboundary projects with BNetzA (Bundesnetzagentur — Federal Network Agency) as lead agency for the corridor planning and planning approval; the federal states are responsible for the other projects which do not cross borders. The 36 projects can be split into single measures in the later planning stages; e.g. Project No. 8 Brunsbüttel — Bundesgrenze (DK) is split into five single sections with separate planning procedures. For grid expansion, §12b (3) and §12c (3) EnWG require the BNetzA and the TSOs to publish information on their websites; for six weeks the Grid Development Plan, the environmental report, and additional information can be downloaded from the website of the BNetzA, in addition to the printed documents that can be viewed at the office of the BNetzA. According to the NABEG, documents of phase II (§9 (4) NABEG) and documents of phase III (§22 (4) NABEG) have to be published on the Internet for one month as well as being made available at the offices of the agencies. Transportation infrastructure planning for federal roads in Germany is regulated in the Highway Expansion Act (FStrAbG) and Federal Highway Act (FStrG). Responsibility for the planning requirements lies with the German Federal Ministry of Transport (BMVI — Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur). The FTIP combines the assessment of concrete network needs in transport corridors with the identification of priority projects based on cost-benefit analysis (Fischer, 2006). The current FTIP (2003) defines a financial framework of 77.5 Billion € for the preservation, development, and new construction of federal roads (autobahn and state highways). A total number of 2,590 projects are categorized by urgent demand (1,588) and further demand (1,002). 358 of these projects are labelled as having a high ecological risk or place a special planning order on nature conservation. Although the UVPG places a requirement on the National Transport Infrastructure Plan to undergo SEA, the 2003 plan has not yet been subject to SEA since the law on SEA only came into force 2004. Nevertheless, impacts to the environment have been recognized with appropriate habitats estimation according to the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and an ecological risk analysis (Fischer, 2006) focusing on cultural landscapes, highly sensitive areas, and unfragmented traffic areas. The legislative process is outlined by the National Transport Infrastructure Plan and concludes with the assessment of a project’s necessity. Once approved, the project is included in the final list in the Annex to the Highway Expansion Act. Unfortunately, this Annex is not publicly available in the Internet and the BMVI as well did not allow access to that plan when requested (“simply too many projects included”). Nevertheless, the procedure outlined for the National Transport Infrastructure Plan 2015 promises several steps of public participation and a transparent planning process. The subsequent delineation of the route corridor is decided in the spatial planning procedure (ROV, with EA and public participation) and/or the line determination procedure (with EA if the project did not undergo a spatial planning procedure). As for grid extension, final decision is granted in the plan approval procedure (Table 6). Table 6: Overview of planning levels, legal provision and responsibilities for electricity grid expansion and federal road planning.

56

CHAPTER 3

Planning phase I requirement planning

Electricity grid expansion planning

Federal road planning

Legal basis: §§12a-e EnWG; §§4-17 NABEG Responsibility: BNetzA + TSOs (step 1+2); BMWI (step 3) Steps:

Legal basis: FStrAbG; Responsibility: BMVI Steps:



Scenario Framework



Grid Development Plan with Environmental Report (§12c (2) EnWG)



Federal Requirements Plan (subject to SEA - §12e (5) EnWG; §§6,8 NABEG)



Scenario Framework



Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (subject to SEA - §19b UVPG)



Requirements Plans as Annex to FStrAbG

Planning phase II corridor planning

Case 1: lines according to NABEG not crossing a boarder & lines acc. to EnLAG Legal basis: §1 (11) RoV; §15 ROG* Lead agency: federal state planning authorities (subject to EIA - §3 + annex 1 UVPG) Case 2: transboundary lines acc. To NABEG Legal basis: §§ 4-17 NABEG Lead agency: BNetzA (subject to SEA - §5 (2) NABEG; §14 + annex 3 UVPG) * Does not apply for Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg

Legal basis: §1 (8) RoV; §15 ROG* Lead agency: federal state spatial planning authorities (subject to EIA - §3 + annex 1 UVPG) Line determination Legal basis: §16 FStrG Lead agency: BMVI (subject to EIA if no spatial planning procedure)

Planning phase III plan approval procedure

Case 1: lines according to NABEG not crossing a boarder & lines acc. to EnLAG Legal basis: §43 ENWG; §§ 72-78 VwVfG Lead agency: federal state planning authority (subject to EIA - §3 + annex 1 UVPG) Case 2: transboundary lines acc. To NABEG Legal basis: §43 ENWG; §§18ff. NABEG Lead agency: BNetzA (subject to EIA - §3 + annex 1 UVPG)

Legal basis: §17 FStrG; §§ 72-78 VwVfG Lead agency: federal state road construction agency and/or middle level authority, commissioned by BMVI (subject to EIA - §3 + annex 1 UVPG)

In the transport sector there are only a few specific regulations regarding web-based access to information. On the first planning level, inclusion of public participation in the drafting of the FTIP 2015 shows the intent to provide access to the FTIP and FRP. On the second level, with the exception of Bavaria (Art. 25 BayLplG), there are no further regulations in the spatial planning law to publish information on the Internet. The same holds for the level of plan approval proceedings.

3.

Results

Results showed diverse performance in the provision of information and online access to documents, not only amongst planning levels or websites on each level, but also for each individual project. Therefore, the provision of documents needs to be viewed separately from the general interpretation of performance.

CHAPTER 3

57

Overall fulfilment of criteria in the categories accessibility of information, notice of projects, and ongoing information was highest for agency websites in phase I and lowest for phase II. The TSO websites on average fulfilled about 60% of the previously defined criteria, proving to be a valuable additional source of information. Agencies at phase II showed an average fulfilment of about 20% of the criteria per website and, therefore, a significantly lower performance than agencies and TSOs in phase I. Agency websites in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Lower Saxon Ministry, Berlin, and Brandenburg showed a fulfilment of more than half of the set criteria, which might be explained by the legal requirement in those states to provide web-based access to SEA documents. On the third planning level, agency websites showed an average fulfilment of one third of criteria per website. Lower Saxony showed outstanding performance with around 60% of criteria met on agency websites for both planning fields. For phase II, the majority of agencies (34 of 36) are responsible for both electricity grid expansion as well as federal road planning projects. As websites addressed both planning sectors, a differentiated analysis was not possible for this phase (see Table 7 - Table 9 and Figure 8). Therefore, comparison of both planning sectors was based on the results for phases I and III and revealed only minor differences.

3. 1

Accessibility of information

The analysis showed that basic information about the general planning process, its legal aspects, and requirements were provided on the majority of websites (app. 80%) across all planning phases and for both sectors (Table 7). Nevertheless, basic information on the process of EIA or SEA was only provided on one third of the websites. Also, simple instructions about how to use the provided information were given on one-third of the websites, equally distributed among the sectors but highest for phase III (app. 44%). This analysis mainly investigated the websites of responsible authorities. Therefore, it does not seem surprising that in the majority of cases the contact information of the responsible authority has been provided. In many cases a specific contact person within the department was named. The comparison between the two planning fields shows that for the federal road planning sector a smaller number of websites (app. 20%) provide contact information on the project proponent. This can be explained by the fact that the project proponent is the responsible authority at the same time; a fact which was not explained for the public. Information on other involved agencies or experts was rarely provided (app. 10%). IT services to improve the user experience were provided on about 10% of the websites, including explanatory videos of the planning process, (3D) simulations, glossaries and FAQ compilations, reading aids for EIS, content in English, and sign language and/or simple language. One website even provides the option to have text read out loud. E-participation in form of online comments was only used on four websites and only in phase I and phase II of the planning process, though equally for both sectors.

58

CHAPTER 3

Table 7: Results on the accessibility of information in the investigated cases Source: Author.

Criteria for the accessibility of Phase I information Grid Transp. Total number of websites

1

1

Phase II

Phase III

Grid + Grid Transp. 36

TSOs

Transp.

19

30

5

Gives basic information about the planning process, legal aspects and requirements: General Planning Process

1

1

14

14

27

5

EA

0

1

7

7

13

2

Appoints all institutions involved in the process with their specific contacts: Responsible authority

1

1

17

17

25

3

Project proponent

1

1

7

7

5

5

other

1

0

2

2

3

2

Gives instructions how to use the provided information

0

1

2

8

10

1

Provides additional services to improve the user experience

1

0

3

0

1

3

Enables on-line entry of comments/opinions

1

1

2

0

0

0

3. 2

Notice of projects

In both planning sectors, more than 70% of the websites provide information on ongoing planning processes and thereby indicate where participation might be possible. In the intermediate planning phase II less than 40% of the websites inform visitors about ongoing and completed projects. Also the number of websites providing information on completed electricity grid expansion projects is significantly smaller (less than 50%) which might be ascribed to the young planning field. Project information labelled as ongoing does not necessarily indicate the exact planning stage, e.g. screening or participation, and therefore does not allow conclusions to be drawn about which information should be there. Due to this omission, the documents presented here cannot be further categorized by ongoing and completed projects, even though the provision of documents for ongoing projects is most interesting in terms of public participation. While most of the websites list ongoing and completed planning processes, none provided a specific filter or search function to browse through the projects. Table 8: Results on the notice of projects in the investigated cases.

Criteria for the notice of projects

Phase I Grid

Total number of websites

Phase II Transp.

Phase III

Grid + Grid Transp.

TSOs

Transp.

1

1

36

19

30

5

Ongoing projects

1

1

13

13

21

5

Completed projects

1

1

10

8

18

3

Provides a list with projects

1

0

11

15

23

5

Gives a systematic overview on:

CHAPTER 3 Criteria for the notice of projects

Phase I Grid

59 Phase II

Transp.

Phase III

Grid + Grid Transp.

TSOs

Transp.

Provides a filter function/search mask to sort projects

0

0

0

0

0

0

Provides basic information about a specific project (abstract)

1

1

10

9

7

5

Supports the cartographic localization of projects

1

0

4

1

0

2

While the provision of a short abstract was common in about 60% of the websites for electricity grid expansion planning in phase III, only 30% of phase II agency websites and federal road planning websites stay had this feature. Also a mapped view of project locations was rarely available (overall below 10%, none in the federal road planning sector). One phase II agency uses the potential of their regional land cadaster to reference regionally relevant linear projects like grids and roads. Unfortunately there is no open access and a CD containing that information is only available at a price of 123,50 €. The federal network agency presents a good example, providing maps of Germany with electricity grid expansion planning according to the FRP and the Power Grid Expansion Act 2009 (www.netzausbau.de).

3. 3

Provision of documents

The category “provision of documents” refers to documents of the planning approval process (e.g. regional planning procedure or plan-approval procedure) and the EA documents. While 40 of the 92 investigated websites do not provide any documents, among those that do the provision of documents varies greatly between the different planning phases. The two phase I agency websites for electricity grid expansion and transport planning both provide general approval process documents. As the FTIP has never been subject to SEA before, SEA documents are only provided by the federal network agency. For corridor planning (phase II) one third of the agencies provide process documents for 39 projects (14 federal road and 25 electricity grid expansion projects). Impact assessment documents are only provided by six agencies. Five publish only their screening decisions and these are often restricted to negative screening decisions. Among the 12 agencies that provide documents at phase II, planning decisions (24) and supporting documents like maps (27) were most commonly provided. At the same time, documentation related to public participation was rarely provided. Less than 20% of the websites provide a notice, transcripts or other material of public hearings, public comments, response to those comments, or reasons for in- or exclusion. The six agencies with EA documents provided impact studies for one quarter of the projects, while none of the agencies provided information on monitoring requirements or results (Fig. 1).

60

CHAPTER 3

Provision of documents in phase II [%] notice of intent explanatory report supporting documentation (e.g. maps) notices of hearings transcripts and other material of public hearings public submissions/comments response to public comments decision and reasons for the decision screening decision scoping documentation impact studies mitigation requirements monitoring and follow-up requirements monitoring results non-technical summary 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Figure 8: Provision of documents in the phase II (corridor planning) in both sectors.

In the third planning phase, almost three quarters of lead agency websites provide documents on the plan approval procedure for 282 cases (54 electricity grid expansion planning; 213 federal road planning). Nearly half of the agency websites, three times as many as in the second planning phase, provide EA documents as well. The analysis shows (see Fig. 2) that more than 50% of the websites specific to electricity grid expansion planning publish a notice of intent, explanatory report, and supporting documentation. About 44% use the website to announce the planning decision and reasons for it. This number is significantly lower than, for example the supporting, documentation, but might be explained by the fact that not all the projects have yet had a final decision issued. For websites with separation of ongoing and completed projects, the provided documents for a completed project were often restricted to the planning decision. For the federal road planning, more than 60% used the websites to publish the decision and reasons for it, as well as supporting documentation. Similar to the second planning phase, the provision of information surrounding the process of public participation was relatively low compared to the other categories. Of the agencies responsible for the grid expansion planning, 32% publish notices of hearings on their websites. Only 16% of the websites for federal road planning do this. Most of the websites have a general register of public announcements or a digital version of their official gazette that announces hearings, but fail to provide that information (e.g. via link) on the subpage with the project information.

CHAPTER 3

61

Provision of documents in phase III [%] notice of intent explanatory report supporting documentation (e.g. maps) notices of hearings transcripts and other material of public hearings public submissions/comments response to public comments decision and reasons for the decision screening decision scoping documentation impact studies mitigation requirements monitoring and follow-up requirements monitoring results non-technical summary 0

10

20

Grid Expansion Planning

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Transport Planning

Figure 9: Provision of documents in the phase III (plan approval procedure) in the two sectors: Electricity grid expansion planning (blue) and federal road planning (light grey).

Figure 9 demonstrates that the provision of EA documents is focused on the impact studies and mitigation requirements in both sectors, with a generally higher information provision in electricity grid expansion planning. In the federal road planning sector the requirements of mitigation measures are published even more frequently than the impact studies. A non-technical summary of the impact study is required by UVPG but less than a quarter of the websites provide this. Between 15% and 20% of websites provide information on screening decisions (decision whether an environmental assessment has to be carried out); often on negative screening decisions within the general announcements, sometimes with a registry on screening decisions. Scoping information (definition of the scope of the assessment) is only provided for two federal road projects. Similar to phase II, phase III websites also did not provide any documents on monitoring and follow-up requirements or monitoring results.

3. 4

Ongoing information

Across all planning phases less than a quarter of websites illustrated the general planning sequence and/or the current status of the process (see Table 9). A good example is presented by the TSO transnet BW (www.transnetbw.de) that supports project information with a timeline of the planning process. As the indication of the status alone would require visiting the websites on a regular basis, one out of four websites announces new information via e-mail alerts, RSS feed, Twitter, or Facebook. 50 hertz (www.50hertz.com) even provides this service specific to each project.

62

CHAPTER 3

Table 9: Results on the provision of ongoing information in the investigated cases.

Criteria for the provision of ongo- Phase I ing information Grid Transp.

Phase II

Phase III

Grid + Grid Transp.

TSOs

Transp.

Total number of websites

1

1

36

19

30

5

Includes an illustration of the general sequence of the process and the current status

1

1

5

5

4

5

Offers digital information services (email alerts, RSS feeds) in order to follow the activities within the process and provide fair notice

1

1

7

3

8

3

4.

Discussion

Analysis of Germany’s performance in the online dissemination of planning information in the electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors shows a diverse range of interpretations of the legal regulations. Supporting the first proposition, that publicly available information on environmental assessments can be accessed via web-based information systems, analysis of both planning sectors has shown that more than 70% of the websites provide information on ongoing planning processes. Agency websites in states with more specific online access regulations did not show significantly better performance. The initial assumption that the new planning field might show better performance in the provision of information due to its media attention and additional regulations has not materialized for all planning phases. In the provision of information on completed projects, electricity grid expansion planning even showed lower performance than the federal road planning sector, but that may be explained by the fact that it is simply a young planning field with smaller number of projects that have actually been completed.

4. 1

Accessibility of information

Layperson-expert tensions, or the so-called “expertise barrier” (the lack of scientific, technical or political knowledge; Parthasarathy, 2010, p. 355), is a common phenomenon in environmental decision-making processes (Hourdequin et al., 2012). Wiklund (2011, p. 172) showed “that the insufficient knowledge of the EA process and the opportunities of participation is the single most important reason for non-participation.” Consequently, the first step in overcoming this barrier is the transparent provision of planning documents as well as education on the planning process and how to locate, interpret, and effectively utilise this information. Results indicate a clear need for improvement in this regard, especially in the provision of basic knowledge about the EIA and SEA process. To increase the transparency of the planning process, a website should list all institutions involved in the process (e.g. responsible authority, project proponent, and other experts like the environmental planner) with their specific contacts, tasks, and responsibilities (Claus et al., 2012; §9 UVPG). While this information was provided for the majority of the lead agencies, improvement is needed for the contact information of the project proponent. There is a clear need to improve the information on the responsibilities within the planning process. Especially in the federal road planning sector, the fact that the lead agency and project proponent are often the same agency needs to be clearly communicated to increase transparency. Contacts for independent experts

CHAPTER 3

63

could be provided on a voluntary basis, especially when the participation process faces trust issues. The planning documents published online needs improvement in the area of information on and in support of public participation. This deficit is reflected in the infrequent use of participatory web 2.0 elements. For most of the websites investigated, information provision represents a oneway process where dialogue (two-way approach) is limited to public hearings and informational events and is rarely offered on websites via comment functions. International registries have shown the use of a variety of IT services like audio recordings of hearings or explanatory videos to improve the user experience (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013). Yet only four of the investigated websites allow an online posting of comments. Only eight sites allow rapid localization of ongoing assessments using maps. Just 10% use other IT services such as 3D simulations, explanatory videos or question pools (FAQs). Even though Germany is often seen as a role model in the implementation of the “Energiewende” and one of the leading countries in environmental information science, there is both a need and potential for better implementation in the German administrative procedures and for Germany to learn from international approaches when it comes to the implementation of IT services in support of e-participation. One advanced example is provided by the US Bureau of Land Management Comment Submission Wizard, which allows marking and direct comments on specific text passages in the planning document. Also the use of audio recordings of hearings and audio webcasts (e.g. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry; Mackenzie Valley Review Board) can further improve the process of participation. As approaches of e-participation are generally limited to active planning processes and this analysis only presents a snapshot of the situation during the time of investigation, past applications of e-participation might not have been recognized, e.g. when the specific websites have been taken down once the procedure was completed. Nevertheless, as Schulze-Wolf and Köhler (2008) have shown, e-participation has been successful in the past, for example by the Lower-Saxony Authority for Road Construction and Traffic. In the regional impact assessment procedure for the A 22 motorway the public was informed and able to comment on different alternative routes of the proposed project via a web-based information portal. While in the presented case, e-participation was not utilised in the expected intensity (mainly due to organizational barriers as e.g. habits, paper-based workflows, or missing human resources), the authors argued that the degree of participation can be enhanced with targeted introduction and education about the instruments of eparticipation. Compared to traditional forms of participation using analog media, with high production costs due to the large amounts of impact assessment documents and the logistic effort of providing access, e-participation has the benefit of reaching considerably more participants in a significantly larger area with the same financial outlay. Additionally, the ability to get involved (e.g. via commenting) through forms of e-participation eliminates the otherwise restricting factors of time and place (Schulze-Wolf and Köhler, 2008). Readability of documents was not part of the scope of this analysis, nevertheless it constitutes an important aspect which should not be neglected in the discussion about access to information, as formal access to documents does not necessarily lead to substantive accessibility (Hourdequin et al., 2012). Guidelines on plain language and document readability as for example published by the Washington State Department of Transportation show promising approaches.

4. 2

Notice of projects

A systematic overview of ongoing planning processes with EA provides initial information where participation might be possible (Hanna and Noble, 2011). This fact is well recognized and

64

CHAPTER 3

reflected by the more than 70% of websites informing visitors about ongoing planning processes. Judging the amount of provided information (number of cases) through a comparison with the FRP proved to be difficult. While the Transport Infrastructure Plan, for example, defines 2590 projects of urgent and further demand, the investigated websites only provided information on 213 projects in the third planning phase. While one might initially see that as a poor provision of information, not all of the projects defined in the requirements plan have necessarily entered the corridor planning or approval phase yet. Nevertheless, information on the respective planning status is often missing, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about whether all existing documents are actually provided for download. Previous analyses (Odparlik and Köppel, 2013) and conversations with lead agency staff have indicated that provision of information and sensitive planning documents is often restricted by privacy policies (e.g. on the basis of trade secrets). One approach to deal with this restrictions, and nonetheless support a transparent planning process, is to use a list of unpublished documents. For example, the California Energy Commission provided a Docket Log, listing all documents filed in a proceeding. This approach was not used by any of the investigated German agencies and TSOs.

4. 3

Provision of documents

The analysis showed that EA documents are only provided by one third of agency websites and, even on these websites, the types of documents provided differs from case to case. It must be noted that the analysis only represents a snapshot of a continuously changing source of information, as websites were not analysed over a period of time. Due to this fact, the analysis might miss information which had been provided for an active planning process but which was deleted once the decision was made. This limitation is apparent in the amount of documents provided for completed planning procedures: documents in addition to the planning decision are often not supplied. While limited agency web space might be a possible reason, further research needs to be done in this regard. As this analysis is restricted to online access of documents, the presented results do not reflect the document provision in offices of lead agencies. Impact studies and documents on mitigation requirements were most frequently provided, but were still found in less than 40% of agency websites in phase III. It must be mentioned that mitigation requirements can result from other environmental planning instruments, e.g. the impact regulation under nature conservation law or the EU habitats directive. Scoping information was only provided in two cases. This is not surprising as the German Planning process does not foresee participation of the public at the scoping stage as the US NEPA does (Köppel et al., 2012). Nevertheless, next to the evaluation of alternatives and gathering of baseline environmental information, this step is also intended for gathering input and identifying affected parties (Slotterback, 2009). Access to scoping protocols could be used by the public and foster the contribution of comments, thereby allowing different values and interests to be integrated into the project at an early stage of planning. Furthermore public involvement can provide information that might have been overlooked otherwise and thereby promote consensus around environmental impacts (Baker and Rapaport, 2005).

4. 4

Ongoing information

During the course of the planning process, it is important for the user to stay informed about the progress and status of the environmental assessments. While a quarter of websites already uses IT-services like RSS feeds to keep the interested public informed, their use should be further increased and a clear indication of the overall planning sequence and the current status needs to be added.

CHAPTER 3

4. 5

65

A central portal

Besides some basic explanation of the two later planning stages, information provision on the two federal agency websites is restricted to requirement planning (phase I), even though they would naturally lend themselves as central portals or meta-information systems as newly requested by the EU or applied internationally, e.g. in Canada, USA, or Austria. A central portal might lead to reduction in the number of agencies with different interpretation and understanding of information provision. A central database on EA information offers online public access to data, 24 h a day from anywhere, and these benefits are not restricted to improved public participation. Such a central database, for example, allows for easier consideration of cumulative effects (King et al., 2012) as projects in one area are referenced within the same database and can be rapidly localised. It can support the goal of tiering on vertical and horizontal levels (Wiegert, 2009), as previous findings can easily be accessed, minimizing the costs and duration of assessments. Additionally, it can provide a database for research on EA, as seen in Austria where the database is used every three years for extensive analysis on their EIA implementation and performance (Odparlik et al., 2013). Implementation of these forms of e-Government, “calls for an integration and networking of public authorities, which will have a tremendous impact on organizational structures and responsibilities, on data access and on the way governmental work will be performed in the future” (Wimmer, 2002), which makes a common standard inevitable.

5.

Conclusion

Analysis of Germany’s performance in online dissemination of planning information in the electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors shows a diverse range of interpretations of the legal regulations. A common standard — what and how to provide access especially to documents within the EIA and SEA procedure — is missing. Here applied analysis criteria might offer a starting point. Information provision needs to be improved, especially in terms of public participation and to provide a common basis for consensus building. For example, the planning status and general knowledge what information can be expected at each stage should be clearly indicated. If documents have been prepared but online access is denied, this should be communicated as well. Furthermore, access to scoping protocols could foster public contribution of comments and thereby allow different values and interests to be integrated into the project at an early stage of planning (Baker and Rapaport, 2005). Implementation of a central portal would further support the establishment of a common standard. For now, some questions remain. What factors currently drive and hinder federal agencies from consistently publishing information on planning processes, especially EA documents, on their websites? How do agencies with insufficient online information provision explain their shortcomings? Is it the missing standard, conflicting laws on data protection, lack of experience with the manifold IT services or simply a question of power relations and costs?

66

6.

CHAPTER 3

References

Baker, D.; Rapaport, E. (2005): The science of assessment: Identifying and predicting environmental impacts. In: Hanna, K.S. (ed.): Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bartlett, R.V.; Kurian, P.A. (1999): The theory of environmental impact assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy & Politics 27(4): 415–433. BayLplG (Bayerisches Landesplanungsgesetz) [Bavarian State Planning Act] (2012). Online: https://www.region-suedostoberbayern.bayern.de/verband/bayLplG_2012.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. BbgUVPG (Brandenburgisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act of Brandenburg] 2002. Revised 2010. Online: http:// www.bravors.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid¼land_bb_bravors_01.c.47292.de [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Bedke, N.; Dopfer, J.; Kellert, S.; Kober, D. (2006): Evaluation des Gesetzes über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprü-fung. Auswirkungen auf den Vollzug des Umweltrechts und die Durchführung von Zulassungsverfahren. UVP-Report 20(5): 211–214. BNetzA (Bundesnetzagentur) [Federal Network Agency] (n.d.): How it works: Grid expansion in five steps. Online: http://www.netzausbau.de/cln_1411/EN/Verfahren/Verfahren-node.html [Accessed 23.09.2014]. BremUIG (Umweltinformationsgesetz für das Land Bremen) [Environmental Information Act of Bremen] (2005). Online: http://www.bauumwelt.bremen.de/sixcms/media.php/ 13/BremUIG.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Claus, F.; Hampe, J.; Hinzke, L.; Lühr, K.; Paust, A.; Renkamp, A.; Versteyl, A. (2012): Mehr Transparenz und Bürgerbeteiligung. Prozessanalysen und Empfehlungen am Beispiel von Fernstraßen, Industrieanlagen und Kraftwerken. Vorabversion der Studie. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. Online: http://www.dialoggestalter.de/fileadmin/Media/Downloads/Studie- Buergerbeteiligung-Prozessanalysen-Infrastruktur.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [2014] OJ L124/1. Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri¼CELEX:32014L0052& from¼EN [Accessed 23.09.2014]. DIRECTIVE 2003/4/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC [2003] OJL 41/26. Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2003:041:0026:0032:EN:PDF [Accessed 23.09.2014]. EEG (Gesetz für den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien) [Renewable Energies Act] (2014). Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/eeg_2014/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. EnLAG (Gesetz zum Ausbau von Energieleitungen) [Power Grid Expansion Act] (2009). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/enlag/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. EnWG (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung) [Energy Industry Act] (2005). Revised 2014. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/enwg_2005/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Findlay, S. C. (2010): The CEAA Registry as a tool for evaluating CEAA effectiveness. Workshop Presentation. [cited 17 July 2012] Available from: http://www.oaia.on.ca/documents/2010conf/Findlay%20CEAA%20workshop. Fischer, T. B. (2006): Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: Towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3): 183–197. Fischer, T. B. (2007): Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment — Towards a More Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. FStrAbG (Gesetz über den Ausbau der Bundesfernstraßen) [Highway Expansion Act] (2005). Revised 2006. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/fstrausbaug/ BJNR008730971.html [Accessed 23.09.2014].

CHAPTER 3

67

FStrG (Bundesfernstraßengesetz) [Federal Highway Act] (1953). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/fstrg/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Gaunthier, M.; Simard, L.; Waaub, J.-P. (2011): Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32(1): 48–60. GHK (2010): Collection of information and data to support the Impact Assessment study of the review of the EIA directive. A study for DG Environment. London. Hanna, K. (2000): The paradox of participation and the hidden role of information — A case study. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(4): 398–410. Hanna, K.; Noble, B. (2011): The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry: Promise and Reality. UVPReport 25(4): 222–225. Hartley, N.; Wood, C. (2005): Public participation in environmental impact assessment— implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(4): 319–340. HmbTG (Hamburgisches Tranzparengesetz) [Transparency Act of Hamburg] (2012). Online: http://www.luewu.de/gvbl/2012/29.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Hourdequin, M.; Landres, P.; Hanson, M. J.; Craig, D. R. (2012): Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 35: 37–44. IFG (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz) [Freedom of Information Act] (2005). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/ifg/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Jha-Thakur, U.; Gazzola, P.; Peel, D.; Fischer, T. B.; Kidd, S. (2009): Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment — The significance of learning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(2): 133–144. King, N.; Rajvanshi, A.; Willoughby, S.; Roberts, R.; Mathur, V. B.; Cadman, M; Chavan, V. (2012): Improving access to biodiversity data for, and from, EIAs — A data publishing framework built to global standards. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(3): 148–156. Kramer, H. J.; Legat, R.; Naggy, M.; Mayer, J.; Schleidt, K.; Paneli, M. (2011): Die österreichische Umweltinformationspolitik als Vorreiter der Open Government Data Entwicklungen. Online: http://www. conect.at/uploads/tx_posseminar/CONECT_Legat_UI_Vorreiter_von_OGD_2311 2011.pdf. [Accessed 13.02.2013] Köppel, J.; Geißler, G.; Helfrich, J.; Reisert, J. (2012): A Snapshot of Germany’s EIA Approach in light of the United States Archetype. Journal of Environmental Policy and Management 14(4): 1250022-1– 1250022-21. Köppel, J.; Peters, W.; Wende, W. (2004): Eingriffsregelung, Umweltverträglichkeit sprüfung, FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung. Stuttgart (Hohenheim), Ulmer GmbH & Co. Landeszentrale für Politische Bildung (n.d.): Landtagswahl 2011 in Baden-Württemberg. Online: http://www.landtagswahl-bw.de/ [Accessed 22.09.2014]. NABEG (Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetz Übertragungsnetz) [Grid Expansion Acceleration Act] (2011). Revised 2012. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/nabeg/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz [Lower Saxony Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection] (n.d): Raumordnungsverfahren. Online: http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php? navigation_id¼1558&article_id¼4666&_psmand¼7 [Accessed 23.09.2014]. NUVPG (Niedersächsisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act of Lower Saxony] (2007). Revised 2010. Online: http:// www.nds-voris.de [Accessed 23.09.2013]. Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(4): 324–331. Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J.; Geißler, G. (2013): The grass is always greener on the other side: Der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-Report 26(5): 236– 243. Parthasarathy, S. (2010): Breaking the expertise barrier: Understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy 37(5): 355–367.

68

CHAPTER 3

Rau, I.; Hildebrand, J.; Weingarten, E. (2012): Increasing public acceptance by participation in grid expansion procedures — Opportunities and limits of the legal framework. UVP-Report 26(3&4): 166–175. Renewables Grid Initiative (2012): European grid declaration on transparency and public participation. Extension of the European grid declaration on electricity network development and nature conservation in Europe, 2011. Online: http://renewables-grid.eu/ fileadmin/user_upload/Files_RGI/European_Grid_Declaration_2nd_Part.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. ROG (Raumordnungsgesetz) (2008). Revised 2009. Online:http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/rog_2008/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. RoV (Raumordnungsverordnung) (1990). Revised 2012. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/rov/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Ryan, C. M.; Brody, D. O. B.; Lunde, A. I. (2011): NEPA Documents at the US Forest Service: A Blessing and a Curse? UVP-Report 25(4): 192–197. Schulze-Wolf, T.; Köhler, S. (2008): Online-Beteiligung für das Raumordnungsverfahren zur Küstenautobahn A22. UVP-Report 22(3): 104–110. Sinclair, A. J.; Schneider, G.; Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: Experiences of public participants. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(2): 85–93. Slotterback, C. S. (2009): Scoping implementation in National Environmental Policy Act processes in US transport agencies. Transport Research Part D 14: 83–90. SRU – German Advisory Council on the Environment (2011): Pathways towards a 100% renewable electricity system. Special report. Online: http://www.umweltrat.de/Share- dDocs/Downloads/EN/02_Special_Reports/2011_10_Special_Report_Pathways_ renewables.html [Accessed 23.09.2014]. UfU – Indipendent Institute for Environmental Issues (n.d.): Umweltinformationsrecht. Online: http://www.umweltinformationsrecht.de/ umweltinformationsrecht.html [Accessed 23.09.2014]. UIG, Umweltinformationsgesetz (2004). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/uig_2005/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. UVPG (Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung) (2010). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/uvpg/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Voell, M. (2004): The Umweltdatenkatalog as a repository for environmental impact studies. In: Minier, P and A Susini (eds.): Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Informatics for Environmental Protection: 549–557. Genève. VwVfG (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) (2003). Revised 2013. Online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/vwvfg/gesamt.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014]. Walker, H.; Sinclair, A. J.; Spaling, H. (2014): Public participation in and learning through SEA in Kenya. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 45: 1–9. Warner, M. B. (2011): Saying no to noise: Resistance builds to planned flight paths at New Berlin Airport. Spiegel Online International. Online: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-749894.html [Accessed 22.09.2014]. Wende, W.; Scholles, F.; Hartlik, J. (2012): Twenty-five years of EIA in Germany: Our child has grown up. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14(4): 1250023-1–1250023-15. Wester, M.; Mörn, C. (2013): Gender and public participation: A study of Swedish public debate on the Nord Stream gas pipeline from a gender perspective. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(03): 1350016-1-20. Wiklund, H. (2011): Why high participatory ideals fail in practice: A bottom-up approach to public nonparticipation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(2): 159–178. Wiegert, M. (2009): Tiering and levels of consideration in transport planning — The example of the motorway A 22. UVP-Report 23(1&2): 88–89. Wimmer, M. A. (2002): A European perspective towards online one-stop government: The e-GOV project. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1: 92–103. Yin, R. K. (2009): Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publisher.

CHAPTER 4

69

Chapter 4 Prerequisites and barriers to access to EA documents and process information 18

Translated for this PhD Thesis. Original published in German as Odparlik, L. F.; Kerkemeyer, A. (2016): Voraussetzungen und Hindernisse beim Zugang zu UVP-Dokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen – Wo geht es zur Einheit in der Vielfalt? Natur + Recht 38: 529–538. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10357-016-3050-7 © Springer Comment: Due to the nature of the original paper, which has been published in a law journal, citation has been adopted. 18

70

CHAPTER 4

Requirements and obstacles of access to EIA documents and procedural information – how to get unity within diversity? Lisa Friederike Odparlik/Andreas Kerkemeyer* Abstract To make public participation possible there first needs to be active information provision to the public. Here, the ongoing digitalization process gives agencies a lot of possibilities to make information available to the public effectively and at a low cost. By now, lawmakers have also created regulations that mandate actively providing information for the public online. This follows the current trend in environmental law of more publicly available documents. At the same time, this trend is not without exceptions; some administrative agencies still have problems with making “their” information available to the public online. The ongoing digitalization does not just offer the possibility to inform the public but also use web-based participation methods when public participation is needed. It is much easier to collect objections online or through emails. This study looks at to what extent there is a lack of implementation of active access to information in Germany in EIA and SEA processes. It also discusses the factors which hinder and support the active online provision of information by agencies as well as the prevalence of online participation possibilities.

1. Introduction In Germany, the executive branch’s intelligence is generally a secret. 19 Unless there is a statutory provision granting the public right to know, the public does not have an overview of what information the state has. The extensive rights of the executive to keep information secret is thereby the source of the lack of transparency in administrations and ultimately still stems from monarchic times.20 However, this understanding is subject to a continuous and fundamental change in many areas of law. These changes particularly apply to environmental law. Since a couple of years ago, we have witnessed a development away from secrecy to an environmental right to know.21 There are different purposes of public access to governmental information. On the one hand it is a means to democratically restrict and control exercise of power.22 Furthermore, public access

*

We want to thank all participants of the online survey that this study is based on. We also want to thank Prof. Dr. jur. Christian-W. Otto, Carsten Alsleben, Mirko Buggel, Detlev Urbanitz, Pia Wagner, the staff of the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group of TU Berlin, and our advisors Prof. Johann Köppel and Prof. Dr. Andreas Fisahn for all the constructive criticism. 19 Hornung, in: Towfigh/Schmolke/Petersen/Lutz-Bachmann/Lange/Grefrath (ed.), Recht und Markt. Wechselbeziehungen zweier Ordnungen, 2009, p. 75, 81. More detailed in Wegener, Der geheime Staat, Göttingen 2006, p. 3 – 30. 20 Nietsch, GewArch Beilage WiVerw 2/2014, 120. Fort the intellectual discourse on „publicity“ see Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit, Frankfurt am Main 1990, p. 178 – 224 and Wegener, Der geheime Staat, Göttingen 2006, p. 138 – 186. 21 Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 72. 22 Kloepfer, Informationsrecht, 2002, §10, Rn. 12. “Rather, environmental awareness in the population and thus the overall goal of environmental protection shall be strengthened with the help of comprehensive information possibilities.” (original: „Vielmehr soll durch Gewährung umfassender Informationsmöglichkeiten das Umweltbewußtsein der Bevölkerung gestärkt und damit das übergeordnete Ziel der Verbesserung des Umweltschutzes) (Erwägungsgrund Nr. 4 der Richtlinie 90/313/EWG, ABIEG Nr. L 158 vom 23.6.90, S. 56.) gefördert werden“. Schmillen, Das Umweltinformationsrecht zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Berlin 2003, p. 18.

CHAPTER 4

71

oftentimes only makes the legal protection by the state possible since it allows people to understand their rights.23 As a result, the right to information significantly increases the position of the people against the state. Thus, well informed citizens should be able to regularly influence the government’s decisions. It makes sense to distinguish between two different constellations when looking at the question of how the general public or affected citizens can get access to governmental data. If the state complies with the public demand for information it can be called passive access to information.24 This is the case when the request for information is made based on the Environmental Information Act (Umweltinformationsgesetz UIG) or the Freedom of Information Act (FIA; Informationsfreiheitsgesetz IFG). If, however, the state provides information without it being requested by the public, it can be called active access to information.25 This differentiation shall be taken as a basis because it makes it possible to distinguish between the two different situations in which information is provided. Passive access to information is, without a doubt, an important instrument to get access to certain (environmental) information. However, this can only be made possible selectively and is tied to requests and applications. This is different in the case of active access to information; it requires a much higher level of initiative on the part of the authorities. The opportunities for participation are significantly increased if active access to information is designed in a way that the public can have a good overview of the planned environmental procedures without a lot of effort. The gradual digitalization, in particular the development of the Internet, gives way to opportunities that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.26 Furthermore, active access to information allows, through the early and thorough informing of the public, to better prevent mistrust in the decisions that authorities will have to take.27 This is particularly the case in procedures that are deemed “politically controversial.”28 Altruistic motives are therefore unlikely to be the only cause for active access to information through agencies.29 Active information provision to the (affected) public seems important in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), both of which are intended to include public participation on a regular basis. Here, the prior (active) disclosure of information only makes participation possible. This is also mirrored in the amended EIA-Directive30 from 2014. There now exists the requirement to provide “relevant information” digitally, for example.31 Furthermore, the continual digitalization allows for new web-based opportunities

Kloepfer, Informationsrecht, 2002, §10, Rn. 12. Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 72. 25 Schmillen, Das Umweltinformationsrecht zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Berlin 2003, p. 38. The relationship is insofar contradictory as the active element does not refer to access to information but the guarantee of that access. Article 6(6) of the Aarhus Convention does already require that the member states guarantee access to certain environmental information. However, this provision allows member states to only grant access upon request. 26 Von der Helm, Entwicklung des Internet. Online: http://dvdh.de/internet/entwicklung-des-internet.html (last accessed: 02 May 2016). 27 „Establishing trust may be gained through increases in transparency and understanding, preconditions that the stakeholder appear to seek to reach through providing more thorough information”. Olsen/Hansen, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2014, 72, 77. 28 Odparlik/Köppel/Geißler, UVP-report 2012, 236, 236. 29 Hourdequin/Landes/Hanson/Craig, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2012, 37, 38 – describe the goal to minimize the number of objections or, in extreme cases, lawsuits by informing the public and allowing their participation. This can then lower the costs of the planning process since the decision will have wider acceptance. 30 Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and the Council from 16 April 2014 for the changing of Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessments for certain public and private projects, Abl. EU No. L 124 p. 1. 31 Art. 6(5) Directive 2014/52/EU mandates that “relevant information should be made available to the public electronically at the appropriate administrative level, at least through a central portal or simply via accessible access 23 24

72

CHAPTER 4

for participation, e.g. the online submission of comments and objections regardless of location and opening hours of the responsible authorities.32 Web-based systems can, within the framework of public participation, take over many different functions: 1. Notification of ongoing processes, 2. provision of documents and basic information about the process of Environmental Assessment (EA), 3. the possibility for online participation and 4. the ongoing provision of information on the state of the process.33 In 2011, Zschiesche/Sperfeld researched to what extent the legally intended paradigm shift in the area of information law has already reached the code of practice of agencies that are required to provide information.34 They realized that there is a huge lack of implementation in the case of passive access to information at private and public agencies in Germany that are required to provide information.35 They came to the conclusion that the, in part overlapping, vague, and unclear legal regulations are a burden to the provision of environmental information.36 The requests were denied by authorities that are required to provide information due to different reasons, for example: no data was available, another agency was responsible, the request was not concrete enough, the data was still being processed, or the requested data was not environmental information or classified.37 In 2015, Odparlik studied 92 websites of authorities that are required to provide information and could also find a lack of enforcement in active provision of documents in the area of EIA and SEA.38 While 40 websites did not make any documents available for download, only about one third of the websites have information about the EIA and SEA process. These websites did, however, show a clear deficit in providing information for and about public participation. It can be assumed that there are certain parallels in the reasons for a missing or insufficient active access to information and the grounds for refusal in the area of passive access to information identified by Zschiesche/Sperfeld. In both cases the authority has to decide whether it will allow outsiders insights into “their” documents. It has not yet been researched how agencies that are required to provide information can justify the varying current practice of active provision of information. A study of this reasoning seems useful since conclusions can then be drawn on the motivation of the authorities that are required to provide information. It also allows for conclusion on hindering and supporting factors for active provision of information. A lack of implementation in environmental law has been observed early on.39 Even if a lot of facts support the idea that there is a lack of implementation, this thesis is too general to create counter strategies. It seems more suitable to study the factors that lead to a (non-)compliance of the legal regulations in a certain area, for example right to environmental information. There are already

points.” (original: „einschlägigen Informationen der Öffentlichkeit auf der angemessenen Verwaltungsebene elektronisch zugänglich“ gemacht werden sollen, „wenigstens über ein zentrales Portal oder über einfach zugängliche Zugangspunkte“.) See also Nagel, Anliegen Natur 2014, 93, 94. 32 Schulze-Wolf/Köhler, UVP-report 2008, 104, 106. 33 Odparlik/Köppel/Geißler, UVP-report 2012, 236; Geißler/Odparlik/Günther/Rehhausen/Köppel, (Strategische) Umweltprüfung im internationalen Vergleich, in: Mitschang (ed.), Berliner Schriften zur Stadt- und Regionalplanung, Berlin 2016, p. 157, 166. 34 Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 72. 35 Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 78. 36 Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 78. 37 Zschiesche/Sperfeld, ZUR 2011, 71, 75. 38 Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1, 24. 39 On the lack of implementation in water law see Fisahn, Natur – Mensch – Recht. Elemente einer Theorie der Rechtsbefolgung, Berlin 1999, p. 29 – 38. On the lack of implementation in climate protection law see Ziehm, ZUR 2010, 411. On the lack of implementation in environmental protection law see Gellermann, in: Landmann/Rohmer (ed.), Umweltrecht, 77. EL, München August 2015, Vor §§63, 64 BNatSchG, Rn. 1.

CHAPTER 4

73

studies about that in the context of practical implementation of passive access to information. This is, however, not the case for active access to information.

2. The online survey Authorities that are required to provide information and are involved in EIA and SEA processes as well as their licensing procedures were therefore studied with the help of an online survey. It was looked at how they justified already existing or, if applicable, missing web-based provision of information. It makes sense to study active access to information in the area of EIA and SEA since these are central instruments in environmental protection. Their goal is to make the environment consequences of projects, plans, and programs transparent for the corresponding decision making process.40 The procedure of Environmental Assessment (which is used as a synonym for EIA and SEA hereafter) collects, analyses, evaluates, and produces a large number of information and procedural documents (e.g. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), screening documents (appraisal of EA requirement), scoping documents (internationally known as terms of reference), objections by the public, summarizing statements, and an evaluation).41 Furthermore, public participation constitutes an integral part of every EA.42 In this case, it seems appropriate to focus on the provision of information on the Internet. There is no other medium which is that suitable at actively providing information to a vast group of users. Latest statistics on the amount and the form of Internet use not only show a steady rise in number of users (77.6 % Internet users in Germany in 2015)43 but also illustrate a trend to a “digitalization of our everyday lives.”44 The expectation to be able to get information online immediately and at any time can be observed throughout all age groups.45 Below, there will first be a description and explanation of the method and data basis of this study (2.1). Then the results of the online survey will be presented (2.2.). In the end, there will be a discussion of the supporting (2.3) and hindering (2.4) factors for the online provision of information in practice.

2.1

Method and databasis

Since the complete survey of active provision of information of all authorities that are required to provide information and are involved in EA processes would exceed limits of an online survey the research framework was narrowed down. It was restricted, like in the preceding study, 46 to the already identified authorities that are required to provide information in the traffic planning sector (with a focus on federal highways) and electricity grid expansion sector. Both sectors are interesting examples of the German multilevel-planning system. EAs are done on the level of requirement planning (phase 1), corridor planning (phase 2) and plan approval procedures (phase 3). Even if the actual number of conducted EAs is unknown, there is a clear definition of who the

Cf. Wende in: Eingriffsregelung Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung, Köppel/Peters/Wende (ed.), Stuttgart 2004, p. 171, 173. 41 Cf. Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1, 17. 42 Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1, 2. 43 (N)ONLINER ATLAS 2015 as part of the study D21-Digital-Index 2015 of the initiative D21 e.V. & TNS Infratest (ed.), accessible here: http://www.initiatived21.de/portfolio/d21-digital-index-2015 (last accessed 01 May 2016). The (N)ONLINER Atlas is, since 2001, with more than 30,000 participants one of the biggest empirical studies on the development of the Internet and broadband usage in Germany. 44 Van Eimeren/Frees, Media Perspektiven 7–8/2011, 334. 45 Mende/Oehmichen/Schröter, Media Perspektiven 1/2012, 2, 5. 46 Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1, 7. 40

74

CHAPTER 4

leading agency is which therefore has the information and documents relevant for decision making. In total, 91 contact persons and their information for 74 responsible departments were identified. They were asked to participate in the online survey via email on 20 July 2015 and asked to finish it until 14 September 2015. They were reminded to participate in the survey every two weeks. It was also requested they forward the invitation should they not be the person in charge. Overall, 47 out of 90 inquired persons participated; this leads to a response rate of 51,11%. 33 people finished the survey which leads to a completion rate of 36,67% (Table 10). There were fully answered surveys on at least one of the three planning levels in all federal states except for Hamburg, Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thüringen. Table 10: Overview of inquiry and response to the online survey in the three planning phases (*unavailable)

Phase

Inquired contact persons

Responded & finished

Discontinued

No response

1 – Requirement planning

6

3

2

1

2 – Corridor planning

40

14

3

22 + 1 *

3 – Plan approval procedures

45

16

9

20

Total

91

33

14

44

The online survey with the title “web-based provision of information and procedural documentation in the context of environmental assessment“ covered three subject areas. 1. Part: Role as responsible authority in the context of environmental assessment47 and their licensing procedures, e.g. responsibilities in the context of provision of information and number of employees. 2. Part: Current practice for provision of information, e.g. notification of current proceedings, provision of documents and opportunity of online participation. 3. Part: Supporting and hindering factors for the online provision of information. Since all participants were assured that their remarks would be kept confidential, quotes will only be shown in italics without indicating who the author was.

2.2

Results of the online survey

Overall, 83% (n = 39) of the participants said that they already use the Internet to provide documents and procedural information of environmental assessments. The previous study48 on active information in EIA/SEA procedures has shown that only 56% (n = 92) of the analyzed websites provided information. The results of the current online survey do therefore present a distorted picture in favor of authorities that are required to provide information and are already providing information actively online today. However, the results also show that these authorities do not supply all information online unconditionally (see 2.2.2. “Type and scope of the provided information”). This is why questions about hindering factors of provision of information could also be considered.

In this study, next to EIA and SEA, the provision of documents for impact regulation assessment, Natura 2000, and specific habitat regulation assessments was asked about as well. The following results only refer to the statements on EIA and SEA, though. 48 Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1, 16. 47

CHAPTER 4

75

2.2.1 Notice of ongoing procedures The goal of a transparent decision making process is particularly illustrated through public participation required in EA. A prerequisite of this public participation is, however, the notice of ongoing procedures and of the possibilities for participation.49 The notice that an EA is being done also includes the information of when and where the EIS or Environmental Report is going to be available and what possibilities for participation currently exist.50 From the public’s point of view the timing of that notice is not irrelevant since participation needs a certain amount of preparation. This is particularly true considering the diversity and scale of procedural documents. National/Regional Daily Newspapers

Notice of Intention

Government Gazette

7

10

Notice of Hearings, Information Events

16

Notice where what Information will be provided

16

Notice of Procedural Decision

Notice of Information Event Notice of Dates for Discussion Meeting (According to §73 (5) APA) with more than 50 Objections Notice of Dates for Discussion Meeting (According to §73 (5) APA) with less than 50 Objections

18 9

14 9

21

4 26

20 4

19 17

12

2

28

5

3 18

15

Other

4

20

18 14

Internet

6

9

Figure 10: Medium for the notice in planning processes (n = 41, unit = number of mentions, multiple responses possible)

According to statements by the participants notice can be given from a few days or months to sometimes even years in advance, depending of the procedure51 (1-4 weeks 4 mentions; a few weeks until months or years 8 mentions). The survey has shown that aside from classic methods for notice (e.g. national and regional daily newspapers or local evening papers) the Internet is being used frequently (Figure 10). A few participants stated that notices were also being made in the government gazette, with an own info letter, in the media or radio, a public display, or by sending written invitations or documents via mail, twitter, email newsletters or press releases (one mention each).

2.2.2 Type and scope of the provided information Licensing procedures as well as Environmental Assessments produce a number of different documents. Figure 11 shows what information and documents authorities that are required to pro-

Cf. Odparlik/Köppel, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2013, 324, 327; Sinclair/Schneider/Mitchel, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012, 85, 87. 50 Odparlik/Köppel/Geißler, UVP-Report 2012, 236, 238. 51 This question was asked as an open question without answers to choose from. 49

76

CHAPTER 4

vide information already provide online (in total, 83% of participants stated they used the Internet for the provision of information). Figure 11 also shows which information is provided only or additionally via a public display in the authority’s office building and which information is only provided upon request or not at all. In academic literature many different goals of public participation in EAs are identified. The European Commission does, for example, mention a better accountability and transparency of the decision making process. To achieve this goal, the public does not only need access to the results of the EA but also, among other things, to the decisions of the screening and scoping processes. This information is, according to the responses to the survey, provided less than half the time (n = 36). Some even stated that the screening and scoping documents would only be provided upon request (14 and 19%, respectively) or not at all (3 or 14%, respectively). Access to the scoping documents can help the public realize they are affected by the planning early in the process and thus enables them to submit comments. It makes it possible to integrate different opinions and interests into planning at an early stage. Furthermore, the participation of the public in the scoping process can bring attention to information that could otherwise have been missed.52

52

38.

Baker/Rappaport, in: Hanna (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Practice and Participation, 2005, p. 37,

CHAPTER 4

0%

77

25%

50%

75%

100%

Final Decision (e.g. plan approval decision) Explanatory Report (e.g. project definition) Technical Planning Documents (e.g. technical examinations, layout plan, building directories) Protocols and materials of public events Comments, Hints, Objections by the public Environmental Assessments, Environmental Reports Screening Decision (Decision whether EIA/SEA is required) Scoping Documentation (Decision on the Scope of the Assessment) Non-Technical Summary Avoidance and Compensatory Measures Requirements for Monitoring and Follow-Up Measures Results of Monitoring Measures Supplementary Documents (e.g. special report on breeding birds, migratory birds, or landscape) Internet

On Public Display

Upon Request

Not Provided

Figure 11: Type and scope of the provision of relevant information and documents of the licensing procedure and the Environmental Assessments (n = 36, unit = percent, multiple responses were possible for the option Internet and public display)

The remarks on the information provided on EAs differ greatly from the previous study on active information in EIA/SEA procedures.53 It is confirmed that mainly Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Reports are provided. However, these numbers with an online provision rate of 75% are much higher than the 25-40% of the previous study. Amongst other things, this could be explained by the fact that authorities that are required to provide information and already use the Internet participated in the online survey. It could, however, also be because the information is no longer provided online after the deadline for public participation. This means the previous study by Odparlik 2015 could not collect the data since it only represents a snapshot of the situation at that moment in time. Surprising are the few provisions of non-technical summaries (67% on public display, 64% provision online).

53

Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1.

78

CHAPTER 4

Information for and on public participation is published less common than other procedural or EA documents (Figure 11). Since the comments by the public are considered in the decision of the leading agency, these should, ideally, also be provided to increase transparency. A majority of the agencies stated that they provided notice of intent, explanatory reports, and also technical planning documents not only in their offices on public display (75-83%) but also online (67-75%). For the public, these documents are important to not only understand the planning itself but also the reasoning for the final decision. In addition to the actually provided information, participants were asked to personally evaluate which documents they think are very important or not important for successful public participation. The answers to this question illustrate that the information that is actually provided by authorities that are required to provide information is simply that information which they deem important. Surprisingly, here as well, it can be observed that 25% of the participants (n = 33) consider the non-technical summary only a little important or not important. Considering that the non-technical summary has the aim to make the planning understandable with non-technical language to the average public without expert knowledge and explain to them their possible affectedness it can be considered a central part of public participation.54 That this summary is not provided, not even considered important, misses, in our opinion, the actual goal of this information.

2.2.3 Duration of the provision of information Similar to the notice itself, for the provision of the documents (Figure 11) the timing of the release to the public also plays an important role. To give the public enough time for the study of the documents as preparation for their participation, the documents should be made available prior to the official participation deadlines. The majority of the participants (n = 28) stated that the documents are made available at the beginning of the public participation period (71%). In a few cases they are published as soon as the first documents are available (11 %) or only when the list of documents is complete (11%). The answers to the question until when the provided information is available to the public were very different. In each case 25% (n = 28) stated that the information would be available until the end of the legally required timespan or that they would still be available online, at least partly, after the end of the process, e.g. in an archive (separate website section for finished processes). In total, 18% of the participants stated that all the documents were available online after the procedures were finished. 18% also said that the information and documents were available online until the end of the process and 14% of the participants indicated that this was different in each process.

2.2.4 Web 2.0-Services and the possibility for online participation With the so called Web 2.0-Services classic public participation can be broadened to include aspects of online participation and more web-based solutions for notification and provision of information. These services are utilized by a little more than half the participants (n = 33). IT-Services like 3D-simulations, explanation videos, compilation of questions (FAQs), and the cartographic localization of current processes can lead to a better informed public (24% of the participants said they used these Web 2.0-services). Email notification, RSS-Feeds, or social media can be used to inform the public of the current status of the process (12% of the participants confirmed that these IT-solutions are useful for the continued provision of information to the public).

54

Cf. Gassner, NVwZ 2010, 685, 687.

CHAPTER 4

79

Websites make the online submission of comments and objections possible which are independent from opening hours of the responsible agencies and specific times for information events and public hearings (30% of participants stated that their agency made use of online participation methods). The results of the survey clearly show that, in reality, there is a clear differentiation between the Web 2.0-services used for simple provision of information and the possibility for online participation. While there is a tendency of agencies to consider the provision of information as a proper service, the arguments for and against the use of online participation methods vary greatly. All in all, 6 of the 33 participants justified the use of Web 2.0-services with the aspect of an easier process, lower inhibition thresholds for the casting of comments, and interagency standards to expand E-Governance. Another participant stated that due to costs and staff shortages these services could only be used for politically controversial issues. Moreover, there is a lack of technical availability (4 mentions) and expertise in the handling (3 mentions) and the principle decision or legal requirements for its use (3 mentions). Other simply do not see the benefit of these services (“do not increase the substance of the arguments”) (4 mentions). In particular, the argument that the possibility for online participation lowers the inhibition threshold for the submission of comments seems to polarize. On the one hand this phenomenon is considered positive because it can lead to more participation (5 mentions). On the other hand, it is also criticized “that online participation lowers the threshold for unserious, egotistical or simply sheer protest behavior.” Through online participation “it is ‘too easy’ for the public to be ‘against’ something”. The conflict area of “‘complaints’ about too long processes and ‘too bureaucratic’ procedures can only be countered with the concentration on serious complaints and the strive for a real willingness to compromise”.

2.3

Supporting factors for the provision of information

Table 11: Stated legal reasons for the web-based provision of information (n = 19; unit = per cent)

[%]

legal reasons

45

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and comparable state laws

39

Reporting Obligations within EIAA (§9 (1b) EIAA and comparable state laws)

39

Environmental Information Act (e.g. §7 UIG; §10 (2) No. 6 UIG) and comparable state laws (e.g. §4 BremUIG; §10 HmbTG)

30

Further sectoral laws (e.g. State Planning Laws (Landesplanungsgesetze), §12b (3) und §12c (3) EnWG; §9 (4) und §22 (4) NABEG; §22 (1) BerlStrG i.V.m EIAA/EIAA Bln)

15

Freedom of Information Act (FIA) and comparable state laws

15

Spatial Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz)

6

Concept for Public Participation for the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan for 2015

6

Administrative Regulation for Public Participation (Verwaltungsvorschrift Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung)

There are different reasons for the multiple ways of providing information. One way to standardize the provision of information are interagency guidelines which dictate how and which information should be made public (57% have a standard; m = 33). A direct interagency directive to provide information online was the reason for 33% of the participants (n = 27). About 42% of the participants see the web-based provision of information as a contribution to the quality control in EA processes, e.g. as a service within a transparent public participation process (42%), as a service to provide information for project proponents, e.g. to compare already finished processes

80

CHAPTER 4

(6%), or as an information service for other agencies with comparable procedural contents (6%). Almost 60% of the participants (n = 27) belief the obligation to inform has a legal basis (Table 11).

2.4

Hindering factors for the provision of information

A quarter of the participants (n = 33) explained no or little online provision of information in ongoing as well as completed EAs and their licensing procedures with a lack of legal obligations to inform (Figure 12).

Lack of resources (e.g. staff, server capacity, know-how) Information is confidential

Data from ongoing procedures cannot be published

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

A web-based requirement to provide information is not legally mandated

Figure 12: Reasons given for the limited or lacking online provision of information (n = 33; unit = number of mentions)

The limitation to provide information only for the time period of the public participation is sometimes also explained legally. When the period for appeal was over (2 weeks interpretation plus 1 month remedy) there was no more need for a provision of information. Documents would “simply be of less interest to the public after the end of the public participation period.” Furthermore, 9% of the participants pointed out that documents of ongoing procedures could not be made public. Legal regulations did not intend to make information on ongoing procedures available to the public. They did, for example, refer to the provisional nature of planning and the formality of a planning approval process “in which authorities have to follow the legal requirements.” A few participants also stated that information could partly not be provided because they are subject to regulations protecting business and trade secrets (7 mentions), secrecy (2 participants mentioned public safety and national defense) or data protection (6 participants mentioned the protection of private data). About one quarter of the participants stated that lacking resources, in particular not enough staff, was the reason for little or no online provision of information. Less than 50% of the participants stated that they had a responsible employee or unit for the publication of information and documents. These results do, however, not allow for a final evaluation of further factors, e.g. range of tasks and number of undertaken procedures which are necessary to evaluate the staff.55 24% of the participants point to a lack of technical possibilities (e.g. limited server capacities or chaotic Internet presence) or missing technical know-how (12%).

In the future, revised documents shall also be created digitally and published (see Planfeststellungsrichtlinie (PlafeR) 2015 des BMVI). 55

CHAPTER 4

81

3. Analysis of the legal situation The survey leads to mainly four legal questions. The first question that arises is which EA documents should be put online by the responsible agencies (3.1). Second, when should there be a notice of a procedure and how long should the information be provided (3.2). Third, it seems questionable, in how far secrecy concerns should prohibit the publication of certain documents (3.3). And the fourth question that arises is whether it is possible, based on the current legal situation, to voice objections online (3.4).

3.1

Which documents are to be published online?

The results of the survey show that active access to information in Germany is dealt with rather differently. It is also observable that different legal justifications were brought up to explain the active provision of information on the Internet or the lack thereof. The particular cases cannot be further elaborated at this point. It can only be checked whether the arguments that were being used for an active access to information are generally sound. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA; Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung) is relevant here since the studied procedures provide active information in the context of EIAs and SEAs. The EIAA mandates the rules for access to information for projects, plans, and programs for which an EA has to be undertaken. The regulations of the EIAA are oftentimes elaborated in more specific sectoral laws. There are, for example, regulations in the Immission Control Act, nuclear law, and infrastructure planning law, as well as grid development. They modify public participation56 as mandated by the EIAA. However, it is not possible to further discuss this at this point. According to §9 (1) sentc. 1 EIAA, the responsible agency has to inform the public on the environmental consequences of the plan. Before the public can effectively participate in the EA they first need to be informed on the plan.57 That is why §9 (1a) EIAA mandates what the responsible agency has to provide information for and §9 (1b) EIAA which documents have to be provided to the public for inspection. This includes, based on §6 (3) sentc. 1 EIAA, unless specific laws are more relevant, documents that minimally deal with: description of the plan (no. 1), description of avoidance measures (no. 2), description of the expected major negative environmental consequences (no. 3), description of the current state of the environment in the area affected by the plan (no. 4), and an overview of the assessed alternatives (no. 5). According to §6 (3) sentc. 3 EIAA, the information has to allow third parties to evaluate if and to what extent they will be affected by the environmental impacts of the plan. According to §6 (3) sentc. 2 EIAA, there also has to be a nontechnical and generally understandable summary of these information. §9 (1b) sentc. 1 No. 2 EIAA further dictates that reports and recommendations that the agency has had at the beginning of the procedure have to be provided as well. 58 These can be already submitted statements by involved agencies or expert opinions that the responsible agency has commissioned.59 The situation is similar for documents which have to be provided within a SEA because §14i (1) EIAA dictates that the regulations of §9 (1) - (1b) EIAA also apply to SEAs. The documents that have to be included in the Environmental Report is specified in §14g (2) EIAA. This includes a nontechnical summary of the documents based on §14g (2) sentc. 3 EIAA.

Cf. Wagner, in: Hoppe/Beckmann (ed.), UVPG, 4. edition, Köln 2012, §9, Rn. 52 – 68. Wagner, in: Hoppe/Beckmann (ed.), UVPG, 4. edition, Köln 2012, §9, Rn. 41.3. 58 Thus, there is a limited obligation to publish. See BVerwG, Decision from 22 June 2015 – 4 B 59.14 Rn. 37 = BeckRS 2015, 50263. 59 Wagner, in: Hoppe/Beckmann (ed.), UVPG, 4. edition, Köln 2012, §9, Rn. 32 56 57

82

CHAPTER 4

The EIAA not only mandates an obligation to provide certain documents so that the public can participate in the public participation process. The obligation for public display extends to the notice, with which the plan is approved or rejected according to §9 (2) EIAA. The approval or rejection of the plan is also to be made public. The situation is similar for SEAs. According to §14l (1) EIAA the approval of a plan or program has to be made public. The rejection, however, does not necessarily have to be made public and according to §14l (2) EIAA various information has to be provided. There is no requirement in the EIAA itself to make EIA or SEA documents available online. It does, however, stem from §27a (1) sentc. 3 APA (federal Administrative Procedures Act - Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz). According to §27a (1) sentc. 1 & 2 APA, the agency should publish the content of a public or local notice on the website of the agency or of its administrative unit if the notice is legally mandated. This is a directory provision (‘Sollvorschrift’), which means only atypical cases can be exempt from publication.60 Regulations which mandate a notice can be drawn from the APA as well as specific laws.61 If the notice refers to documents which are on public display, based on §27a (1) sentc. 3 APA, these should be put online as well. Since the notice, according to §9 (1a) No. 6 EIAA, also refers to which documents should be put on public display based on §6 EIAA, these documents should be put online as well. It could be argued that the notice only refers to documents described in §6 EIAA and not to reports relevant for decision making. Hence these would not have to be published online. This would, however, ignore the fact that the requirement to publish in §27a (1) sentc. 3 APA included the publicly displayed documents themselves.62 It also seems illogical that the requirement to publish online would differentiate between documents of §6 EIAA and the displayed recommendations and reports relevant for decision making. An obligation to publish online also includes the approval or rejection notification since the decree of that decision has to be published and displayed for inspection according to §9 (2) EIAA. What seems to be a problem is the applicability of §27a APA for SEAs since it does not refer to the issuing of expert plans but to the issuing of laws, ordinances, and statues. According to §9 APA, which also restricts the objective scope of the APA, 63 the term administrative procedure (Verwaltungsverfahren) only refers to the outward actions of an agency which are directed at an administrative act or administrative contract. It is controversial whether the §§10 et. seqq. APA can equally be applied to other actions of the administration as well.64 The clear choice of words of §9 APA clearly speaks against this expansion. This result seems doubtful in a legal policy context. There does not seems to be an objective reason for the different shape of the obligation to publish based on the legal form of the legal act resulting from the procedure. The legal requirements for an active publication of documents which are created in the context of EAs are explicit except for the issuing of plans which are not issued as bureaucratic acts. That is why it is surprising that reality is rather inconsistent on that matter. Unless there are security concerns against an (online) publication all documents are to be published online. Consequently, the results of the survey show that, momentarily, there is (still!) a lack of implementation of active access to environmental information in the context of EAs (17% of the respondents stated that

Luch, in: Bauer/Heckmann/Ruge/Schallbruch/Schulz (ed.),VwVfG, 2. edition, Wiesbaden 2012, §27a, Rn. 17; Stelkens, in: Stelkens/Bonk/Sachs (ed.), VwVfG, 8. edition, München 2014, §27a, Rn. 57, on the possible reasons not to publish Rn. 61 ff. 61 Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, §27a, Rn. 44ff. 62 Cf. Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, §27a, Rn. 72. 63 Gerstner-Heck, in: Bader/Ronellenfitsch (ed.), VwVfG, München 2010, §9, Rn. 2. 64 Differentiating Kopp/Ramsauer, VwVfG, 15. edition, München 2014, §9, Rn. 4f; in contrast OVG NRW, decision from 4 March 2002, 20 D 120/97.AK, NZV 2002, 478 (479); Gerstner-Heck, in: Bader/Ronellenfitsch (ed.), VwVfG, München 2010, §9, Rn. 2.1; Schwarz, in: Fehling/Kastner (ed.), Verwaltungsrecht, 2. edition Baden-Baden 2010, §9 VwVfG, Rn. 24; Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, vor §9, Rn. 8. 60

CHAPTER 4

83

information was not provided online). There is, however, a trend to a more active information provision to the public including the publication of documents online that are on public display.

3.2

Timing of the notice and duration of the provision of information

For successful public participation, it is not just important to decide which information should be published. Rather, the timing of when to inform the public, 65 as well as the duration of the provision of information are relevant. Participation – in particular for complex processes – always needs a certain amount of familiarization with the topic.66 The information has to be made available to the public at the beginning of the participation period according to §9 (1a) sentc. 1 EIAA. Since the law only requires that the documents be put on public display for one month, the same is true for the online provision. 67 SEA follows slightly different rules since §14i (2) sentc. 1 EIAA dictates that the documents – the draft of the plan or program and the Environmental Report – have to be on display for at least a month and thus also published online. In this case, there is also no obligation to make the documents available any longer than the required amount of time. All in all, the window of time in which the public can inform itself on the undertakings or the plan is cut relatively short. That there are not two different regulations dictating the duration of the time the documents are available online or on public display can be rightfully criticized (from a legal perspective). There is no extra work involved if already uploaded documents are available online longer than the required time. The continual informing of the public would also allow for a better overview in similar cases.

3.3

Constitutionally secured protection obligation

Like (almost) every obligation, the obligation to also publish documents online is not limitless. This becomes apparent in the fact that the obligation is a so-called directory provision (‘SollVorschrift’). 68 In addition to that, there are also constitutionally required obligations to protect, like the protection of business and trade secrets. 69 This is regulated through a single regulation in §30 APA. According to §30 APA, involved parties have the right that their secrets, in particular secrets relating to the personal life, as well as business and trade secrets, are not made public without proper authorization. Business and trade secrets are aspects which relate to the business operation, are only known to a low number of people, should be kept private by the wish of the business, and of which the business has a legitimate interest in keeping secret. 70 It is questionable whether the publishing of documents can be refused every time business and trade secrets or other concerns worthy of protection71 are involved. Or should the requirement to publish and thus72 the requirement to publish online be followed in a restricted way, e.g. by blackening certain passages. Here, there is a tension between the obligation of secrecy on the one hand, and the publication requirement on the other hand. Since §30 APA only mentions the revelation of secrets,

Wagner, in: Hoppe/Beckmann (ed.), UVPG, 4. edition, Köln 2012, §9, Rn. 41.3. Cf. 2.2.1. 67 A.A. Dolde, NVwZ 2013, 769, 774 ”at least until the objection and display deadline.“ (original: „mindestens für die Dauer der Auslegungs- und der Einwendungsfrist“.) 68 Luch, in: Bauer/Heckmann/Ruge/Schallbruch/Schulz (ed.), VwVfG, 2. edition, Wiesbaden 2012, §27a, Rn. 21 f.; Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, §27a, Rn. 81 – 86. 69 Cf. Wolff, NJW 1997, 98. 70 Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, §30, Rn. 20. 71 This includes, for example, the address of the affected public. Other examples see Skrobotz, in: Bauer/Heckmann/Ruge/Schallbruch/Schulz (ed.), VwVfG, 2. edition, Wiesbaden 2012, §30, Rn. 9. 72 Cf. 3.1. 65 66

84

CHAPTER 4

the obligation of secrecy is satisfied if secrets cannot be drawn from the uncensored parts.73 When exactly this is the case has to be determined for each case individually. If this is possible, there does not need to be a preference for either the protection of business and trade secrets or access to information.74 In some cases, when interpreting §27a APA, a functional differentiation is made between the publication on the Internet and a standard public display because there is a stronger need for secret protection of online publications75. That explanation would not seem plausible. On the one hand, the legislator has designed the regulation in a way that the documents that are to be provided via public display should be published online as well. On the other hand, the need for secret protection can be met with the blackening and similar measures in the case of online publications as well.

3.4

Possibilities to raise objections online?

Another question is whether the already practiced forms of online participation are legally permitted. There is no problem with the use of social media and other Web 2.0 services by the authorities if they only do so to inform about the status of the participation process or point out the published documents. In those cases, it is simply regular public relations work which is generally legal.76 What is problematic is whether objections can be made online as well.77 According to §9 (1) sentc. 2 EIAA, the affected public is given the chance to make comments with the participation process. This process has to comply with the regulations of §73 (3) sentc. 1 and §73 (4) - (7) APA, §9 (1) sentc. 3 EIAA. According to §73 (4) sentc. 1 APA, the objections have to be made in writing or in person at the authority or municipal authority. This is fulfilled if the document is sent via fax or via email. The email has to have a qualified electronic signature in accordance with the signature law and the authority has to have allowed and made technical provisions for the sending of electronic documents.78 Emails without such functions do not have any legal force.79 What is possible, according to §3a (2) sentc. 4 No. 1 APA, is the replacement of the written form with a declaration given via electronic forms which are available in publicly available networks. That way the possibility to voice objections online is lawful. According to§3a (2) sentc. 5 APA, it does require that those people wanting to make use of that option identify themselves with a secure proof of identity in accordance with the new identity card law or the residence act. It follows that while “participation portals” can be set up they need to fulfill strict requirements identifying their users. If the provided forms do not meet these demands the requirements of forms cannot be guaranteed. That means that the objections made cannot be legally admissible and, according to §73 (4) sentc. 3 APA, have to be dismissed. Hence, the objections made without meeting the formal requirements cannot be considered in the subsequent procedure. It is also not possible to take actions against the decision in administrative court.80

With the example of the Freedom of Information Act also Hoeren, in: Dix/Franßen/Kloepfer/Schaar/Schoch (ed.), Informationsfreiheit und Informationsrecht, Jahrbuch 2008, Berlin 2008, p. 105, 121. Also Stelkens, in: Stelkens/Bonk/Sachs (ed.), VwVfG, 8. editions, München 2014, §27a, Rn. 59. 74 Overview in Ritgen, in: Knack/Henneke (ed.), VwVfG, 10. edition, Köln 2014, §30, Rn. 32 ff. 75 Luch, in: Bauer/Heckmann/Ruge/Schallbruch/Schulz (ed.), VwVfG, 2. edition, Wiesbaden 2012, §27a, Rn. 23. 76 Cf. Gusy, NVwZ 2015, 700, 702. 77 Currently there are possibilities for public participation on the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan in 2030 (Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030), accessible at: http://www.bmvi.de/DE/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/Verkehrspolitik/Verkehrsinfrastruktur/Bundesverkehrswegeplan2030/StellungnahmeAbgeben/stellungnahme_node.html (last accessed 21 March 2016). 78 Reidt/Schiller, in: Bauer/Heckmann/Ruge/Schallbruch/Schulz (ed.), VwVfG, 2. edition, Wiesbaden 2014, §73, Rn. 36. 79 BVerwG, decision from 14 September 2010 - 7 B 15.10, NVwZ 2011, 364, 367 f. 80 Cf. BVerwG, decision from 24 May 1996 – 4 A 38.95, NVwZ 1997, 489 (material invalidation (Präklusion) in the case of expiration). 73

CHAPTER 4

85

4. Conclusion & Outlook In Germany, active access to information is still being handled rather differently by authorities that have to provide information in the context of Environmental Assessments. The results of the survey suggest that there is a trend to more transparency through an active provision of information among the authorities that participated. 42% of the participants explain the web-based publication of documents and procedural information with a service they want to provide for the public. They also want to enable the public to better participate in EA procedures Authorities already use the Internet for notices of ongoing procedures, continuous information on the procedural status, and the provision of documents and procedural information. So far, this is not regulated by the EIAA but mainly by the APA. et. seqq. §§6, 9 & 14g EIAA define the provision of documents, including the non-technical summary which constitutes an important basis for public participation. However, the survey highlights that many authorities that are required to provide information have an inadequate awareness of current law and many of the documents are not yet actively provided online. It is also clear that the choice of documents is still shaped by the once predominant idea of German agencies that files are their property. This is “very different to the USA, for example, where the ‘public right to know’ is culturally rooted even in the bureaucracy and as a consequence there is a stronger service mentality of the administration.”81 The surveyed authorities mainly publish information which they themselves regard as important to make public participation work. Documents which should be provided based on current law but are not regarded as important are less common actively provided. A legislative deficit was shown for plans that have to undergo SEAs but are not passed as administrative acts. For those plans, there is no requirement to publish the publicly displayed documents online as well. Since there is no objective explanation for this the legislator should fix that deficit. Because there is not enough knowledge on the different cases, not all reasons for the provision/non-provision of information online could be tested. However, some explanations that were given can be refused. The provisions for the protection of secrets should, for example, be met if no conclusions can be drawn to interests worth protecting through the blackening or omission of parts. The possibility for online participation is only used in a number of cases (30% of the participants stated they used that function) and many participants view it very critically.82 Web 2.0 Services are unproblematic as long as agencies provide online forms which allow for the identification of the person submitting the objection. The possibility to voice objections via email only exists if such access is created by the responsible agency and emails can be sent with a qualified signature. It is possible for the authorities to create different legal means of online participation. However, since email communication in bureaucratic processes and for the collection of objections via online portals abide by strict rules for the identification of the sender, these possibilities are barely suitable to help the strengthening of online participation. Again, crucial impulses for the strengthening and development of public participation come from the EU. Under Art. 6(5) of the amended EIA directive, “member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant information is electronically accessible to the public, through at least a central portal or easily accessible points of access.” With that the federal legislator should

Redelfs in: Ahrweiler/Thomas (ed.), Internationale partizipatorische Kommunikationspolitik - Strukturen und Visionen, Bd. 29, 2005, p. 201, 211. 82 Cf. 2.1.4. 81

86

CHAPTER 4

also be required to create regulations for the establishment of central online portals. What remains to be determined is on what levels these portal(s) are to be created and what information they should contain. The online publication of the documents that are to be displayed in a central portal would have various advantages. The authors belief that a superordinate meta information system, with an archive function on the federal and state level, can fulfill even more tasks than the already mentioned function of better public participation. A central portal should provide information and documents not just for current projects, plans, and programs but also for those already finished. This allows, not just the affected public but also project partners, a quick access to information on similar procedures to, for example, identify cumulative effects.83 An easy and uncomplicated access to documents of other planning and approval agencies can give important indications of possible environmental impacts and thus decrease the cost and duration of assessments.84 Austria, for example, shows how the implementation and realization of EIAs can be evaluated every three years on the basis of such databases.85 In conclusion, it can be determined that the active act of informing in EIA and SEA processes via the Internet has made a lot of progress in Germany. Another important step would now be the creation of a legal framework for the establishment of central online portals in which all the documents could be saved centrally. The legislator should also mandate that plans that are passed as ordinances, statutes, or laws have to abide by the same (online) publication requirements as sectoral plans. Another controversial question that is bound to arise is to what extent possibilities for online participation can be expanded.

Cf. King/Rajvanshi/Willoughby/Roberts/Mathur/Cadman/Chavan, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012, 148. 84 Odparlik, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2015, 1 ,23. 85 Odparlik/Köppel/Geißler, UVP-Report 2012, 236, 238. 83

CHAPTER 5

87

Chapter 5 Synthesis: Availability and access to documents and process information in EA – Good practice and quality management?

88

CHAPTER 5

Abstract Without timely and comprehensive provision of information, there is no basis for effective public participation in decision-making in environmental issues’ (BMUB 2015) – and thus an important feature of quality management in environmental assessments is missing. In this context, it is not just about the availability and ease of access of documents and procedural information, but also e.g. adequate time to prepare, to understand, analyze, and question provided information. Access to information can be passive - provided at the request of information seekers - or active, independently (and best electronically) made available to users. Already the Environmental Information Act obliges the authorities to an active information provision. Nevertheless, implementation in Germany has been unsatisfactory (Odparlik 2015). This contribution presents the results of research on the international practice of information provision. These results are compared to the German practice, investigated in a website analysis and an online survey conducted amongst 74 agencies with an obligation to provide information. The main aim was to comprehend their view on the factors supporting and hindering the active provision of information. Results show startlingly different opinions and arguments: 83% of respondents indicated they use the Internet to actively provide information for citizens, while 42% of respondents attribute this active information provision to the aspect of quality assurance as a service to the public. In addition to a lack of resources (30%), respondents often see the webbased information requirement legally unfounded or a specific legal impediment (70%). The results raise particular issues like which documents shall be made available by the responsible authorities in the context of EIA and SEA, and to which extend do interests of confidentiality hinder the online access to documents. This paper concludes in providing an outlook - which legal adjustments might be necessary in Germany to fulfill the new requirements of the EU EIA Directive 2014. Amendments require the establishment of a central online information portal for environmental assessments in member states; therefore, a fundamental contribution to quality assurance.

CHAPTER 5

89

1. Introduction Previous studies have shown that there is still a great lack of enforcement, empowerment and capacity building when it comes to the active provision of environmental information in the context of environmental assessments (EIA & SEA) in Germany at federal and state level. Chapter 1 reported how inevitable adequate access to information is for a fair participation in environmental assessments („Participation requires Information“). Chapter 3 investigated the information provision on 92 websites of German lead agencies with responsibility for planning decisions in the electricity grid expansion and federal road construction sectors. Against the background of an ideal access to documents and procedural information of environmental assessments (EAs), introduced in Chapter 2, this chapter shows how far Germany is currently away from good webbased information provisions. There is a great potential to improve the German planning practice trough the introduction of web-based information systems. International practice examples can serve as a role model implementing such a system on the national level. The role of such (meta-) information systems and corresponding good practice have been investigated by Hanna & Noble (2011) for Canada, and by Odparlik & Köppel (2013) in an international case study analysis evaluating ideal access. The most compelling examples are based upon a clear legal requirement. In addition, the EU has recognized the importance of information provision for effective public participation (see Annex for a summary of relevant reasons provided with the amended directive), and stipulates with its amended EIA Directive (DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU) that future information from EIA process shall be supplied electronically via central portals of the member states. In order to implement the outlined ‘ideal’ system, it requires certain amendments to Germany’s legal regulations (Odparlik & Kerkemeyer 2016). Another challenge for Germany is solving organizational questions. Inter alia, provisions must be made on which planning level such a system should be implemented. In addition, fundamental issues for better implementation of the two principles ‘fair notice’ and document ‘readability’ need to be discussed. By comparing the legal basis, existing implementation, and technical solutions of international practice examples, it will be discussed how to improve Germany’s access to EA documents and process information. As part of the results, recommendations to overcome occurring obstacles will be provided for the operationalization of these findings.

2. Method Ideal Registry •notice & updates •documents •support for participation •e-participation

German Practice •existing strength & weaknesses •reasons

Recommendations •future opportunities (guidance & legal requirements) •"good" practice examples

Figure 13: Method of the Synthesis

After Chapter 3 provided an overview of the current implementation and Chapter 4 discussed an evaluation of possible obstacles and conditions for the access to EA information in Germany, these

90

CHAPTER 5

findings are compiled in this chapter. Specific recommendations shall provide a basis for redefinition of existing conditions establishing access to EA documents and procedural information (Figure 13). Based on Hanna and Noble’s picture of the ideal registry and additional literature review, a number of performance indicators for an ‘ideal’ (best practice) registry have been identified (Chapter 2 & 3). Summarizing these indicators leads to four core functions that web-based information systems can provide in support of public participation: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Notice of projects and status updates; provision of documents; additional services to support participation; and e-participation.

For each of these four functions the following section will provide comparison of the ‘ideal’ situation to the common practice in Germany, an overview on the existing regulations, as well as an outlook on chances for improvement with referral to technical approaches identified in previous case studies. Access to information in German planning and approval procedures is regulated in different laws, e.g. environmental information law (Umweltinformationsgesetz UIG) and comparable laws issued by the states. As the focus of investigation lies on the active information provision for EIA and SEA processes, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA – Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung UVPG) is the relevant law. The EIA Act lays down rules for access to information on projects, plans and programs for which EAs have to be carried out. But, as EA procedures are generally integrated as a dependent part into existing licensing procedures, EIAA provisions are further detailed by certain sectoral laws. For example, the Immission Control Act (Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz BImSchG), Grid Expansion Acceleration Act (Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetz NABEG), or the Atomic Energy Act (Gesetz über die friedliche Verwendung der Kernenergie und den Schutz gegen ihre Gefahren) modify the regulations on public participation as defined in the EIAA. While the specifics of some of these laws have been summarized where relevant based on the case study selection in Chapters 3 and 4, the following will focus on regulations of the EIAA. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA – Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz VwVfG) is an exception as the regulations on public participation within the EIAA directly refer to this act. Notice of projects and status updates, for example, are so far not regulated in the EIAA but mainly governed by the APA.

3. Results 3. 1 Notice of projects and status updates “Once a development proposal is submitted to government authorities and the EA process is triggered, adequate notice is fundamental to fair and meaningful public participation” (Sinclair & Diduck 2009: 60). Next to the general notice that a project is subject to an EA, the public needs to know when and where they can find relevant documents as well as how and when they can participate (Odparlik et al. 2012). In an ideal registry, fair notice is provided through digital information services such as e-mail alerts, RSS feeds86, or Twitter (Odparlik et al. 2012). As it would be an organic and adaptive entity

RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication and describes a technology for subscription to website contents. It provides subscribers with a notification in case of a content update. 86

CHAPTER 5

91

growing with the availability of a project’s information (Hanna & Noble 2011), the same service would be used to provide regular updates on activities within the process. The registry itself would provide a systematic overview (e.g. a list) for ongoing and completed projects subject to an EA. To quickly identify projects of interest, a map can allow for cartographic localization of projects and a filter function or search mask to further sallow projects to be sorted, e.g. by status, topic, location, responsible authority, project proponent (Hanna & Noble 2011; Odparlik & Köppel 2013). For each project, the registry would also provide basic information, e.g. a short abstract, the responsible authority, and the project proponent(s) (Findlay 2010; Hanna & Noble 2011; Claus et al. 2012). It would further include an illustration of the process’ general sequence and the project’s current process status (Claus et al. 2012). In practice, as far as it has been investigated in this thesis (Chapters 3 & 4), a majority (70%) of lead agency websites provide information of ongoing planning processes and thereby indicate where participation might be possible (Chapter 3). The survey results have shown that next to the classical form of providing notice via newspapers and the official gazette, the Internet is also used for different types of notice (e.g. notice of hearings, where to find information or the final decision) (Chapter 4). Only a quarter of the investigated websites had used information services like e-mail alerts, RSS feed, Twitter or Facebook. None provided a filter function and a cartographic localization of projects was rarely supported. Projects labelled as ongoing did not necessarily provide further information on the exact planning stage, e.g. screening or participation, and only about 30% of websites provided short abstracts and basic information about specific projects. While contact information where provided for lead agencies, often indicating a specific contact person, contact information of the project proponent (20%) or other involved agencies or experts (10%) were infrequently provided. Less than a quarter of websites illustrated the general planning sequence with indication of the process’ current status (Chapter 3). Notice, according to the German EIAA (§9), informs the public of the proposal and appraisal of the EA requirement (screening decision) as well as the need for trans-boundary participation; it provides information about the responsible authority, to whom comments can be submitted, the nature of the possible approval decision, and details of the procedure; it specifies which documents according to §6 EIAA have been submitted by the project proponent and provides locations and times of public display of documents. The EIAA itself does not provide any regulations that Notice and documents have to be provided via the Internet. Nevertheless, according to §27a APA lead agencies have to provide the content of Notice on their website if Notice is required by law, as it is the case for the EA according to the EIAA. A comparison to the investigated practice indicates that some lead agencies do not seem to be aware of this requirement or explained this deficit with limited resources, e.g. staff or know-how (Chapter 4). From the public point of view, the timing of the notice is not insignificant. In view of the diversity and scope of the procedural documents, participation needs certain time to prepare. §9 (1a) EIAA governs that Notice shall be given at the beginning of the participation process. Furthermore, §73 (3) APA regulates that information must be made publicly available three weeks after submission and Notice must be given in advance (Figure 14).

92

CHAPTER 5

Figure 14: Public participation procedure according to §9 EIAA in conjunction with §73 & 74 APA (Illustrated by: Anke Rehhausen & Lisa Odparlik)

Overall, the legally defined window of time within which the public can be informed about a project or plan is relatively tight. Additionally, it is also very late in the process, as it is only legally required to inform the public after the submission of all completed documents by the project proponent. A ‘fair notice’ and transparency, already before the screening and scoping phase, is not strictly required legally. Nevertheless, this deficit was recognized and in May 2013 the Plan Unification Law (Planvereinheitlichungsgesetz) was adopted, amending §25 APA to promote early participation. Thereafter, plans and projects that have more than ‘insignificant impacts’ on a larger number of third parties shall be involved at an early stage by informing the public about project objectives, the means to achieve them, and the expected project impacts. But as this early participation takes place in advance prior to the official application process, outside the administrative procedure, §25 APA contains no compelling procedural rules. Thud, the authority is rather obliged to strive towards early participation by project proponents but can not force them (Schlacke 2013). This rather soft but nevertheless change in regulation is also reflected in the survey results. The survey (Chapter 4) conducted amongst lead agencies in Germany’s electricity grid expansion and federal road planning sectors has shown, that in practice the time of Notice depends on the type of approval procedure which can range from a few days before participation, to months or even years in advance. While some agencies have shown to provide Notice on negative screening decisions (Chapter 3), most Notices are restricted to public participation as required by §9 EIAA. Whether the time of the Notice about a project exceeds the strictly required (§73 APA), it seems to be highly dependent on the agency staff and their attitude towards transparency and public participation.

3. 2 Provision of documents Literature describes a versatile picture when it comes to the objectives of public participation in the process of EAs (see Chapter 1). Two of the commonly mentioned objectives are ‘generation of legitimacy’ and ‘transparent decision-making’ (e.g. Bonifazi et al. 2011; Garcia-Melon et al. 2012; Gauthier et al. 2011; Glucker et al. 2013; Kengne et al. 2013; Nadeem & Fischer 2010; Partidario

CHAPTER 5

93

& Sheate 2013; Olsen & Hansen 2014; Van Schie et al. 2011). To achieve this goal, the public requires access not only to the results of the assessment but also to all other relevant documents within the decision-making process: From the first ‘Notice of Intent’ to ‘Monitoring Results’. In an ideal situation, all documents related to an EA would be provided regardless of the process’ stage (Hanna & Noble 2011). This comprises early stage information before the official application and includes: The initial notice of intent and early correspondence between proponent and authority; the screening document explaining if and why the project is subject to or exempt from EA; and the scoping documentation (internationally known as terms of reference) (Hanna & Noble 2011). Next the application itself, the impact studies, and further documentation, e.g. additional technical documents and studies on specific species for example with the inclusion of maps (Hanna & Noble 2011; Claus et al. 2012). Information provided about and in support of public participation includes a non-technical summary, transcripts, and other material from public hearings, public comments as well as the responses to the public comments, ideally providing reasons for in- or exclusion (Hanna & Noble 2011, Claus et al. 2012). Of course, the final decision should not be missing, preferably even supplemented with a list of assessment criteria (Hanna & Noble 2011; Claus et al. 2012). Continued information provision does not stop at project approval - monitoring and follow-up requirements as well as corresponding results should be available to the public (Hanna & Noble 2011) completely fulfilling their ascribed control function within the process. Additionally, a list of unpublished documents is provided (Findlay 2010; Hanna & Noble 2011). As in the case of project Notice, with the exception of Brandenburg and Lower Saxony87, the German EIAA itself does not regulate that documents need to be provided on the Internet. Nevertheless, according to §27a (1) Sent. 3 APA, all documents announced by the Notice to be available for public inspection must also be provided on the responsible authorities’ website. These are the documents according to §6 (3) Sent. 1 EIAA: These documents include (1) a project description, (2) proposed mitigation measures, (3) expected significant environmental impacts, (4) baseline description of the environment, and (5) an overview of the considered alternatives. Furthermore, a non-technical and easily understandable summary of this information needs to be provided (§6 (3) s. 2 EIAA). Next to the information provided in support of participation, the final decision has to be published. In a strict sense, these are the documents to be publicly announced and thereby provided on the Internet. The same applies to the provision of documents in the context of SEA, as the provision for public participation defined in §9 EIAA is also applied to SEA (§14i (1) EIAA). Documents the environmental report needs to contain are detailed in §14g (2) EIAA (Table 12). According to §6 (3) Sent. 3 and §14g (2) EIAA, the provided information needs to allow third parties to evaluate if and to which extent they will be affected by the environmental impacts of the project, plan, or program. Also §9 (1b) Sent. 1 No. 2 EIAA extends the list of documents that should be provided, clearly stating all reports and recommendations that have been available to the competent authority at the beginning of the process need to also be provided to the public. This may include received comments by other involved authorities or additional expert opinions and surveys commissioned by the competent authority (Wagner 2012). One could even argue, that this list of documents would include the scoping report according to §5 EIAA as there is a clear obligation to keep a record of this meeting. Secondly, scoping defines a

In the states Brandenburg and Lower Saxony, EIA regulations itself require the web-based access to documents ((§4 (3) BbgUVPG and §14i NUVPG respectively). 87

94

CHAPTER 5

duty for other involved authorities to provide necessary information to the process. The public should have access to this information, or at least be informed about this information exchange to understand the decision making process. As public has the function to verify the outcomes (it is supposed to check the legitimacy of the process), it should know what scope of investigation has been agreed upon in advance as scoping decisions might significantly affect final decisions. Furthermore, §9 (2) EIAA defines that all other information relevant to the final decision which the competent authority received after the initial start of the process (after receiving the proponents’ application documents) needs to be available to the public as well. As comments received by the public or other involved authorities might affect the final decision, these need to be made available. An overview of the documents provided in an ideal registry compared to legal requirements in Germany is provided in Table 12.

Application documents

Early stage Information

Table 12: Ideal registry information and German legal requirements

Ideal Registry Information

German legal requirements

Initial Notice of Intent

No strict legal requirement but necessary in case of an early participation according to §25 APA

Early Correspondence between Proponent and Authority

No legal requirement

Screening Document (explaining if and why the project is subject to or exempt from EA)

§9 (1a) 1. +2.

Scoping Documentation (internationally known as terms of reference)

§6 (3) 4. Baseline description + §5 Scoping documentation (Both documents are necessary to understand the agreed upon scope of investigation)

Application

§9 (2) technical planning documents

Impact studies

§6 (3) 3.+4.; §14g (2) 3. + 4. + 5.

-

a project description

§6 (3) sentc. 1 No. 1 EIAA

-

content and goals of the plan/program consideration of environmental protection goals

§14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 1 EIAA §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 2 EIAA

-

proposed mitigation measures

-

expected significant environmental impacts

-

baseline description of the environment + development of current state without plan/program description of existing environmental problems overview of the considered alternatives

§6 (3) sentc. 1 No. 2 EIAA; §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 6 EIAA §6 (3) sentc. 1 No. 3 EIAA; §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 5 EIAA §6 (3) sentc. 1 No. 4 EIAA §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 3 EIAA

-

uncertainty of information (lack of information, technical deficiencies) Non-technical and easily understandable summary Other Supporting Documentation (e.g. technical documents additional studies for example on specific species, maps) -

§14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 4 EIAA §6 (3) sentc. 1 No. 5 EIAA; §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 8 EIAA §14g (2) sentc. 1 No. 7 EIAA §§6 (3) + 14g (2) sentc. 3 §9 (1b) EIAA reports relevant to the case

FollowUp

Decision

Public participation

CHAPTER 5

95

Ideal Registry Information

German legal requirements

Notices of Hearings

§9 (1a) EIAA

Transcripts (and other material of public hearings)

§9 (1b) EIAA

Public Submissions/Comments

§9 (1b) EIAA

Response to Public Comments (ideally providing reasons for in- or exclusion)

§9 (2) EIAA provide reasons for the decision

Final Decision

§9 (2) EIAA

List of Assessment Criteria

§§9 (2) EIAA Agency is obliged to provide an explanatory statement

Monitoring and Follow-up Requirements

§14g (2) No. 9 EIAA

Monitoring Results

§14g (2) No. 9 EIAA

When it comes to the active provision of documents in accordance with §§6, 9 and 14g EIAA, in particular the non-technical summary which provides an essential basis for public participation, website analysis (Chapter 3) as well as survey results (Chapter 4) found a perception deficit of existing law, as many of the documents are not yet actively provided by lead agencies. The legal provisions are as elaborated, clearly supporting web-based provision of documents but is bewildering that in practice it is relatively disparate. The website analysis showed that 40 of the 92 analyzed websites did not provide any documents. Only one third of lead agencies used their websites to provide EA documents but, even on these websites, the types of documents provided differed from case to case. Impact studies (§6 EIAA) were most frequently provided but still in less than 40% of cases at the project approval level. Mitigation requirements resulting from other environmental protection instruments (under German Nature Conservation Law (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz BNatSchG)) have also been supplied as often as impact studies, even though these instruments do not foresee an obligatory public participation. Provision of information showed to be particularly weak concerning scoping and public participation. Koch et al. 2014 present a similar picture; nine of 22 analysed websites did provide planning documents, some even provided additional information such as maps of the planned corridor or project brochures. Even though international practice examples generally showed a slightly higher provision of documents compared to Germany, the frequency in which type of documents were provided shows a similar distribution. Most frequently supplied documents are impact studies and supporting documents, notice of hearings, and final decisions. Only a few supplied transcripts and other material of public hearings, response to public comments, and monitoring results. As in the case of Germany, “document provision considerably varied between the projects registered” (Chapter 2/Odparlik & Köppel 2013: 328). Also, survey results (Chapter 4) showed a similar emphasis on the provision of impact studies and missing information about and in support of public participation. Especially surprising was the rare provision of the non-technical summary. Survey respondents were additionally asked which of the documents they value to be most important for an effective participation: 25% of 33 respondents think this summary is not or only somewhat important. Considering, that this summary is supposed to inform the general public without expert knowledge of the main contents of the planning in non-technical language, so that everybody is able to identify who might be affected, it

96

CHAPTER 5

can be view as a central component of public participation. Not to provide this information or to think it is not relevant completely misses the whole objective of this information. Next to the identified misperception of legal requirements in practice, which can be fixed by providing a guideline to lead agencies stating which documents need to be provided in a central portal, the law itself also provides a number of limitations to the active provision of information. There exists no strict legal obligation to inform about the initial Notice of Intent and early correspondence between proponent and authority. It can be supplied in case of early participation according to §25 APA, but there is no obligation to do so. Another legislative deficit was identified for Plans subject to SEA that are not adopted as an administrative act. For these plans, there is no obligation to provide documents online. Since there is no objective justification for this, this is an opportunity for improvement for legislators (Chapter 4). In addition, constitutionally secured protection obligations such as the protection of business secrets might be an obstacle to information provision. Parties have the right to have their secrets, especially belonging to personal spheres or business secrets, and are protected; according to §30 APA, responsible authorities do not have the right to disclose this information without authorization. Nevertheless, this should not be a relevant argument to hinder the disclosure of complete documents when the relevant information protected by §30 APA can also be blackened and the rest of the document does not allow to draw conclusions on these secrets. Also, a differentiation between passive and active information provision, based §30 APA to ensure the protection of these business secrets, is not justifiable (Chapter 4). Another limitation concerns the duration of information provision. Information has to be provided for one month (§73 (3) APA). Regulations for SEA are slightly different as §14i (2) 1 regulates that the draft plan and environmental report have to be available for at least one month, or possibly longer. For both EIA and SEA, access also has to be provided online but there is no obligation or further regulations that online access can be longer than these defined periods. This missing differentiation between offline and online publication and duration of information brings criticism to this rather political sphere. Besides a potential limitation due to server capacity, there does not seem to be any additional effort to maintain information online once it has been uploaded. Also, a permanent public information provision would facilitate a good overview of comparable cases (Chapter 4).

3. 3 Additional services to support participation Formal accessibility of information on government websites or documents does not automatically lead to substantive accessibility (Hourdequin et al. 2012). This might, for example, be the case if information is provided but the public is missing expert knowledge for understanding. Next to the transparent provision of documents, education on how to “interpret and effectively utilize this information are important prerequisites to overcoming the ‘expertise barrier’” (Odparlik & Köppel 2013) and support participation. For instance, a study conducted by Wiklund (2011) showed that insufficient knowledge of the EA process and the opportunities of participation were the most important reason why people did not participate. Providing basic knowledge about the process of EA and its legal aspects and requirements can be viewed as an important pre-requisite for effective participation (Chapter 2). International practice has shown the broad varietal use of additional web 2.0 services, to extend the classical forms of participation with aspects of e-participation and other web-based solutions to provide notice and information. Technical solutions not only help improve the user experience

CHAPTER 5

97

but also improving accessibility of information when implementing the principles of ‘fair notice’ and ‘readability’. Another important aspect concerns the substantive accessibility of the provided documents. Besides the formal provision of documents, their readability is often criticized owing to their scope and technical language being comprehensible only to an expert minority (e.g. Hourdequin et al. 2012; Partidario & Sheate 2013; Ryan et al. 2011). Provided Information is perceived as technical, confusing, wordy and formal (Sinclair et al. 2012; Illsley et al. 2014). To ensure that interested laymen are able to understand and evaluate documents, not only the non-technical summary, but all EA documents must be written in plain language (Spaling 2010; Olsen & Hansen 2014). A detailed investigation on the readability of provided documents is beyond the scope of this thesis. Nevertheless, websites have been investigated for their provision of guidance on document readability (Chapters 2 & 3) and lead agencies were asked if they have specific requirements on document readability provided by project proponents (Chapter 4). To this end, an ideal registry provides basic information about the process of EA, its legal aspects and requirements (Claus et al. 2012). The ideal registry gives instructions how to use the registry and the provided information. It further provides additional IT services to improve user experience, for example audio or video transmission of public hearings, reading aids, FAQ compilations and glossaries, explanatory videos of the planning process, (3D) simulations, or content in different languages (e.g. English, sign, or plain language) (Odparlik et al. 2012, Odparlik & Köppel 2013, Odparlik 2015). In the ideal registry, “information would be posted in easily accessible formats and would be readable for broad audiences” (Hanna & Noble 2011), and even raw data, e.g. GIS files will be provided (Kubicek 2014c). For proponents and lead agencies, the registry should provide instructions on plain language to enhance readability (Ryan et al. 2011). The website analysis revealed that the majority of websites (80%) provided basic information about the general planning process but only about 30% offered basic information about the process of EIA and SEA. Additional IT-Services were provided on 10% of agency websites and include explanatory videos of the planning process, (3D) simulations, glossaries, FAQ lists, content in English, sign language, and simple language and the option to have the website content read aloud (Chapter 3). The results of the online survey showed that respondents had a different perception on agency service concerning this topic. Survey results showed that around 42% of survey respondents (n=27) see web-based information provision as a contribution to quality assurance in the process of EAs. They mainly provide information as a service for transparent public participation (42%), as information service for project proponents or other authorities (each 6%), for example, to compare former decisions on similar projects. According to the survey, respondents (n= 33) lead agency websites are used for the provision of basic knowledge about the planning process and its legal aspects (61%) and specific instructions how to use the provided information (27%). Additionally, 79% said to improve public participation by answering telephone inquiries, providing information dates, and citizen consultations (9%), but rarely answering online inquiries (3%). Approximately half of the survey respondents said to use web 2.0 services (n=33). 24% said to use 3D simulations, explanatory videos, FAQ compilations, and cartographic localization of projects. Notice via e-Mail, RSS-Feed, or social media was said to be used by 12% of respondents (Chapter 4).

98

CHAPTER 5

In contrast to Germany, international practice has shown to use a variety of IT services providing Notice, EA process information and additional support for public participation. A summary of different IT services to improve user experience and access to information, as well as selected examples where these services are used, can be found in Table 13. Table 13: Additional web-based services to support participation and selected practice examples (Links to the given examples are provided in the list of references)

It Service

Example

Basic information

The US Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management provides a brief overview of the NEPA process and underlying regulations, as well as comprehensive information with links to corresponding laws in the NEPA Web Guide. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry provides comprehensive explanations of the basics of environmental assessment, e.g. its purpose and benefits, regulations, types of assessments, responsible agency and review panels.

Information on the supporting procedure e.g. plan approval or licensing procedure

Next to basic information about the environmental assessment procedure, the public also needs to know about the supporting procedure that integrated the environmental assessment as an independent part. The UK national Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate explains the six stages of the planning process in a short video and provides further information e.g. on the role of local authorities in the process as well as a diagram informing the public how they can get involved at each step. In addition to the service for public participation, the website also provides a pre-application service for applicants, e.g. information on application fees and example documents.

Timeline

A timeline of the planning process indicating the opportunities for public participation is for example provided by Amprion. The New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment’s development assessment tracking system provides a schematic figure of the EA process indicating the current status.

Contact information

The registry for screening decisions by the Environmental Agency Austria informs about responsible authority, affected communities, project developers and the environmental lawyer.*

Instructions for users

US Department of Interior – BLM - Land Use Planning and NEPA Register used to provide a video tutorial on the entry of online comments and how to use the register. Very plain but nevertheless sufficient instructions how to search for a project and a short definition of each assessment step, is provided by the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment’s development assessment tracking system. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry search tips provide comprehensive information how to identify a project of interest within the registry.

Audio recordings of hearings and audio webcasts

The US Department of Interior – BLM YouTube channel provides Video presentations of public meetings. The Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry provides audio webcasts for selected projects, e. g. the Avalon public hearing which took place February 18-20, 2013. Further examples can be found for selected cases on the US National Park Service - Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

CHAPTER 5

99

It Service

Example

Reading aids

The transmission system operator Amprion provides a reading aid at the beginning of impact studies. This reading aid helps users navigate through the document and quickly find their topics of interest

FAQ** compilations and glossaries

The department for road construction and transportation of the state Schleswig-Holstein (Landesbetrieb Straßenbau und Verkehr SchleswigHolstein) provides a list of frequently asked questions for the project connecting Germany and Denmark via the so called Fehmarnbelt tunnel. A comprehensive glossary for terms, acronyms/abbreviations, chemicals, and units of measure is provided in the BLM & DOE Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center.

Explanatory videos

The German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) provides a very good example of explanatory videos. On their separate website www.netzausbau.de, the agency provides videos explaining each step of the planning process for new energy transmission lines. Further videos show different information options in the process of grid development, the way how comments are processed, and different planning options e.g. underground cable. A Video explaining the need for a third airstrip and visualizing the planning, is provided on the website of the Vienna International Airport (Flughafen Wien AG).

(3D) simulations & interactive panorama pictures

The Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department – EIA Ordinance provides a link where 3D simulations of major findings and elements of EIA reports can be found. The Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center provides interactive Photo Panoramas of solar energy facilities. The German transmission system operators 50hertz and Amprion provide computer simulations and 3D animations how planned transmission lines will be integrated into the landscape.

Content in different languages (e.g. English, sign or plain language)

For the proposed construction and operation of a gravel runway in the area of Mario Zucchelli Station, Terra Nova Bay, Victoria Land in Antarctica, the Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty EIA Database provides documents in English, Spanish, French and Slovenian. The Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry provides an aboriginal language glossary and plain language handouts on the EA process. Other websites offered help for people with disabilities by simply informing on their website that in case anyone experiences any difficulty accessing information, one can send them an email. Help may include providing information in an alternate format (e.g. US National Park Service - Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site).

Raw data, e.g. GIS files

The provision of raw data enables the public to do their own analysis and draw conclusions. The Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center, a joined website of the US BLM and DOE, provides maps and supporting spatial data files that depict tracts of BLM-administered land for in-depth study for solar development. These files range from simple PDF files for the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, to KMZ Files which can be used with free software like google earth, to shape files that can be analyzed with GIS software like ArcGIS Desktop.

Easily accessible formats

The national infrastructure planning inspectorate of the UK provides documents sorted by planning stage and in pdf format. A filter function allows the user to select only documents that provide information on a specific topic of interest. One of the latest projects accepted for examination is the East Anglia Three Offshore Wind Farm. The described filter allows for quickly finding information for example concerning bats or noise.

100

CHAPTER 5

It Service

Example

Instructions on plain language

Comprehensive guidance how to provide information in plain language can be found in the Washington Department of Transportation’s readerfriendly document tool kit (see next section).

* In every Austrian province the respective state government established an environmental advocacy. These so called environmental lawyers represent the public interest of nature and environmental protection and support citizens in environmental issues and grievances (Umweltanwaltschaften Österreichs 2016) ** FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions

German agencies have shown attempts to increase the access to their website’s information by allowing to change font size, ability to switch the language of information to simple language for selected website content, or even read out certain parts of the website to increase accessibility for people with impaired eye sight (the state of Saarland’s website – e.g. country institution for road construction – Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau). The Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur) next to English and plain language also offers a signing question and answer tool which offers an opportunity to deaf users of the website to communicate without barriers in sign language. Most of these services go back to the requirements of the German Regulation on accessible documents in the federal administration (Verordnung zur Zugänglichmachung von Dokumenten für blinde und sehbehinderte Menschen im Verwaltungsverfahren nach dem Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz). It provides requirements that are supposed to help increase the accessibility of federal agencies’ documents for people who are blind or visually impaired, and includes for example, requirements to provide descriptions to pictures and graphs to allow those visually impaired to understand the same statement, without actually seeing them. Furthermore, a number of agency internal guidelines set standards in how and which information shall be spread (57% of survey respondents n=33). While instruction to write EA documents in plain language have not been found during website analysis, 87% of surveyed respondents stated to have certain requirements on documents provided by the project proponent (n=33). These requirements are formal or content related, albeit partly very broad; ‘documents shall be legible, understandable, plausible, meaningful, clear, understandable, consistent, complete, comprehensive and structured. With the aim of maximum comprehensibility, at least for not purely technical documents, documents shall be technically accurate and simultaneously not artificially simplified through the elimination of technical terms. Plans and maps shall be clear and comprehensibly allow the spatial allocation, e.g. by a good reference of map and legend.’ These instructions sound like their main message has been lost in translation, but be assured they were given as vague as presented here. Without providing further instructions, these stated requirements leave lots of room for interpretation and are far from providing a common standard on document quality. It gets a bit more precise when for example, the triggering function of documents is described; ‘Citizens need to be able to recognize whether they will be affected or not, e.g. by providing information on estate related impacts on a scale of parcel levels.’ ‘If possible, there shall be tiering of statements between the different planning levels.’ Of course, in terms of readability, this requires the provision of documents from the respective planning level as well. Some requirements are directly aligned with the publication on the Internet. Documents should be provided in .pdf format or in a ZIP archive, not extending a certain file size and be barrier-free. In addition, the creation of a portfolio is required, providing a structured overview of the documents or explanatory cover sheet. Besides these individual requirements provided in the absence of a common standard, reference is also made to certain rules, guidelines, and method papers for example:

CHAPTER 5

101

BMVI (2012): Guidelines for the planning process and for the uniform layout of draft documents concerning highway construction (Richtlinien zum Planungsprozess und für die einheitliche Gestaltung von Entwurfsunterlagen im Straßenbau, Ausgabe 2012 (RE 2012)),   

BMVI (2015): Guidelines for project approval under the Federal Highways Act (Richtlinien für die Planfeststellung nach dem Bundesfernstraßengesetz (PlafeR 2015)), BNetzA (2012): Guidelines for Federal Planning according to §§4 ff. of the Grid Expansion Acceleration Act (Leitfaden zur Bundesfachplanung nach §§4 ff. des Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetzes Übertragungsnetz (NABEG)) BNetzA (2015): Methods paper – Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Federal Planning (Methodenpapier – Die Strategische Umweltprüfung in der Bundesfachplanung)

3. 4 e-Participation While the use of innovative technology and the provision of information constitutes an important part of e-participation, the ability to use new forms of communication and interactions establishes another part (Macintosh 2004; Kubicek 2014b). Progressive digitization opens up new web-based opportunities for participation, for example, online posting of comments and objections independent of location and opening hours of the competent authorities (Schulze-Wolf & Köhler 2008). Classical forms of participation, e.g. written submissions or meetings on site are not replaced. However, more often online-based participation is added and even partly combined with conventional formats (Trénel & Fitschen 2014). Also, the ideal registry should enable online entry of objections and comments regarding the process or the procedural documents (Odparlik et al. 2012). E-participation can support exchange and cooperation processes and increase the transparency of planning. Moderated online dialogues make it possible to structure complex discussions. Especially for people that have inhibitions to speak in front of large audiences, electronic forums offer a preferable alternative. Common text editing and constructive review results in readily usable outcomes (Kubicek 2014a; SenStadtUm 2011). While some scholars promote the use of e-participation as requiring less effort compared to the organization of traditional meetings, being more flexible and being able to reach a greater number of people (Kubicek 2014a). Others point out that the use of e-participation is sometimes related to very high efforts and requires a clear management of responsibilities, swift reactions and binding procedures. Especially the moderation of online debates is subject to diverse requirements (SenStadtUm 2011). The German states of Baden-Württemberg and Saxony and for example the nature conservation organizations of Berlin and Brandenburg have picked up on this idea of e-participation and are providing this opportunity on established online portals (Beteiligungsportal Baden-Württemberg www.beteiligungsportal.baden-wuerttemberg.de; Beteiligungsportal Sachsen www.buergerbeteiligung.sachsen.de; Beteiligungsportal anerkannter Naturschutzverbände www.umwelt-beteiligung.de). While some examples of e-participation in the context of EAs in Germany exist (cf. Schulze-Wolf & Köhler 2008; Köhler 2011), uptake of this approach is still slow. Of the survey participants, 30 % answered to enable e-participation on their websites, but also said that these were mainly politically prioritized cases. This tendency to use e-participation in cases with higher political attention is also reflected in the results of the website analysis. The possibility of an online entry of comments was only provided at the strategic level of requirement planning by the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) and the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infratsruktur), and by two ministries on the level of corridor planning (Ministerium für Energie Infrastruktur und Landesentwicklung Mecklen-

102

CHAPTER 5

burg-Vorpommern; Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz). None of the investigated websites for the level of the plan approval procedure made use of the approach. As well, the argument that e-participation decreases the threshold for the submission of objections seems polarize. One the one hand, this phenomenon is considered positive as it can lead to more participation. On the other hand, there are claims that e-participation can decrease the threshold for comments which are ‘frivolous, selfish or simply due to a generally negative attitude towards the general interest’. The option for e-participation ‘would simply make it too easy to be against something’. Survey respondents feel that it is necessary to concentrate on serious objections especially with the increasing amount of complaints against too long and bureaucratic planning procedures (Chapter 4). International practice has shown to use different technical solutions to provide e-participation opportunities (Table 14). The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance of the Government of Hong Kong, facilitates traditional public participation by sending in comment via mail, but providing downloadable forms for these comments in PDF and Word format. The Government of Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority hosts a “consultation hub” providing participation and consultation opportunities on environmental impact assessments and environmental protection policies. The website lists forthcoming, open and closed consultations and guides the comment process with specific questions provided in an online form. The section “WE Asked, You Said, We Did” allows people to reflect how their comments on past procedures have been integrated. Table 14: Different forms of e-Participation used in international practice examples

Forms of e-Participation

Example

Online form to provide comments on process or procedural documents. Commenters were asked for their name and had the opportunity to indicate if they wanted their name to be withheld in case of online publication on the agencies website. Some of these forms provide blank fields to comment on any kind of topic, while other forms provide specific questions thereby guiding the process by limiting the topics that the public can comment on.



US National Park Service (NPS)



New South Wales Government



Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority consultation hub

Comment Submission Wizard used to directly allow marking specific parts in documents and directly commenting. The attachment of files to a comment can be possible and a video tutorial providing instructions on how to use the wizard. Currently their system is updated to a comment submission form.



US Bureau of Land Management Register

E-Mail – In some examples public notice specifically encourages the submission of comments via e-mail.



Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry

Web-based public meeting where a meeting is announced on the website which also provides a URL/Webinar link to the web-based meeting. Following the link, one must sign in providing first and last name, and an email address.



US NPS - Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site e.g. Yosemite National Park

§73 (4) APA regulates that anyone whose interests are affected by a project, may raise concerns to the competent authority, written or in person, until two weeks after the public display of documents. Legally, it is possible for the competent authority to provide various options for online participation. But there are strict requirements placed on the ability to identify the sender in both

CHAPTER 5

103

the e-mail communication in administrative procedures as well as the raising of objections on online portals. The use of online forms is legally unproblematic as long as they allow the identification of the objector according to §18 of the ID Act (Personalausweisgesetz) and §78 (5) of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz) (§3 (2) sentc. 5 APA). The possibility to raise objections by e-mail exists only if such access was opened by the hearing authority and the e-mail contains a qualified signature according to §5 (5) of the DE-Mail-Act (DE-Mail-Gesetz). Since 2013 each authority is obliged to open up such a point of access for the transfer of electronic documents, including such documents provided with a qualified electronic signature according to §2 (1) of the E-Government Act (Gesetz zur Förderung der elektronischen Verwaltung). Therefore, legal possibilities for e-participation do exist but they hardly promote its adaption.

4. Discussion Article 6 of the Directive 2014/52/EU amending Directive 2011/92/EU known as EIA Directive regulates the agency and public participation. It underlines the close connection between effective participation and notice as well as access to information. “In order to ensure the effective participation of the public concerned in the decision-making procedures, the public shall be informed electronically and by notices or by other appropriate means, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided” (Article 6 (b) 2.) It further emphasizes the Internet as a means by which such access shall be provided, next to the former way, for example, publication in local newspapers. “[...] Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the relevant information is electronically accessible to the public, through at least a central portal or easily accessible points of access, at the appropriate administrative level” (Article 6 (c) 5.) Until May 16 2017 the Directive’s revisions must be transposed into German law. The presented summary of research results leads to a number of suggestions for pending amendments for the EIAA and for the implementation of a central portal.

4. 1 Notice of projects and status updates As of now, lead agencies have to provide Notice on their website according to §27a APA. Even though many agency websites have shown to actively provide Notice via the Internet, information provision is still flawed by the fact that the interested public would need to know who the responsible authorities are who might hold relevant information and then they themselves must actively search the various agency websites. One can debate whether this approach still falls under the definition of active information provision according to Zschiesche & Sperfeld (2009). Providing Notice via one central portal would reduce the number of information points the public needs to find out which projects might affect them. If Notice shall be provided via the central portal, this would require a change in law or respective amendment of the EIAA. But the EU Directive does not specifically say that there should be one central portal, it also refers to the option to choose several access points. Therefore, Germany could also choose the option to have one central portals

104

CHAPTER 5

in each state or even several portals in each state. While the majority of survey respondents would prefer to have several access points in each state, I would like to stress the fact that these portals are meant to facilitate better public information. Sticking to the old concept of providing access via several access points completely misses the point to provide an easy access and also makes it very hard to establish common standards. Furthermore, the pending amendment of the EIAA provides an opportunity to tackle clear and possibly extended timeframes, contents, and means for public notice in the act itself. One could, for example, pick up the idea of early participation, as described in APA §25, and require to provide Notice at the beginning of the planning process instead of the beginning of the participation phase. This idea of early notice is also taken up by Directive 2014/52/EU. The amended §6 (b) paragraph 2 sentc. 2. states “[…] the public shall be informed electronically and by public notices or by other appropriate means, […] early in the environmental decision-making procedures […] and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided”. The provision of Notice can be enhanced with the implementation of certain technical features as described for the ‘ideal registry’. Therefore, implementation of the required central portal can recognize additional aspects of providing fair notice through information services, filter functions, and status updates thereby improving the active provision of information.

4. 2 Provision of documents For all EA procedures that fall under the APA there is a legal obligation for a web-based provision of documents and further information that has been announced by Notice (§27 APA). Nevertheless, this does not apply to those plans subject to SEA that are not adopted as an administrative act. According to the revised EU Directive, the purpose of the portal is an early and simplified access to information. Reason 18 of the amending directive explains, with regard to the implementation of the directive, timely environmental information should be accessible in electronic formats to strengthen public access to information and transparency. It shall be the task of the portal to reduce existing barriers by providing public access to information easily and effectively. The directive thereby provides the required change that regulates that all information provided to the public shall also be available on the Internet. Due to change in EU Directive, the pending amendments of the EIAA will have to define an obligation to provide documents and further procedural information online. As of now the EU Directive aims at EIA, which is not to say there is not an opportunity for Germany to also define this requirement for SEA. This way, the requirements would apply to all projects, plans, and programs subject to EA, no matter which licensing procedure carries it as a piggyback. As there seem to be different interpretations of existing legal requirements when it comes to question - which documents need to be provided - a list within the law or a guideline provided in the central portal might help to sustain a common understanding. It should be clearly defined that these documents encompass more than just the information according to §6 EIAA and an emphasis should be given to the nontechnical summary with respect to readability requirements. Furthermore, it should be decided if the central portal shall only be used for ongoing projects or as an archive. In the latter case, there needs to be an obligation to keep uploaded information in the registry even after the final decision. There also needs to be a definition who holds the responsibility to upload these documents; the lead agency, the project proponent, or even a higher institution such as the Ministry of Environment overseeing the central portal (similar to the EPA in the USA). Additionally, guidance should be provided how to deal with data protection. Should webbased information provision still be limited, a list of unpublished documents should be provided (Findlay 2010; Hanna & Noble 2011), explaining which documents or parts of documents can not

CHAPTER 5

105

be disclosed, e.g. on the basis of copyright protection or due to server capacities. This way, the public can still file an official request for access to information according to the Environmental Information Act (Umweltinformationsgesetz).

4. 3 Additional services to support participation Simply suggesting that the portal should provide access to all documents would be turning a blind eye on the fact that formal accessibility does not automatically lead to substantive accessibility. Therefore, the new central portal should make use of some of the technical solutions used by international examples to provide information on the planning process in form of videos, FAQ compilations or glossaries. It should recognize as well many people not being familiar with the use of the portal and therefore, should provide instructions for different stakeholders how to use the provided information and additional services. Another important issue facilitating the substantive access to information is guidance on the readability of documents. The US provides several examples concerned with the readability of documents which can be used to develop similar guidance for Germany. In addition to defined contents, there is a requirement for NEPA documents to be written in “plain language” (40 CFR 1500.4). This has the simple purpose that even readers without an education in environmental planning should be able to read and understand EIS documents. The corresponding federal Plain Language Guidelines (PLGs) are “intended to create documents where readers can: (1) find what they need, (2) understand what they read, and (3) use it to fulfill their needs” (Ryan et al. 2011). Translated into clear requirements to enhance document readability, this suggests documents need to be well organized, clearly written, and provide aids for clarity (Table 15). Table 15: Document readability requirements (Source: Ryan et al. 2011)

Requirement

Further specifications

Well organized



Summary to provide the readers with an overview of the project.



Short sections, avoidance of double negatives, and short paragraphs.



No more than three heading levels, consistent in formatting.



Transitions between paragraphs.



Flesh Reading Ease Scale – common test for readability. It uses two objective measures: sentence length and number of syllables per word, multiplied by a constant, to yield a reading ease score (0 = extreme difficult; 100 = extremely easy)



Active voice instead of passive voice.



Glossary and/or a list of acronyms or abbreviations.



Sidebars (highlight important information in a document) - can be used to define unfamiliar terms and concepts, refer readers to additional information sources, identify where text with legal significance may be found, highlight trade-offs or compare important pieces of information, provide useful tips, highlight or reinforce important points, or identify project benefits and adverse effects.

Written clearly

Provide aids for clarity

Guidelines on document quality and reader friendliness (reader-friendly document tool kit) by the US state of Washington’s Department of Transportation provide another good example how to define a common standard. The guideline defines four key concepts: (1) tell a story, (2) engage the reader, (3) make it brief, and (4) make it visual. The toolkit provides a couple of examples for each of these recommendations, e.g. the reader can be more engaged by a simple change of headings from “Purpose and need for the proposal” to “Why do we need the project?”. It further points

106

CHAPTER 5

to challenges in making a document reader-friendly and provides examples how plain language can be used for complex topics (Table 16). The example shows how the same information as provided in a trsditional EIS can be given using reader-friendly language. It can be criticized however, eliminating all technical norms and terms would lead to a loss of information. Adding e.g. footnotes with references to technical norm to the reader friendly example would counteract this issue. The Washington State Department of Transportation’s website offers next to the described Tool Kit also examples of reader friendly EIA documents and points to further resources (Geißler et al. 2016). Table 16: With this example WS Dot shows how one can engage the reader by making them a character in the story (Source: WS DoT 2008, 18)

Traditional EIS

Reader-Friendly EIS

Intersections that are projected to operate with especially long delays or overcapacity during the PM peak hour are identified as “congested intersections.” These intersections are those that operate under LOS F conditions (average vehicle delay of greater than 80 seconds) or ICU greater than 100 percent. Congested intersections are further identified as “highly congested” if they exceed 110 seconds of average vehicle delay and have an ICU greater than 110 percent.

What are congested and highly congested intersections? Congested intersections are intersections that cause drivers considerable delay. A driver might wait between one and two minutes to get through a traffic signal at a congested intersection. At a highly congested intersection, a driver might wait two minutes or more to get through the traffic signal.

The traditional EIS uses expert terms like LOS, ICU and PM Peak which don‘t mean anything for many readers

The Reader Friendly EIS explains the same thing as the traditional EIS – but it is easier to understand how the project will effect the reader.

Jalava et al. (2010) provides a list with qualities of a good EIS according to the European Commission. While this list contains general objectives concerning the content of an EIS, it also provides some quality requirements concerning the readability of documents (Jalava et al. 2010: 16): 

             

“A clear structure with a logical sequence, for example describing, existing baseline conditions, predicted impacts (nature, extent and magnitude), scope for mitigation, agreed mitigation measures, significance of unavoidable/residual impacts for each environmental topic. A table of contents at the beginning of the document. A clear description of the development consent procedure and how EIA fits within it. Reads as a single document with appropriate cross-referencing. Is concise, comprehensive and objective. Is written in impartial manner without bias. Includes a full description of the development proposals. Makes effective use of diagrams, illustrations, photographs and other graphics to support the text. Uses consistent terminology with a glossary. References all information sources used. Has a clear explanation of complex issues. Contains a good description of the methods used for the studies of each environmental topic. Covers each environmental topic in a way which is proportionate to its importance. Provides evidence of good consultations. Includes a clear discussion of alternatives. Makes a commitment to mitigation (with a programme) and to monitoring. Has a non-technical summary which does not contain technical jargon.”

CHAPTER 5

107

However, the effectiveness of such “plain-language” approaches have received limited attention in empirical studies. Jones et al. (2012), for example, examined if the use of plain language guidelines genuinely affects a readers’ comprehension and perceptions of these environmental policy documents. They noted that readers value documents showing a clear orientation for the reader, have an inviting tone, use less technical terms and jargon, have a clear structure, containing meaningful graphics and using white space, e.g. a free page to reduce information overload. While this study provides first insights into the effectiveness of different measures to create reader-friendly documents, further studies on this subject are required. For Germany, no such studies or guidelines in environmental planning are known. Nevertheless, the registered association ‘Network Plain Language’ in Germany and other authors have shown aspirations similar to the US plain language approaches to increase the use of plain language, especially in law and administration (e.g. Netzwerk Leichte Sprache e.V. 2013; Blaha & Wilhelm 2012). Firstly, a central portal is best to provide guidance on the use of plain language for project proponents and lead agencies; secondly, better access to EA documents via the portal provides a good basis for empirical studies on the readability of documents.

4. 4 e-Participation It is technically possible to use a central portal to provide various options for online participation, for example, communication via e-mail or raising objections directly in the portal. But there are strict requirements placed on the ability to identify the sender in both cases. The central portal should promote the use of e-participation by providing guidance explaining the legal requirements. Also, §73 APA differentiates between plan approval and hearing authority. While the responsibility for public participation usually lies within the hearing authority, all other process steps as well as responsibility for EA, lies within the plan approval authority. The central portal might be run by yet another authority. Therefore, it remains to be legally and technically defined that the portal can be used for e-participation. The choice as well as the effectiveness of the relevant forms of e-participation depend on pre-set goals. Use of the Internet is said to increase participation. According to Trénel & Fitschen (2014) effectiveness depends on the composition of participants rather than the amount, and heterogeneity is viewed as an important indicator of the reached openness and inclusiveness of public participation. This view recognizes the fact that the size of the population interested in a specific topic is subject to variation, and individual citizens in many situations, are content to remain in the passive audience role. Although, the amount of participants is not indicative of the openness of public participation and the quality of comments, sufficient citizen participation is a prerequisite to generate decision-relevant knowledge and reflect the process’ openness. It is criticized that the Internet would lower the threshold to comment and thereby increase the number of unqualified comments (cf. Chapter 4). The Internet is said to rapidly decrease the costs for participation, and thus changes a part of the conditions for participation- but this does not undermine the general cause structure for participation. The basic model of participation research is also confirmed applicable for e-participation, thus participation in different forms is determined by socio-economic statuses, calculated from education, income, and occupational status. The higher the status, the higher the likelihood that some comprehensive forms of participation

108

CHAPTER 5

are used. Further factors influencing participation are: General attitude or political interest; experience with participation; reaction of the social environment on participation; situational factors, e.g. exposure to other problems; and legal means or opportunities to participate (Vowe 2014). Kubicek (2014b) suggests, next to the presentation of some other approaches, to evaluate the effectiveness of e-participation based on the categories of Input, Activities, Output, Outcome and Impact (Figure 15), and recognizes several objectives of participation e.g. legitimation and transparency. The framework shows that the amount of participants as well as the quality of statements can be an indicator for effective e-participation. Furthermore, Kubicek (2014b) points to the importance of traceability how participation influences the final decision. While he differentiates between general participation procedures and environmental projects, he lacks further explanation (Kubicek 2014b). One possible explanation why it is important to apply a different framework for environmental projects is the fact that the overall goal of EAs is the protection of the environment and to identify the alternative with the least environmental impacts. Therefore, participation is already limited from the start as public suggestions which would result in high impacts can simply not be recognized. However, the effectiveness of participation depends on initially defined goals. For instance, if the goal is to identify possible alternatives during the scoping process, participation is still effective even if the suggested alternative is not the preferred alternative. This highlights the importance of clearly communicating goals and limits of participation at the beginning of the process.

Figure 15: Criteria for the evaluation of e-participation (Own Illustration based on Kubicek 2014b)

5. Conclusion and Further Research Publicly accessible information on environmental assessments can be found on the Internet, but this information is of varying quality. A perception deficit of existing law has been identified, as many of the EA documents and process information are not yet actively provided by lead agencies even though legal provisions are as elaborated, clearly supporting the web-based provision of documents. While this indicates that good practice might be inhibited by the same tradition of official secrecy as observed for the enactment of the transparency regulations, it needs to be recognized that the

CHAPTER 5

109

practice is relatively disparate. Survey results showed that around 42% of survey respondents (n=27), see web-based information provision as a contribution to quality assurance in the process of environmental assessments and mainly provide information as a service for transparent public participation (42%). This might be seen as an indicator for a shift in attitude towards an open government. Nevertheless, focusing on a selected sample of the EA ‘landscape’ in Germany, it might be prematurely jumping to substantial conclusions in one direction or the other. Comparison to the international practice however, clearly shows that there is a great potential for improvement in Germany. Analysis of the existing regulations on access to EA information showed various limitations as compared to the ideal situation as pictured throughout this thesis. Upcoming amendments of the EIAA in response to Directive 2014/52/EU provide an opportunity to clearly define the need for active web-based information provision within the EIAA itself, hopefully extending the list of documents that definitely needs to be provided and putting a greater emphasis on early notice and participation. Survey results have shown that some lead agencies are simply not aware of the fact that they are supposed to actively provide EA Information on the Internet. That this is the result of partly overlapping, relatively open and unclear regulations seems to be true at least for the agencies that do not recognize their legal obligation. The presented research shows EA is more than just a process of generating information and this provision or absence of information can influence the fairness and effectiveness of public participation. Simply providing all the documents and process information can lead to an effective participation in EA would be turning a blind eye on aspects of substantive accesibility. While the formal accessibility to information is a crucial first step, further aspects like fair notice, the provision of background information on EA and its possibilities for participation, as well as the readability of documents need to be recognized to allow for a substantive access to information. International practice has shown to use a wide variety of IT services to increase the substantive accessibility to information thereby increasing the chances for better public participation. Although research suggests, a strong connection between the information processing model and the pluralist politics model as described by Bartlett & Kurian (1999) simply drawing a connection between these two models might not be sufficient. According to the information processing model EIA is a technique for generating, organizing and communicating information. In this model, EA is based on the assumption that better information will lead to better decision making. Consequently, the aim of EIA is to address information problems like missing information, defective information, biased information, untimely information, unusable information and ignorable information. The pluralist politics model, on the other hand, focuses on opening up the EIA process by allowing for public participation. But it suffers from assuming equal opportunities for all groups to participate when in fact it ignores the relation between power and privilege (Bartlett & Kurian 1999). Depending on the political context, public participation is used to gather information but does not allow to influence decision making. "[I]nformation generated on impacts (through public participation as well as scientific assessments) is unlikely to serve as ‘advocacy information’ given the absence of a ‘legitimate advocacy based arena’" (Koppel, 1988: 124 in Bartlett & Kurian 1999: 423). Although Bartlett & Kurian (1999) do not draw a connection of initial information provision by agencies allowing fair and effective participation, they suggest developing a ‘participatory democracy model’ emphasizing the need for public participation with a sensitivity to local cultures. It is therefore important to recognize for example differences in education level or general attitude towards a project (‘mental maps’). The presented research here can contribute to the development of this model by emphasizing the need to provide information for public participation and

110

CHAPTER 5

to consider different obstacles like missing Notice, selective information provision, expertise barriers, and additional services to allow all interested parties to participate. It is not so much a matter of cultural differences but different levels of knowledge and formal and substantive access to information resources. The presented research points to different functions that central, webbased (meta-) information systems can fulfill in order to connect information and participation and in fact, help overcome some obstacles associated with ineffective participation. Further research in this field should follow up on the overall hypothesis of this thesis on the use of a web-based (meta-) system significantly contributing to the improvement of EA. Research on the effectiveness of a portal could identify the information the public actually views. An online questionnaire provided on the portal could address the public asking how useful they consider the new portal is, asking for suggestions of improvement, and to highlight the functions they value most. It should further be investigated how a new portal affects participation as compared to traditional forms without comfortable access to information. How does a portal affect the awareness and frequency of participation as well as the composition of participants (e.g. age, level of education or occupation)? Similar to the here presentet survey of lead agencies, project proponents could be asked about their percieved advantaged and disadvantages of providing comprehensive information. Last but not least the web-based collection and provision of EA Information opens up several opportunities for research on the performance of EA in Germany. It enables statistical evaluations as known from Austria and the comparison and discussion on similar cases, their underlying data, used methods and final decisions. Additionally, it allows to do research comparing science, policy and practice. An interesting topic is the use of good quality information as for example required by the US Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Public Law 106-554). The law regulates that guidelines shall be issued „[...] that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) dissemination by Federal agencies [...]“. It is the goal to reach a defined level of quality, especially in times of rapid Internet communication. It will be interesting to evaluate how good quality information is defined and used in Germany, maybe even to develop similar guidance as in the US. Moreover, the access to EA process documents allows to follow up on the substantive accessibility e.g. the readability of documents. Also in this context research could lead to the development of guidance specific to the identified problems. This research could contribute to the identified question, how to provide technically accurate documents which simultaneously are not artificially simplified through the elimination of technical terms. Comprehensive information collection and active provision, next to the described improvements for public participation, might in the long run significantly contribute to research and the development of the instruments of environmental assessment.

CHAPTER 5

111

6. References Bartlett, R.V.; Kurian, P.A. (1999): The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy & Politics 27: 415-433. Blaha, M. & Wilhelm, H. [ed.] (2012): Verständliche Sprache in Recht und Verwaltung. Frankfurt am Main, Verlag für Verwaltungswissenschaft. ISBN 978-3-942731-06-5 BMUB - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (2015): Kurzinfo Umweltinformationen. Online: http://www.bmu.de/umweltinformation/kurzinfo/doc/4031.php [Accessed 04.05.2016] BNetzA (2012): Leitfaden zur Bundesfachplanung nach §§4 ff. des Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetzes Übertragungsnetz (NABEG). Online: http://www.netzausbau.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/2012/BundesfachplanungLeitfaden.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 01.09.2016] BNetzA (2015): Methodenpapier – Die Strategische Umweltprüfung in der Bundesfachplanung. Im Rahmen der Unterlagen gemäß §8 NABEG. Online: http://www.netzausbau.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/2015/BundesfachplanungMethodenSUP.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 01.09.2016] Bonifazi, A.; Rega, C.; Gazzola, P. (2011): Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Democratisation of Spatial Planning. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(1): 9–37. DOI 10.1142/S1464333211003778 Claus, F.; Hampe, J.; Hinzke, L.; Lühr, K.; Paust, A.; Renkamp, A.; Versteyl, A. (2012): Mehr Transparenz und Bürgerbeteiligung. Prozessanalysen und Empfehlungen am Beispiel von Fernstraßen, Industrieanlagen und Kraftwerken. Vorabversion der Studie. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh. Online: http://www.dialoggestalter.de/fileadmin/Media/Downloads/Studie-Buergerbeteiligung-Prozessanalysen-Infrastruktur.pdf [Accessed 23.09.2014] Findlay, S. C. (2010): The CEAA Registry as a tool for evaluating CEAA effectiveness. Online: http://www.oaia.on.ca/documents/2010conf/Findlay%CEAA%20workshop [Accessed 17.07.2012] García-Melón, M.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; Acuña-Dutra, S. (2012): A combined ANP-delphi approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 34: 41–50. DOI 10.1016/j.eiar.2011.12.001 Gauthier, M.; Simard, L.; Waaub, J.-P. (2011): Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(1): 48–60. DOI 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.006 Geissler, G.; Odparlik, L.; Günther, M.; Rehhausen, A.; Köppel, J. (2016): (Strategische) Umweltprüfung im internationalen Vergleich. In: Mitschang, S. [ed.]: UPDATE: Aktuelle Anforderungen des Umweltschutzes in der Bauleitplanung: 157–186. Frankfurt am Main, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Glucker, A. N.; Driessen, P. P. J.; Kolhoff, A.; Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013): Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 104–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003 Hanna, K.; Noble, B. (2011). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry: Promise and Reality. UVPReport 25(4): 222–225. Hourdequin, M.; Landres, P.; Hanson, M. J.; Craig, D. R. (2012): Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 35: 37–44. Illsley, B.; Jackson, T.; Deasley, N. (2014): Spheres of public conversation: Experiences in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.08.001 Jalava, K.; Pasanen, S.; Saalasti, M.; Kuitunen, M. (2010): Quality of Environmental Impact Assessment: Finnish EISs and the opinions of EIA professionals. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28 (1): 15-27. Jones, N.; McDavid, J.; Derthick, K.; Dowell, R.; Spyridakis, J. (2012): Plain Language in Environmental Policy Documents: An Assessment of Reader Comprehension and Perceptions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 42(4): 331–371. DOI: 10.2190/TW.42.4.b

112

CHAPTER 5

Kengne, C. V. N.; Evouna, S. E. M.; Bitondo, D. (2013): Public hearings in environmental and social impact assessment for energy sector projects in Cameroon. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 64–73. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.759454 Koch, S.; Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. Köhler, S. (2011): Informationsmanagement und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bei der UVP der Küstenautobahn A 22. UVP-Report 27(2): 10–15. Kubicek, H. (2014a): Format 2x2 – Bürgerkonsultation persönlich und online in zwei Stufen. In: Hartwig, J.; Kroneberg D. W. (ed.) (2014): Moderne Formen der Bürgerbeteiligung in Kommunen. Konzepte und Praxis. Studien zur Öffentlichen Verwaltung Bd. 3: 53-96. Berlin, Lit Verlag Dr. W. Hopf. ISBN 978-3-643-12534-7 Kubicek, H. (2014b): Staatliche Beteiligungsangebote im Internet – Ein Überblick. In: Voss, K. [ed.] (2014): Internet und Partizipation. Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Bürgergesellschaft und Demokratie. Edition 42: 265-298. Wiesbanden, Sringer VS. ISBN 9783-658-01027-0 Kubicek, H. (2014c): Verwaltungstransparenz und Verwaltungskultur. Erfahrungsgestützte Annäherung an ein diffuses Verhältnis am Beispiel der Freien Hansestadt Bremen. In: König, K.; Kropp, S.; Kuhlmann, S.; Reichard, Ch.; Sommermann, K.-R.; Ziekow, J. [e.d] (2014): Grundmuster der Verwaltungskultur. Interdisziplinäre Diskurse über kulturelle Grundformen der öffentlichen Verwaltung: 433466. Daden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. ISBN 978-3-8487-1463-6 Macintosh, A.L. (2004): Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Online: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1265300&isnumber=28293 [Accessed 21.03.2013] Nadeem, O.; Fischer, T. B. (2011): An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(1): 36–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.003 Netzwerk Leichte Sprache e.V. (2013): Die Regeln für leichte Sprache. Online: http://leichtesprache.org/index.php/startseite/leichte-sprache/die-regeln [Accessed 25.08.2016] Odparlik, L. F.; Kerkemeyer, A. (2016): Voraussetzungen und Hindernisse beim Zugang zu UVP-Dokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen – Wo geht es zur Einheit in der Vielfalt? Natur + Recht 38: 529-538. DOI: 10.1007/s10357-016-3050-7 Odparlik, L. F. (2015): Are Agencies Turning a Blind Eye to Public Access to Environmental Assessment Information? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17 (3): 1550028. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500283 Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(4): 324–331. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.841028 Odparlik, L. F.; Köppel, J.; Geißler, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im Internationalen Vergleich. UVP-Report 26(5): 236– 243. Olsen, A. H.; Hansen, A. M. (2014): Perceptions of public participation in impact assessment: a study of offshore oil exploration in Greenland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32 (1): 72–80. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.872842 Partidario, M. R.; Sheate, W. R. (2013): Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39: 26–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.02.002 Ryan, C. M.; Brody, D. O. B.; Lunde, A. I. (2011): NEPA Documents at the US Forest Service: A Blessing and a Curse? UVP-Report 25 (4): 192-197. Schlacke, S. (2013): Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, Kommunikation und Rationalität von Planungsentscheidungen - eine Einführung. UVP-Report 27(1+2): 32–33. Schulze-Wolf, T.; Köhler, S. (2008): Online-Beteiligung für das Raumordnungsverfahren zur Küstenautobahn A 22. UVP-Report 22(3): 635-644.

CHAPTER 5

113

SenStadtUm- Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin (ed.) (2011): Handbuch zur Partizipation. Online: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/partizipation/de/handbuch.shtml [20. 02. 2016]. Sinclair, A. J.; Schneider, G.; Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(2): 85–93. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.667238 Sinclair, A. J.; Diduck, A. (2009): Public Participation in Canadian Environmental Assessment: Enduring Challenges and Future Directions. In K. S. Hanna (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: 58–82. Don Mills, Ontario, Oxford Univ. Press. Spaling, H.; Montes, J.; Sinclair, J. (2011): Best Practices for Promoting Participation and Learning for Sustainability: Lessons From Community-Based Environmental Assessment in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 13(3): 343–366. DOI 10.1142/S1464333211003924 Trénel, M. & Fitschen, K. (2014): Online-Konsultation in der Praxis: Welche Maßstäbe sind angemessen? In: Voss, K. [ed.] (2014): Internet und Partizipation. Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Bürgergesellschaft und Demokratie. Edition 42: 337-348. Wiesbanden, Sringer VS. ISBN 978-3-658-01027-0 Umweltanwaltschaften Österreichs (2016): Wir über uns – Die Umweltanwältinnen und Umweltanwälte Österreichs. Online: http://www.umweltanwaltschaft.gv.at/de [Accessed 05.08.2016] US Government (2011): Federal Plain Language Guidelines. Online: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/fullbigdoc.pdf [Accessed 01.09.2016] van Schie, N.; Duijn, M.; Edelenbos, J. (2011): Co-Valuation: Exploring Methods for Expert and Stakeholder Valuation. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13: 619-650. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333211004036 Vowe, G. (2014): Digital Citizens and Schweigende Mehrheit: Wie verändert sich die politische Beteiligung der Bürger durch das Internet? Ergebnisse einer kommunikationswisschenschaftlichen Langzeitstudie. In: Voss, K. [ed.] (2014): Internet und Partizipation. Bottom-up oder Top-down? Politische Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten im Internet. Bürgergesellschaft und Demokratie. Edition 42: 25-52. Wiesbanden, Sringer VS. ISBN 978-3-658-01027-0 WS DoT (Washington State Department of Transportation) (2008): Reader-Friendly Document Tool Kit. Online: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9D49067F-8DAC-4B08-B3EC2C2E7F09C074/0/RFToolKit.pdf [Accessed 06.09.2016] Wagner (2012): §9, Rn. 32. In: Hoppe & Beckmann [ed.](2012):UVPG Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Kommentar, 4. Edition. Köln, Carl Heymanns Verlag. ISBN 978-3-452-27505-9 Wiklund, H. (2011): Why High Participatory Ideals Fail in Practice: a Bottom-Up Approach To Public Nonparticipation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(02): 159–178. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333211003833 Zschiesche, M.; Sperfeld, F. (2011): Zur Praxis des neuen Umweltinformationsrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. ZUR 2: 71–78.

Laws & Regulations BMVBS (2012): Richtlinien zum Planungsprozess und für die einheitliche Gestaltung von Entwurfsunterlagen im Straßenbau (RE 2012), Edition 2012. Allgemeines Rundschreiben Straßenbau (ARS) Nr. 16/2012 vom 2. Oktober 2012, VkBl Nr. 6 vom 30. März 2013. BMVI (2015): Richtlinien für die Planfeststellung nach dem Bundesfernstraßengesetz (PlafeR 2015), VkBl 2015, Nr. B 5001: p. 434 De-Mail-Gesetz (De-Mail-G) [DE-Mail-Act] vom 28. April 2011 (BGBl. I S. 666), geändert durch Artikel 3 Absatz 7 des Gesetzes vom 18. Juli 2016 (BgBl. I S. 1666). DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. OJEU L 124/1, April 25. 2014 DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. OJEU L 26/1, January 28. 2012

114

CHAPTER 5

DIRECTIVE 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. OJEU L41/24, February 14. 2003 Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwärbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet (Aufenthaltsgesetz – AufenthG) [Residence Act] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 25. Februar 2008 (BGBl. I S. 162), geändert durch Artikel 8 Absatz 6 des Gesetzes vom 31. Juli 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1939). Gesetz über die friedliche Verwendung der Kernenergie und den Schutz gegen ihre Gefahren (Atomgesetzt) [Atomic Energy Act] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 15. Juli 1985 (BGBl. I S. 1565), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 26. Juli 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1843). Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVPG) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA)] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 24. Februar 2010 (BGBl. I S. 94), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 21. Dezember 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2490). Gesetz über die Prüfung von Umweltauswirkungen bei bestimmten Vorhaben, Plänen und Programmen im Land Brandenburg (Brandenburgisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung – BbgUVPG) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act Brandenburg] vom 10. Juli 2002 (GVBl. I/02, [Nr. 07], S. 62) zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 29. November 2010 (GVBl. I/10, [Nr. 39]) Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BNatSchG) [Nature Conservation Law] vom 29. Juli 2009 (BGBl. I S. 2542), geändert durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 4. August 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1972). Gesetz über Personalausweise und den elektronischen Identitätsnachweis (Personalausweisgesetz – PAuswG) [ID Act] vom 18. Juni 2009 (BGBl. I S. 1346), geändert durch Artikel 4 Absatz 1 des Gesetzes vom 18. Juli 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1666). Gesetz zum Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusche, Erschütterungen und ähnliche Vorgänge (Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetzt – BImSchG) [Immission Control Act]in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 17. Mai 2013 (BGBl. I S. 1274), geändert durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 26. Juli 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1839) Gesetz zur Förderung der elektronischen Verwaltung (E-Governance-Gesetz – EgovG) [eGovernance Act] vom 25. Juli 2013 (BGBl. I S. 2749). Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung und Vereinheitlichung der Planfeststellungsverfahren (PlVereinhG) [Plan Unification Law] vom 31. Mai 2013 (BGBl. I S. 1388), zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 1b des Gesetzes vom 25. Mai 2014 (BGBl. I S. 538). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982. Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetz Übertragungsnetz (NABEG) [Grid Expansion Acceleration Act] vom 28. Juli 2011 (BGBl. I S. 1690) zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 6 des Gesetzes vom 21. Dezember 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2490). Niedersächsisches Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (NUVPG) [Environmental Impact Assessment Act Lower Saxony] in der Fassung vom 30. April 2007 (Nds. GVBl. Nr. 13/2007 S. 179), geändert durch Artikel 2 des Gesetzes vom 24. September 2009 (Nds. GVBl. Nr. 21/2009 S. 361) und Gesetz vom 19. Februar 2010 (Nds. GVBl. Nr. 6/2010 S. 122). US Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 (Protection of the Environment) Chapter V Part 1500 Section 1500.4.4 (Reducing paperwork) Umweltinformationsgesetzt (UIG) [Environmental Information Act] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 27. Oktober 2014 (BGBl. I S. 1643). US Information Quality Act - Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) [Administrative Prodecures Act (APA)] in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 102). Verordnung zur Zugänglichmachung von Dokumenten für blinde und sehbehinderte Menschen im Verwaltungsverfahren nach dem Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz (Verordnung über barrierefreie Dokumente in der Bundesverwaltung – VBD) [German Regulation on accessible documents in the federal administration] vom 17. Juli 2002 (BGBl. I S. 2652)

CHAPTER 5

115

Case Studies [Accessed 02.09.2016] Amprion http://www.amprion.net Beteiligungsportal Baden-Württemberg www.beteiligungsportal.baden-wuerttemberg.de Beteiligungsportal Sachsen www.buergerbeteiligung.sachsen.de Beteiligungsportal anerkannter Naturschutzverbände www.umwelt-beteiligung.de Bundesnetzagentur www.netzausbau.de Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infratsruktur www.bmvi.de Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm Flughafen Wien AG – Vienna International Airport http://www.viennaairport.com/unternehmen/flughafen_wien_ag/3_piste Government of Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority - consultation hub https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department – EIA Ordinance http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/index.html Landesbetrieb Straßenbau und Verkehr Schleswig-Holstein – FAQs Feste Fehmarnbeltquerung http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Schwerpunkte/Fehmarnbeltquerung/Service/FAQ/faq_node.html Mackenzie Valley Review Board Public Registry http://www.reviewboard.ca Ministerium für Energie Infrastruktur und Landesentwicklung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern http://www.regierung-mv.de/Landesregierung/em/ New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment’s development assessment tracking system http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/ Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/startseite/ Saarland – Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau http://www.saarland.de/29771.htm Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty EIA Database http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ep_eia_list.aspx UK National Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk Umweltbundesamt Österreich – Online-Abfrage UVP-Feststellungsverfahren [Environmental Agency Austria – registry for screening decisions] http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/umweltsituation/uvpsup/uvpoesterreich1/uvpdatenbank/uvp_fest_online/ US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE) & US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center Online: http://solareis.anl.gov/index.cfm US Department of the Interiour – Bureau of Land Management - national register for Land Use Planning (LUP) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do US National Park Service - Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site. Online: https://parkplanning.nps.gov Washington State Department of Transportation (2014): Reader-Friendly Environmental Documents http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/ReaderFriendly.htm 50 hertz - Online: http://www.50hertz.com/de/

XIV

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Author contribution Statement Two of the core chapters of this thesis (Chapter 2 and Chapter 4) have been developed by the author in cooperation with the supervisor of this thesis and a jurist and research associate from the Bucerius Law School in Hamburg. The author of this thesis in all two cases has been considerably involved in the conceptual design, research and writing of the two papers. The following sections provide more detailed information on the contributions by the involved authors of the papers. Chapter 2: The manuscript “Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation” (published in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 31, Issue 4) has been developed by the author and Johann Köppel. The conceptual design was developed by both authors, while the structure and main content of the paper was developed and written by the author, with additions and support by Johann Köppel. He furthermore provided critical feedback and shaped the paper by important cuts. Chapter 3: The manuscript “Are Agencies Turning a Blind Eye to Public Access to Environmental Assessment Information?” (published in the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 17, Issue 3) has been developed and written by the author alone without coauthors. Chapter 4: The manuscript “Voraussetzungen und Hindernisse beim Zugang zu UVP-Dokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen – Wo geht es zur Einheit in der Vielfalt?” (published in Natur + Recht, Vol. 38) has been developed by the author and Andreas Kerkemeyer. While the undelying research has been done by the author, structuring and writing the article was done jointly with an equal share of contributions, with Andreas Kerkemeyer focusing on the legal aspects of the paper. Furthermore, the two papers provided in the annex of this thesis (Annex 1 &2) have been developed by the author in cooperation with colleagues and the supervisor of this thesis. Annex 1: The manuscript “The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich” (published in UVP-report, Vol. 26, Issue 5) has been developed by all three authors together. The conceptual design and structure of the paper was drafted by Johann Köppel and further shaped and developed by the author and Gesa Geißler. The writing has been done in iterative cycles, thus all three authors have contributed to all parts of the paper.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT

XV

Annex 2: The manuscript “Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes” (published in Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, Vol. 46, Issue 4) has been developed by Sabine Koch with contributions by the author of this thesis and Johann Köppel. The manuscript summarizes the results of the Bachelor Thesis written by Sabine Koch and supervised by the author and Johann Köppel. Therefore, the research underlying the manuscript has been conducted by Sabine Koch but continuously shaped through feedback and support provided by the supervisors. The major parts of the article were written by Sabine Koch with smaller contributions and revisions by the author of this thesis and Johann Köppel.

XVI

CURRICULUM VITAE AND LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

Curriculum Vitae and List of Publications Lisa Friederike Odparlik is researcher and lecturer at the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group at the Berlin Institute of Technology since 2011. She holds a Bachelor degree in environmental and resource management from the BTU Cottbus. Her Bachelor studies included a semester abroad at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México in México D.F. In 2011 she graduated with a Master degree in Environmental Planning from the Berlin Institute of Technology. Since 2011 she has been involved in several research projects and is lecturing in graduate and undergraduate programs focusing on environmental assessment. List of Publications Peer-reviewed articles ODPARLIK, L.; KERKEMEYER, A. (2016): Voraussetzungen und Hindernisse beim Zugang zu UVP-Dokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen – Wo geht es zur Einheit in der Vielfalt? Natur + Recht 38 : 529–538. DOI: 10.1007/s10357-016-3050-7 GEISSLER, G.; ODPARLIK, L.; GÜNTHER, M.; REHHAUSEN, A.; KÖPPEL, J. (2016): (Strategische) Umweltprüfung im internationalen Vergleich. In: MITSCHANG, S. [Hrsg.]: UPDATE: Aktuelle Anforderungen des Umweltschutzes in der Bauleitplanung. Frankfurt am Main, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften: 157–186. ODPARLIK, L. (2015): Are agencies turning a blind eye to public access to environmental assessment information? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17 (3): 1550028-1-29. DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215500283 KÖPPEL, J.; BURCHARTZ, L.; GARTMAN, V.; GEISSLER, G.; GÜNTHER, M.; ODPARLIK, L.; REHHAUSEN, A.; SCHUSTER, L.; STAMENKOVIC, M.; WOOD, K. (2014): Forschungsfragen an die deutsche Umweltprüfung aus internationaler Perspektive: Schwerpunktthema. UVP-report, 28 (3+4): 171–178. KOCH, S.; ODPARLIK, L.; KÖPPEL, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes.. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. Online: http://www.nul-online.de/Archiv/Archiv/Wo-stehtdie-Partizipation-beim-Netzausbau ODPARLIK, L.; KÖPPEL, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (4): 324–331. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2013.841028 ODPARLIK, L.; KÖPPEL, J.; GEISSLER, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-report 26 (5): 236–243

CURRICULUM VITAE AND LIST OF PUBLICATIONS GEISSLER, G.; KÖPPEL, J.; ODPARLIK, L. (2011): Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Assessments - The Discursive Making of Guidance in the United States. UVP-report 25 (4): 215–221. Oral presentations ODPARLIK, L.F. (2015): Are agencies turning a blind eye on access to EA information? 35th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment IAIA15 Impact Assessment in the digital era, Florence, Italy vom 20 - 23 April 2015. ODPARLIK, L. F. (2013): Equal access to information and the role of EA registries. 33rd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment - IAIA13 Impact Assessment: The Next Generation, Calgary, Kanada vom 13 - 16. Mai 2013. ODPARLIK, L. F. (2012): Climate Impact Assessment – How to address GHG emissions. 32nd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of Impact Assessment, Porto, Portugal vom 27. Mai bis 1. Juni 2012.

XVII

XVIII

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

Author’s Declaration I hereby state that this dissertation has been prepared without illegal assistance. This work is original except where indicated by special reference in the text. No part of this dissertation has been submitted for any other degree and it has not been presented to any other University for examination, neither in Germany nor any other country. The information on own contributions in co-authorship is accurate. Hiermit versichere ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Die aus anderen veröffentlichten oder nicht veröffentlichten Schriften wörtlich oder sinngemäß übernommenen Gedanken sowie Tabellen und Abbildungen, sind als solche kenntlich gemacht. Die Arbeit hat in gleicher oder ähnlicher Fassung noch keiner anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegen. Die Angaben zu den Eigenanteilen bei Co-Autorenschaft sind zutreffend.

Place, Date

Signature

ANNEX

XIX

Annex Annex 1

Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J.; Geissler, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-report 26 (5): 236–243. © (2012 The Authors, Published by the UVPGesellschaft e.V.)

Annex 2

Koch, S.; Odparlik, L.; Köppel, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. ©Verlag Eugen Ulmer

Annex 3

Case Studies analysed in Chapter 2 and 5

Annex 4

Case Studies analysed in Chapter 3

Annex 5

Online Survey

Annex 6

Reasons provided to Directive 2014/52/EU that support a better information provision

XX

ANNEX 1

Annex 188

88 published as Odparlik, L., Köppel, J. and Geissler, G. (2012): The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang

zu Umweltprüfugs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-report 26 (5): 236–243. © 2012 UVP-Gesellschaft e.V.

ANNEX 1

XXI

The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich The Grass is always Greener on the other Side: the Access to Environmental Assessment Docoments in Germany in International Comparison Lisa Friederike Odparlik, Johann Köppel & Gesa Geißler Zusammenfassung Erfolgreiche Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung braucht Information. Dennoch wird der Aspekt der adäquaten Informationsbereitstellung im Kontext der Umweltprüfungen in Deutschland noch wenig diskutiert. Aus demokratietheoretischer Sicht geht es dabei nicht nur um die Verfügbarkeit und leichte Auffindbarkeit von Dokumenten, Informationen und Verfahrensunterlagen. Auch Aspekte wie eine angemessene Bekanntgabe des Projekts oder Plans, hinreichende Zeit zur Vorbereitung und Teilnahme für Dritte sowie die Allgemeinverständlichkeit und Lesbarkeit der Dokumente gelten dabei als weitere Schlüsselpunkte. Motiviert durch einen idealtypischen Zugang zu Dokumenten und Informationen der Umweltprüfung erfolgen zum einen Hinweise auf internationale „Good practice“Beispiele, zum anderen wird die betreffende Situation in Deutschland charakterisiert. Sicherlich ist der Weg zu komfortablen UVP/SUP-Auskunfts- und Dokumentationssystemen auch international noch nicht konsequent und weit genug fortgeschritten. Der Beitrag zeigt jedoch, dass es durchaus besser geht – und aus demokratischen Gründen gehen muss –, als es die aktuelle Situation in Deutschland ermöglicht. Abstract Successful public participation requires information. Nonetheless, the issue of adequate provision of information in the context of environmental impact assessments (EIA) and strategic environmental assessments (SEA) is discussed very little in Germany. From a democratic theory perspective, it is not just about the availability and accessibility of documents, information and procedural documentations. Also aspects like fair notice, time to prepare and the readability of documents play an important role. Motivated by a blueprint of the ideal access to EIA/SEA documents and process information, on the one hand examples on international “good practice” are provided while on the other hand the respective practice in Germany is discussed. Certainly, the international examples show that the way to a comfortable EIA/SEA documentation and information system is still progressing and not yet consistent. However, the paper shows that there are indeed better approaches – and, for democratic reasons, have to be – than the current practice in Germany provides. Schlagworte: Deutschland; USA; Kanada; Österreich; Zugang zu Umweltinformationen; Umweltprüfung; Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung; Meta-Informationssysteme Keywords: Germany; USA; Canada; Austria; Access to environmental information; Environmental assessment; Public participation; Meta information systems

XXII

ANNEX 1

Umweltinformationen und Partizipation Eine ganze Reihe aktueller Bezüge vermittelt den Eindruck, dass die Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung auch in der deutschen Umweltprüfung vor neuen Herausforderungen steht. Beispiele wie Stuttgart 21 oder die Festlegung der Flugrouten am Flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg-International (BBI) zeigen, dass eine zu späte (Köppel et al. 2012) und unzureichende Information und Einbeziehung der Öffentlichkeit zu Schwierigkeiten, Verzögerungen und Spannungen führen kann. Zu den vor uns liegenden Herausforderungen zählt ein sich möglicherweise neu einstellendes Verhältnis formaler Beteiligungsverfahren zu Ausprägungen direkter Demokratie (Geißler et al., im vorliegenden Heft), die Frage, wie lange noch die deutsche Praxis die direkte Betroffenheit der zu beteiligenden Öffentlichkeit anstelle einer echten Jedermanns-Beteiligung vorzieht, bis hin zur gerne praktizierten Reduzierung der Öffentlichkeit auf (u. a. Umwelt-)Verbände wie beim Scoping (etwa beim Ausbau des Stromnetzes). Weiterhin sollten durch den vom Bundeskabinett verabschiedeten Gesetzentwurf zur frühen Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung in Planfeststellungsverfahren vom 29.02.2012 für einen Teil der Vorhaben die Rahmenbedingungen zu einer frühzeitigen Beteiligung geschaffen werden. Das Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) wird so ggf. mit dem neuen § 25 Abs. 3 um eine allgemeine Regelung für eine frühe Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bei Großvorhaben ergänzt, dies soll jedoch eher unverbindlich im Sinne einer Hinwirkenspflicht der Verwaltung erzielt werden. Wie immer man zu der These stehen mag, dass wir aufgrund eines gewachsenen Mitgestaltungswillens der Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu entsprechenden Innovationen gelangen müssen, so wird ein zentraler Aspekt dabei in Deutschland noch wenig diskutiert, zumindest im konkreten Kontext der Umweltprüfungen: Beteiligung braucht Information. Das beinhaltet die rechtzeitige Auffindbarkeit von relevanten Dokumenten von UVP und (S)UP,1 einen leichten Zugang und die Vollständigkeit der Dokumente, nicht nur von Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien und -berichten, sondern auch der im gesamten Verfahren vorgebrachten Stellungnahmen, Meinungen, Antworten, nachgelieferten Fakten etc. bis hin zur fortwährenden Verfügbarkeit für anschließende Fragen wie die des Monitorings oder der Evaluierung.

Demokratietheoretischer Zugang Allein aus ethischer und demokratietheoretischer Sicht ergeben sich die entsprechenden Implikationen („equal access to information“), wie es Hourdequin et al. (2012: 39) auf den Punkt gebracht haben: „An informed citizenry is a prerequisite for a successful democracy, and popular sovereignty relies on citizens' understanding how certain government actions will affect them and society as a whole. Autonomy depends on having information regarding how decisions meet or fail to meet individuals' conceptions of the good life, and equality requires that information is equally available to everyone.” Wissen kann Macht bedeuten, besonders im Spannungsfeld von Expertenwissen und dem Anspruch einer lediglich allgemein gebildeten Öffentlichkeit, fair in umweltrelevanten Entscheidungsverfahren mitwirken zu können (ebd.: 39 ): „Equal access to information is also crucial in situations in which the possession of certain types of knowledge confers significant power. Such situations exacerbate a lay-expert tension, and have the potential to generate mistrust and resentment.” Auf die Spitze getrieben haben es zum Beispiel die Anwälte des Vorhabenträgers zum Ausbau des Berliner Flughafens BBI, hier also der Länder Berlin und Brandenburg, als sie in der Verhandlung vor dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht am 3. Juli 2012 zur Frage einer hinreichenden Beteiligung der tatsächlich von Fluglärm betroffenen Öffentlichkeit sinngemäß ausführten (Kurpjuweit 2012), die

ANNEX 1

XXIII

Bürgerinnen und Bürger hätten selbst erkennen und wissen müssen, dass die in den Planfeststellungsunterlagen (und somit der UVS) dargelegten Flugrouten gar nicht so gemeint gewesen seien. Das Vertrauen in öffentliches Handeln und den Rechtsstaat leidet aber nachhaltig, wenn so offensichtlich die zur Verfügung gestellten Umweltinformationen nichts mehr wert sind bzw.schon zum Zeitpunkt des Planfeststellungsverfahrens anderweitiges Wissen bei Bundes- und Landesbehörden und dem Vorhabenträger einer ansonsten um Hunderttausende mehr betroffenen Öffentlichkeit vorenthalten blieb. Dies führt uns zu weiteren demokratietheoretischen und -praktischen Schlüsselpunkten wie:  dass die Gesellschaft erfahren muss, wann welche umweltrelevante Entscheidung ansteht und wie sie genau mitwirken kann („fair notice“, Sinclair et al. 2012),  dass genügend Zeit bleibt, sich hinreichend vorzubereiten, wenn sich dann kurzfristig und kurzzeitig die formalen Beteiligungsfenster öffnen („time to prepare“, ebd.)  und dass die umweltund mitwirkungsrelevanten Unterlagen lesbar für jedermann sein müssen („readability“, Ryan et al. 2011). Auch gilt es hier zu prüfen, ob die schon rechtlich im deutschen UVPG missverständlich formulierte Vorgabe, es sei lediglich eine allgemeinverständliche Zusammenfassung erforderlich, zu kurz greift. Hier schließen noch einmal Hourdequin et al. (2012: 41) an: „One challenge in making information accessible to the public involves a tradeoff between formal and substantive accessibility. Formal accessibility is met when the relevant information is available to members of the public, for example, via agency websites or government documents. However formal accessibility may fall short of substantive accessibility if the public is unaware of how to access these resources, or if the information is presented in a form that is highly technical and impenetrable to non-experts.” Der Frage der Verständlichkeit und Lesbarkeit der relevanten Dokumente gingen im UVP-report bereits Ryan et al. (2011) am Beispiel von Umweltprüfungen der U.S.-Bundesforstbehörde (U.S. Forest Service) nach.

Ein idealtypischer Zugang Ein grundlegender Ansatz, der im internationalen Raum für den Zugang zu UVP- und SUP-Dokumenten gewählt wird, betrifft ein frühes Anliegen der UVP-Gesellschaft (Köppel 2011): zentrale und dezentrale Dokumentations- und Auskunftssysteme. Wir wissen in Deutschland nicht einmal, welche Umweltprüfungen zu welchen Vorhabentypen in welchem Bundesland etc. in einem bestimmten Jahr durchgeführt wurden, geschweige denn welcher Status sich für Deutschland insgesamt ergibt. Wie soll es dabei möglich sein sich ein Bild zu machen, wie es etwa um die Qualität und Effektivität der SUP hierzulande steht (Geißler in Vorb.)? Die deutschen Bürgerinnen und Bürger haben auch keine (Meta-)Auskunftsdatei oder gar übersichtliche Web-Karte zur Verfügung, um etwa zu erfahren, wo sie sich gerade zum Beispiel zur Energiewende einbringen können. Sicherlich ist der Weg zu komfortablen UVP/SUP-Auskunfts- und Dokumentationssystemen auch international noch keinesfalls in der Breite zu zufrieden stellenden Lösungen gelangt. Dies legten Hanna & Noble (2011) im UVP-report am Beispiel Kanadas dar, aber ihre Vision und somit Messlatte überzeugt bereits: „The ideal registry would hold all documentation related to an EA [Environmental Assessment], regardless of the stage of the application and review process. Thus very early stage information such as a notice of intent, terms of reference, or early correspondence would be included. Notices of hearings, impact studies and other supporting documentation, and the EA application itself, including public submissions, would be included as they were then completed. The decision and reasons for the decision, and monitoring and follow-up requirements and even monitoring results would also be added. The perfect registry would be an organic and adap-

XXIV

ANNEX 1

tive entity-one that grew with the availability of project information; it would be open to all, inclusion of material would be a requirement of proponents and relevant agencies. It would be complete; information would be posted in easily accessible formats and would be readable for broad audiences” (Hanna & Noble2011: 222). Kasten 1: Beispiel für Evaluation der UVP-Praxis UVP-Evaluation Österreich Ein Beispiel für eine umfassende Untersuchung der Umsetzung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung ist der alle drei Jahre verfasste Bericht des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft an den Nationalrat gemäß § 44 UVP-G 2000 über die Vollziehung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich (Lebensministerium Österreich 2006, 2009). Der Bericht aus dem Jahr 2009 enthält neben einer Beschreibung der rechtlichen Vorgaben, Informationen zur Vollzugsbegleitung und Vollzugshilfen (z. B. Leitfäden und Rundschreiben) etc. einen Überblick über die seit dem Jahr 2000 durchgeführten UVP-Feststellungsverfahren, die Entwicklung der UVP-Genehmigungsverfahren in der Gesamtauswertung seit dem Jahr 1993 und eine Darstellung für den Berichtszeitraum März 2006 bis März 2009. Die Erhebungen beziehen sich auf die Daten, wie sie vom Umweltbundesamt in die UVP-Datenbank eingegeben und ausgewertet wurden. Zum Beispiel wurde neben einer allgemeinen Übersicht der Genehmigungsverfahren zwischen 1995 und 2009 eine Verteilung der Vorhaben nach Vorhabentypen, nach Bundesländern, nach Verfahrensstatus, nach Verfahrenstyp (reguläres UVP-Verfahren oder vereinfachtes Verfahren) gegeben. Für den Berichtszeitraum 2006 – 2009 gibt es sogar detailliertere Informationen zum Beispiel zur Anzahl der Infrastrukturvorhaben und zur Verfahrensdauer.

Es gibt also gute Gründe für die schon im Titel zum Ausdruck gebrachte Hoffnung, das in Deutschland bislang zum Thema Erreichte im internationalen Raum vergleichend einordnen oder gar von guten Fallbeispielen lernen zu wollen. In der Folge werden einige solcher internationalen Beispiele vorgestellt. Diese sollen einen Eindruck vermitteln, was zu „Good Governance“ für den fairen Zugang zu UVP/SUP-relevanten Informationen, Dokumenten und Verfahrensunterlagen beitragen kann. Basierend auf den vorgestellten Kriterien eines idealtypischen Systems nach Hanna & Noble (2011) wurden nach einer Internetrecherche ausgewählte Beispiele2 analysiert. Dabei sollten möglichst unterschiedliche Informanten repräsentiert werden: umfassende Register und Internetseiten von Genehmigungsbehörden für Projekte auf Bund-, Länder- und Regionalebene sowie auch Informationsangebote von Projektträgern und Interessenverbänden. Anschließend wird kursorisch die Situation in Deutschland vorgestellt und zuletzt eine Hypothese generiert, wie Deutschland in einem solchen internationalen „Benchmark“ dasteht und was zu tun verbleibt. Am Fachgebiet Umweltprüfung und Umweltplanung der TU Berlin wird diesen Fragen derzeit systematisch nachgegangen.

Internationale Good-Governance-Beispiele Aus der Fiktion von Hanna & Noble (2011) lassen sich vor allem vier übergeordnete Funktionen ableiten, die ein ideales System zu erfüllen hat. Zu jedem dieser Punkte finden sich international Beispiele und Ansätze:  Bekanntmachung laufender Verfahren,  Bereitstellung von Dokumenten,  Zugänglichkeit der Informationen und  fortlaufende Information über den  Verfahrensstand. Eine Bekanntmachung laufender Verfahren geht im internationalen Raum oftmals mit einer rechtlichen Verpflichtung einher, Dokumente und Informationen bereitzustellen. So schreibt der U.S.

ANNEX 1

XXV

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), quasi die Magna Carta der modernen Umweltgesetzgebungen, vor, Betroffene und Interessierte über geplante Anhörungen und die Verfügbarkeit von Umweltdokumenten zu informieren. Im U.S. Federal Registry werden alle wichtigen Verfahrensschritte einer UVP oder SUP im NEPA-Anwendungsbereich bekannt gemacht: „Published daily and available on-line, the Federal Register contains hundreds of pages … announcing the availability of agency documents, the location of upcoming meetings, and the text of proposed and final regulations“ (Gardner 2011: 24). Dazu gehören die Bekanntmachungen, dass zum Beispiel ein Entwurf einer UVS oder SUP jetzt und wo verfügbar sei, welche Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligungsfenster gerade offen sind, dass überhaupt beabsichtigt ist, eine bestimmte UVS, SUP oder deren ausführliche Vorprüfungen und Scopings durchzuführen. Der gesamte „public notice and comment“-Prozess wird so begründet, dass hier behördliche Akteure unterwegs seien, die nicht gewählt sind und so ihr Handeln besser legitimieren können (ebd.). Zudem führt die U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eine EIS-(Environmental Impact Statement) Datenbank.3 Diese enthält ebenfalls Informationen über Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien, die von Bundesbehörden vorbereitet werden.4 Gesetzliche Verpflichtungen, laufende UVP-Verfahren an einer zentralen Stelle zu registrieren, findet man zum Beispiel auch in Kanada (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry5) und in Österreich, hier schreibt § 43 des UVP-G 2000 dem Umweltbundesamt die Aufgabe zu, die UVP-Dokumentation zu führen. Dort werden die Informationen jeweils in einer Datenbank gesammelt und zusätzlich im Internet verfügbar gemacht. So ist es mittels Online-Abfrage möglich, sich auf der Internetseite des Umweltbundesamts Österreich6 schnell über laufende UVP-Genehmigungsverfahren zu informieren. Es gibt eine rechtliche Verpflichtung (§ 9 Abs. 4 UVPG) für Behörden, Vorhaben auch im Internet kundzutun und die im Internet veröffentlichten Daten bis zur Rechtskraft des verfahrensbeendenden Bescheids online zu halten (Umweltbundesamt 2012, online). Eine ähnliche rechtliche Verpflichtung zur Informationsbereitstellung im Internet gibt es in New York State. Das sogenannte „EIS on the web requirement“7 im SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review Act) macht seit 2006 die Veröffentlichung von DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement – vorläufige Umweltverträglichkeitsstudie) und FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) auf öffentlich zugänglichen Internetseiten zur Verpflichtung. Diese müssen mindestens ein Jahr nach der Entscheidung für oder gegen das beantragte Projekt online bleiben. Laut Hanna & Noble (2011) sollen jedoch nicht nur die Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien, sondern zusätzlich die Bekanntmachung der Planungsabsicht, Richtlinien und rechtliche Grundlagen, Korrespondenzen, Mitteilungen über Anhörungen, ergänzende Gutachten, öffentliche Bekanntmachungen, die Entscheidung und zugehörige Begründung wie auch Monitoringanforderungen und -ergebnisse so bereitgestellt werden. Ein Beispiel, wie konsequent die Bereitstellung von Dokumenten in der Praxis aussehen kann, ist das Information Center zur „Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS“8 in den USA. Die Internetseite zur SUP (PEIS, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement) zum Ausbau der Solarenergie in den sechs westlichen Bundesstaaten Arizona, Kalifornien, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada und Utah stellt neben den von Hanna & Noble (2011) genannten Informationen auch Angaben zum Verfahrensablauf, zur Beteiligung, allgemeine Informationen zur Solarenergie sowie Karten zur Verfügung. Beeindruckend sind die detaillierten Protokolle der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, die es auch jedem, der nicht teilgenommen hat, ermöglichen, die Diskussionen nachzuverfolgen.

XXVI

ANNEX 1

Kasten 2: Beispiel für die Bereitstellung von Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in der Praxis Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center Im speziell eingerichteten Online Center zur Information der Öffentlichkeit befinden sich:  Generelle Informationen zum Zweck, Umfang, Alternativen und Zeitplan der PEIS, c Informationen zur Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit; wie Kommentare verwendet wurden, Beteiligung von Mitwirkenden, Protokolle und weitere Informationen zu öffentlichen Sitzungen und Kommentare zum Scoping,  Ein Handbuch zur Solarenergie und Stromübertragung: Allgemeine Informationen zur Solarenergie, Umweltfragen, Karten und Links zu bekannten Ressourcen im World Wide Web,  Informationen zu den ausgewiesenen Solarenergiezonen: interaktive Karten, Zusammenfassungen und Foto-Panoramen der Solarenergiezonen, die prioritär für die Solarentwicklung vorgeschlagen wurden,  Karten aus der Solar PEIS und andere Karten, die im Zusammenhang des vom Bureau of Land Management (BLM) vorgeschlagenen Solar-Programms präsentiert wurden; Interaktive Mapping Tools und unterstützende räumliche Daten zum Download oder zur Online-Ansicht, Beispiel: Der „Solar Energy Environmental Mapper“ (webbasierte Karte) ermöglicht es, mittels sorgfältig aufbereiteter Geodaten, durch die Anzeige von Karten, Zugang zu Umweltdaten und die Durchführung von Analysen sich selbst ein Bild über die Solarentwicklung in den sechs Bundesstaaten zu machen,  PEIS Dokumente: die PEIS und alle damit zusammenhängenden Dokumente werden zur Online-Einsicht oder zum Download angeboten: Final Solar PEIS; Entwurf der PEIS (Draft PEIS), Ergänzungen und Beiträge zu diesem Thema (z. B. Informationen über die Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung); BLMs Richtlinien zur Entwicklung von Solar und anderen erneuerbaren Energien; Pressemitteilungen; Scoping-Dokumente; Ressourcen-Karten der Solarentwicklung; Technische Berichte etc. Außerdem können diese Informationen in gedruckter Form in ausgewiesenen Geschäftsstellen des BLM eingesehen werden oder als elektronische Kopie auf CD-ROM angefordert werden. Um über die Entwicklung auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben, kann man eine E-Mail-Benachrichtigung abonnieren: „Subject: Final Solar PEIS Available“– so lautete eine E-Mail des Solar PEIS Webmasters vom Juli 2012. Die endgültige Fassung der Strategischen Umweltprüfung zur Solarentwicklung in sechs südwestlich gelegenen Staaten der USA war sodann auf der Projekt-Webseite (http:// solareis.anl.gov) verfügbar.

Informationen sollten für jeden zugänglich sein (Hanna & Noble 2011). Ähnlich wie im vorangegangenen Beispiel eine Teilhabe an der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung durch Protokolle ermöglicht wird, gibt es andere Beispiele, die dies via Audiostream (z. B. Mackenzie Valley EI Review Board9) oder Videostream (z. B. California Energy Commission10) ermöglichen. Andere Systeme ermöglichen eine schnelle Verortung von aktuell laufenden Verfahren mithilfe von Karten, auf denen diese vermerkt sind (z. B. Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry11 (siehe Abb. 1); U.S. National Park Service – Planning, Environment & Public Comment (PEPC)12 (siehe Abb. 2); Hongkong EIA Ordinance Register13). Auch direkte Vergleiche mit unseren europäischen Nachbarn können nachdenklich machen, wenn man etwa die Informationslage zur Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung der Strategischen Umweltprüfungen zur Offshore-Windenergie in Schottland14 betrachtet (Abb. 3): dort gibt es zum Beispiel eine Dokumentation von „consultation events“15 (Anhörung) und eine ausführliche „consultation analysis“16 (Auswertung der Anhörung).

ANNEX 1

XXVII

Abbildung 1: Screenshot der Webseite des kanadischen Umweltprüfungs-Registers (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry) mit Karte zur Verortung laufender Verfahren (http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng. cfm, Stand: 29.11.2012)

Abgesehen von den technischen Möglichkeiten, die Zugänglichkeit zu Informationen und Dokumenten zu ermöglichen, wird im Rahmen der UVP oftmals kritisiert, dass diese Dokumente durch ihren Umfang und ihre technische Sprache nur für eine Minderheit tatsächlich zugänglich sind. Ryan et al. (2011) bestätigen dieses Bild. Auch Page (2006) hat sich mit der Anforderung an Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien befasst, um diese für Leser zugänglicher und somit verständlicher zu gestalten. Er gibt Hinweise zu Fokus, Aufbau und Stil (Hinweise zu Verständlichkeitshilfen wie

XXVIII

ANNEX 1

Glossars, Abkürzungsverzeichnissen, Seitenleisten zum Hervorheben wichtiger Information, Definition von Fachvokabular und Verweis auf zusätzliche Informationen). Das Verkehrsministerium im US-Bundesstaat Washington (Washington State Department of Transportation) hat aufgrund einer Rechtsverordnung zum „Plain Talk“ (einfache Sprache) sogar einen Leitfaden17 herausgegeben, der Handwerkszeug für die Erstellung leserfreundlicher Umweltdokumente bereithält.

Abbildung 2: Screenshot der U.S. National Park Service PEPC Webseite mit Karte zur Verortung aktueller Projekte mit aktiver Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (National Park Service, http://parkplanning.nps.gov/map.cfm, Stand: 29.11.2012)

Nicht zuletzt ist es bei Bedarf wichtig, über den Verfahrensstand auf dem Laufenden gehalten zu werden. Viele der hier nur exemplarisch vorgestellten Datenbanken (Register) sind eine organische und adaptive Einheit, die mit der Verfügbarkeit von Projektinformationen wächst. Doch das alleine würde verlangen, sich in regelmäßigen Abständen bei den entsprechenden Stellen zu informieren. Auch hier bieten zeitgemäße technische Lösungen Hilfe, denn oftmals können neue Informationen per E-Mail, RSS Feed, Twitter oder Facebook bezogen werden (z. B. Mackenzie Valley EI Review Board; British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office18; U.S. National Park Service; Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS).

ANNEX 1

XXIX

Abbildung 3: Screenshot des SUP-Archivs des UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) mit Karte zur Verortung verfügbarer SUP- Dokumente; die Links oberhalb der Karte verlinken direkt zu den Dokumenten und Informationen (UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, http://www.offshoresea.org.uk/site/scripts/sea_ archive.php, Stand: 29.11.2012)

XXX

ANNEX 1

UVP/SUP-Dokumentation in Deutschland Das Recht auf Zugang zu Umwelt- und Verfahrensinformationen wird in Deutschland durch das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz (IFG), das Umweltinformationsgesetz (UIG), das Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVPG) und entsprechende Ländergesetze geregelt. So sind zum Beispiel laut § 9 Abs. 1b UVPG sowie § 14i UVPG im Beteiligungsverfahren bestimmte Unterlagen 19 zur Einsicht für die Öffentlichkeit auszulegen. Die Behörden sind durch das UIG angehalten, soweit vorhanden, elektronische Kommunikationsmittel einzusetzen und Verknüpfungen zu Internetseiten einzurichten, auf denen die zu verbreitenden Umweltinformationen zu finden sind (§ 10 Abs. 3 u. 4 UIG). Das UVPG trifft jedoch anders als z. B. in Kanada und Österreich keine Regelung über die Etablierung eines einheitlichen Zugangs und die Verfügbarkeit von Dokumenten und Verfahrensinformationen in der Umweltprüfung. Auf Bundesebene sucht man in Deutschland derzeit vergeblich nach einer zentralen Anlaufstelle, vergleichbar mit der Datenbank beim Umweltbundesamt des ebenfalls föderalistisch organisierten Österreichs. Zwar bietet als zentrale Stelle das Bund-Länder-Umweltportal (Portal U)20 mit über 3,6 Millionen Webseiten und über 500.000 Datenbankeinträgen von über 450 öffentlichen Institutionen und Organisationen einen Zugang zu behördlichen Umweltinformationen. Vereinzelt lassen sich dort auch Informationen zum Thema UVP finden, mit den internationalen systematischen Ansätzen ist der Zugang jedoch nicht zu vergleichen. Da in Deutschland UVP-/SUP-Verfahren als unselbstständiger Teil in Fachplanungen und die räumliche Gesamtplanung integriert werden und die zuständige Fachbehörde des Trägerverfahrens auch die verfahrensführende UVP/SUP-Behörde ist, können die Zuständigkeit für die Umweltprüfung und somit die Anlaufstellen für Dokumente und Verfahrensinformationen stark variieren. Ist die zuständige Behörde einmal bekannt, lassen sich durchaus auch in Deutschland Dokumente und Verfahrensinformationen zur Umweltprüfung im Internet finden; nur zwei Beispiele seien genannt:21 Das Eisenbahnbundesamt (EBA) ist als Genehmigungsbehörde (i.d.R. Planfeststellungsverfahren) von Bauvorhaben für den Schienenverkehr des Bundes zuständig. Seit 1999 veröffentlicht das EBA Planfeststellungsbeschlüsse (mit den Ergebnissen der UVP) auf seiner Internetseite22 und kommt somit den entsprechenden Verpflichtungen aus dem UIG und IFG grundsätzlich nach. Man findet für jedes Bundesland eine entsprechende Auflistung, in der die einzelnen Beschlüsse mit wesentlichen Informationen aufgeführt werden. Hinter dem Titel des einzelnen Beschlusses ist die jeweilige PDF-Datei des Planfeststellungsbeschlusses hinterlegt. Ein Hinweis auf die Vollständigkeit des Archivs wird leider nicht gegeben und auch alle weiteren Verfahrensinformationen sucht man vergeblich, wie also auch die Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien und verwandte Dokumente. Die baden-württembergischen Regierungspräsidien (Referate 24, Planfeststellung) veröffentlichen auf ihren Internetseiten u. a. Ergebnisse von UVP-Vorprüfungen bzw. Inhalte eines Planfeststellungsverfahrens. Die Regierungspräsidien Tübingen,23 Karlsruhe24 und Stuttgart25 pflegen zudem auf ihren Webseiten eine Übersicht über aktuelle Planfeststellungsverfahren und bieten einen Teil der jeweiligen Dokumente übersichtlich zum Download an. Das Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe zum Beispiel bietet die Planfeststellungsbeschlüsse zu abgeschlossenen Verfahren ab 2008 an, jedoch ist kein Hinweis auf die Vollständigkeit der angebotenen Unterlagen zu finden und es handelt sich lediglich um die endgültigen Beschlüsse und keine weiteren Verfahrensunterlagen. Ähnliche Angebote findet man unter anderem auf den Internetseiten der Regierung von Oberbayern,26 der Gemeinsamen Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg,27 bei der Berliner Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt,28 beim Landesamt für Bauen und Verkehr (LBV)

ANNEX 1

XXXI

Brandenburg,29 dem Landesamt für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Geologie in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern30 und bei der Niedersächsischen Landesbehörde für Straßenbau und Verkehr.31 Oft gibt es detailliertere Informationen jedoch nur zu laufenden Verfahren. Sobald diese beschlossen sind, werden die Informationen von der Seite entfernt oder in ein Archiv verschoben, wo dann lediglich der summarische Planfeststellungsbeschluss zu finden ist. So wird vielfach beklagt, dass nicht die vollständigen Unterlagen inklusive aller relevanten Gutachten und Informationen bereitgestellt werden und somit keine vollständige Transparenz erreicht wird (z. B. Steinberg 2011). Explizite Regelungen zum „fair notice“ (s. o.), und wie lange Daten vor der Beteiligungsphase und nach der Entscheidung zur Verfügung stehen sollen (vgl. New York State, Österreich), gibt es indes in Deutschland nicht. So kritisierte auch Oliver Krischer (B90/Grüne 2012) in seiner Bundestagsrede zum Netzentwicklungsplan Strom32 die mangelhaften Beteiligungschancen, wenn für die Kommentare zu einem 300 Seiten langen Dokument lediglich sechs Wochen vorgesehen sind. Weitergehende Beispiele im Bereich der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bilden die vermehrt auftretenden Verfahren mit Online-Beteiligung. Als Vorreiter im Bereich der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung gilt hier das Verfahren zur Küstenautobahn A22 (Schulze-Wolf & Köhler 2008). Vergleichbar fand z. B. für das Raumordnungsverfahren zur 380-kV-Leitung Dörpen-West – Niederrhein33 vom 02.05.2011 bis zum 13.07.2011 eine Online-Beteiligung statt. Es konnten neben Unterlagen zum Erläuterungsbericht (z. B. Begründung, rechtliche Grundlagen, technische Vorhabenbeschreibung, technische Alternativen und Auswahlgründe, …) und Karten (z. B. Konfliktbereiche) nach vorheriger Registrierung auch direkt Stellungnahmen verfasst werden. Solche Ansätze finden sich auch für die SUP, beispielsweise bei der Teilfortschreibung der Regionalpläne in Schleswig-Holstein34 oder bei der Aufstellung des sächsischen Landesentwicklungsplans 2012.35 Neben den verfahrensführenden Behörden halten teilweise auch Vorhabenträger wichtige Informationen bereit. Die Flughafen München GmbH z. B. stellt auf ihrer Internetseite 36 eine umfassende Auswahl an Dokumenten und Verfahrensunterlagen zum Planfeststellungsantrag der (umstrittenen und zwischenzeitlich in einem Münchner Bürgerentscheid abgelehnten) dritten Startund Landebahn zur Verfügung. Neben einer Begründung für die dritte Start- und Landebahn, Erläuterungen und Unterlagen zum Planfeststellungsverfahren, dem Dialog mit der Region und dem Zeitplan wurde dort auch eine Argumentesammlung eingestellt. Diese fasst die Einwände der Betroffenen sowie die Erwiderungen der Flughafen München GmbH aus der ersten und auch der ergänzenden Auslegung zusammen. Eine weitere Anlaufstelle bilden zivilgesellschaftliche Einrichtungen wie Umweltverbände und Interessengemeinschaften. Bürgerinitiativen stellen oftmals ihnen bei Anfragen an die zuständige Behörde bereitgestellte Unterlagen auf ihren Internetseiten für andere interessierte Bürger zur Verfügung (z. B. Bürgerinitiative „Autobahn B213 Nein!“)37. Doch dieser passive Zugang zu Umweltinformationen – diese werden nur auf Antrag des Informationssuchenden bereitgestellt – führt keineswegs immer zum gewünschten Erfolg. Zschiesche und Sperfeld analysierten 2011 die Praxis des Umweltinformationsrechts in Deutschland (passiver Zugang) und verschickten 33 verschiedene Anträge auf Umweltinformationen an 178 informationspflichtige Stellen im gesamten Bundesgebiet. Inhaltlich beantwortet wurden innerhalb der Frist nur ca. 40% der Anfragen. Die restlichen Anfragen wurden mit Begründungen abgelehnt wie, dass keine Daten vorhanden seien, die Informationspflicht abgelehnt wurde, man nicht zuständig sei, die Anfrage zu unbestimmt sei, die Daten sich noch in Bearbeitung befänden, die angeforderten Daten keine Umweltinformationen oder vertraulich seien. Kramer et al. (2011) ergänzen diese Liste mit folgenden Begründungen der Vertraulichkeit:  Schutz von Geschäfts- und Betriebsgeheimnissen,  Recht an geistigem Eigentum,  Schutz personenbezogener Daten,

XXXII 

ANNEX 1 öffentliche Sicherheit und Landesverteidigung.

Auch wenn diese Antworten in erster Linie Ablehnungsgründe im Bereich des passiven Informationszugangs beschreiben, ist anzunehmen, dass sich gewisse Parallelen zu den Begründungen im Fall fehlenden aktiven Zugangs zu Informationen und Dokumenten der Umweltprüfung ziehen lassen. Nun kann man sich fragen, weshalb Gründe wie Datenschutz bzw. Vertraulichkeit in anderen Ländern keine ganz so große Rolle zu spielen scheinen. Die Entstehung zusätzlicher Kosten könnte ein weiterer Grund sein, neben den Gestehungskosten sind auch generelle Bereitstellungskosten zu erwarten (Kramer et al. 2011), wie für die aktive Bereitstellung in webbasierten Datenbanken, die in den meisten Fällen dann kostenlos für die Nutzer zur Verfügung stehen. Aber da die Durchführung einer UVP und die Erstellung ihrer Dokumente ohnehin mit Kosten verbunden sind, sollte es doch im Interesse aller Beteiligten liegen, eine maximale Wertschöpfung aus diesen Unterlagen zu erzielen. Gleichzeitig ist es schwer verständlich, dass bei der Vielzahl öffentlicher Planungsträger und den somit steuerfinanzierten Ausgaben für die Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien und -berichte die betreffenden Dokument dann der Öffentlichkeit wiederum vorenthalten werden sollen.

Diskussion Es geht also zumindest noch deutlich besser – und das muss es aus demokratischen Gründen auch –, als es die aktuelle Situation in Deutschland beim Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten hergibt. Das Gras auf der anderen Seite scheint wirklich saftiger. Am auffälligsten ist hierzulande unter anderem das Fehlen einer Meta-Auskunftsebene, wie es am Beispiel der USA, Kanadas und Österreichs zu sehen ist. Nicht minder schwer wiegt die häufig unzureichende Verfügbarkeit nicht nur von Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten im engeren Sinn (Scoping-Protokoll, UVS, Umweltbericht etc.), sondern – was zu öffentlicher Teilhabe eben auch dazugehört – der Dokumentation von Terminen, Aussprachen, Meinungen, und sei es unter Einsatz von Social Media. Der Verweis auf die Kosten einer guten Verfügbarkeit von Dokumenten und Informationen zur Umweltprüfung überzeugt nicht. Besonders in Situationen, in denen der Besitz von bestimmtem Wissen Macht verleiht, ist ein gleicher Zugang zu Informationen von entscheidender Bedeutung. Dies ist besonders wichtig bei Entscheidungen, bei denen Unterschiede zwischen den Werten und Zielen der Vorhabenträger, der zuständigen Behörde und denen der Öffentlichkeit bestehen: „Collaboration, in and of itself, does not fulfil the principle of equal access to information unless it incorporates specific mechanisms for disseminating information about the project“ (Hourdequin et al. 2012: 41). Oftmals behindert die sogenannte „expertise barrier“, das mangelnde wissenschaftliche, technische oder politische Wissen, eine gleichberechtigte Beteiligung aller (Parthasarathy 2010); vieles bei uns hat immer noch mehr Verkündungs als Prozesscharakter. Oftmals erscheint die deutsche Praxis der Informationsbereitstellung zu UVP- und SUP- Verfahren der von Dryzek et al. (2003) allgemein beschriebenen Situation zu entsprechen. Die Autoren machen die korporatistisch-legalistische Tradition in Deutschland mit dafür verantwortlich, dass die Möglichkeiten von Partizipation durchaus eingeschränkt sind und weniger an den Bedürfnissen der Öffentlichkeit, sondern zu sehr allein an der Rechtssicherheit der Verfahren ausgerichtet sind. Umgekehrt bedarf es auch aktiven bürgerschaftlichen Engagements sich einzubringen, wenn man nicht länger alle Entscheidungen dem Staat, seinen Behörden und seiner „Expertokratie“ überlassen möchte. Es ist ja zumindest vorstellbar, dass sich auch die traditionell eher obrigkeitsliebende deutsche Gesellschaft ein wenig dahingehend bewegen könnte, wie Marschall (2012: 137 ff.) die US-amerikanische beschrieben hat: „eine einzige Bürgerinitiative“.

ANNEX 1

XXXIII

Anmerkungen 1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Analoges gilt zwar für die betreffenden naturschutzrechtlichen Prüfund Folgenbewältigungsinstrumente Eingriffsregelung, FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung, artenschutzrechtliche Prüfung und vielfach finden sich entsprechende Dokumente ja auch zusammen mit den Unterlagen zur UVP und SUP. Hier wird aber nicht weiter auf diese Ausdifferenzierung eingegangen. Bei der Auswahl einiger Good-Practice-Beispiele sind vor allem Erfahrungen aus einem USA Aufenthalt (Johann Köppel) und die Abschlussarbeit von Philipp Kaufmann zu dem Thema „Webbasierte Daten- und Kommunikationssysteme in der Umweltprüfung – Good- practice. Und wo steht Deutschland?“ eingeflossen. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/nepa/eisdata. html Angelegenheiten von nationalem Interesse werden in weiteren Organen (Mailverteiler, Printmedien etc.) bekannt gemacht (http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/). http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/umweltsitu ation/uvpsup/uvpoesterreich1/uvpdatenbank/ uvp_online/ http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6197.html http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/dmeetings. cfm http://www.reviewboard.ca/registry/ https://energy.webex.com/mw0306ld/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=energy http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm http://parkplanning.nps.gov/publicHome.cfm http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marineenergy/wind http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21143657/0 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/12/22153227/0 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/ ReaderFriendly.htm http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/eao_rss.html Dies sind die Unterlagen nach § 6 UVPG und die entscheidungserheblichen Berichte und Empfehlungen das Vorhaben betreffend, die der zuständigen Behörde zum Zeitpunkt des Beginns des Beteiligungsverfahrens vorgelegen haben. http://www.portalu.de/startseite Vergleichsweise hilfreich z. B. auch die Integration der Umweltprüfungen in das Bremer Umweltinformationssystem BUISY (http://www. umwelt.bremen.de/de/detail.php? gsid=bremen179.c.1694.de) http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_031/nn_201964/sid_5ABEE32A7B650D8186A50CE1A4D0B2A8/ DE/Infothek/PF/Beschluesse/beschluesse_inhalt.html?_nnn=true http://www.rp-tuebingen.de/servlet/PB/menu/1330779/index.html http://www.rp-karlsruhe.de/servlet/PB/menu/1226625/index.html http://www.rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1293811/index.html http://www.regierung.oberbayern.bayern. de/aufgaben/planung/strassen/planfeststellung/05353/index.php http://gl.berlin-brandenburg.de/vollzug/rov/index.html http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/index.shtml http://www.o-sp.de/lbvbrandenburg/start. php http://www.lung.mv-regierung.de/insite/cms/umwelt/umweltinformation/uvp.htm http://www.strassenbau.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=21073&_psmand=135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKqXW0CfNG4 http://www.entera-online3.de/067_rov_doerpen_niederrhein/index_pre.php https://www.entera-online3.de/071_reg plan_sh_2/index_071.html http://www.onlinebeteiligung-sachsen.de/sachsenLEP/index.php http://www.muc-ausbau.de/bahn3/pfv/index.jsp http://www.bi-b213.de/news/2011/110415_1.php

XXXIV

ANNEX 1

Literatur IFG – Gesetz zur Regelung des Zugangs zu Informationen des Bundes (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz) vom 05. September 2005. BGBl. I: 2722. UIG – Umweltinformationsgesetz vom 22. Dezember 2004. BGBl. I: 3704. UVPG – Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung vom 24. Februar 2010. BGBl. I: 94, zuletzt geändert am 21. Januar 2013. BGBl. I: 95. VwVfG – Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz vom 23. Januar 2003. BGBl. I: 102, zuletzt geändert am 14. August 2009. BGBl. I: 2827. Dryzek, J.; Downs, D.; Hernes, H.-K. & Schlosberg, D. (2003): Green states and social movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway, Oxford. Gardner, R.C. (2011): Lawyers, swamps and money. U.S. Wetland Law, Policy, and Politics, Washington. Geißler, G.; Reisert, J. & Köppel, J. (2012): Einführung in das Schwerpunktthema: Umweltauswirkungen direkter Demokratie. UVP-report 26 (5): 206-207. Geißler, G. (in Vorb.): Strategic Environmental Assessments for Renewable Energy Development – comparing the United States and Germany. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Hanna, K. & Noble, B. (2011): The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry: Promise and Reality. UVP-report 25 (4): 222-225. Hourdequin, M.; Landres, P.; Hanson, M.J. & Craig, D.R. (2012): Ethical implications of democratic theory for U.S. public participation in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 35: 37–44. Köppel, J. (2011): Einführung in das Schwerpunktthema: Born in the USA. UVP-report 25 (4): 190-191. Köppel, J.; Geissler, G.; Helfrich, J. & Reisert, J. (2012): A snapshot of Germany’s EIA approach in light of the United States archetype. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14 (4). Kramer, H.-J.; Legat, R.; Naggy, M.; Mayer, J.; Schleidt, K. & Paneli, M. (2011): Die österreichische Umweltinformationspolitik als Vorreiter der Open Government Data Entwicklungen, http://www.conect.at/uploads/tx_posseminar/CONECT_Legat_UI_Vorreiter_von_OGD_23112011.pdf (Stand: 13.02.2012). Krischer, O. (2012 mdl.): Bundestagsrede zum Netzentwicklungsplan. http://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=hKqXW0CfNG4 (Stand: 27.07.2012). Kurpjuweit, K. (2012): BER-Planung: Richter zweifelt am Täuschungsvorwurf. PNN 04.07.2012. http://www.pnn.de/titelseite/661278/ (Stand: 27.07.2012). Lebensministerium Österreich (2006): UVP-Bericht an den Nationalrat 2006. Bericht des Bundesministers für Landund Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft an den Nationalrat gemäß § 44 UVP-G 2000 über die Vollziehung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich. GZ BMLFUW-UW. 1.4.2/0024-V/1/2006. Wien. http://www.umweltbundesamt. at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/UVP_SUP_ EMAS/UVP-Gesetz/UVP-Bericht_an_den_ NR_2006.pdf (Stand: 27.07.2012). Lebensministerium Österreich (2009): 4. UVPBericht an den Nationalrat 2009. Bericht des Bundesministers für Landund Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft an den Nationalrat gemäß § 44 UVPG 200 über die Vollziehung der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Österreich. GZ BMLFUWUW.1.4.2/0041-V/1/2009. III-77 der Beilagen XXIV. GP – Bericht – Hauptdokument. Wien. http://www.umweltbun desamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/UVP_ SUP_EMAS/UVP-Gesetz/UVP-Bericht_an_den_ NR_2009.pdf (Stand: 27.07.2012). Marschall, C. v. (2012): Was ist mit den Amis los? Warum sie an Barack Obama hassen, was wir lieben, Freiburg. Page, J. (2006): Make it easy on your readers: ideas on environmental impact document focus, organization, and style. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24 (3): 235–245. Parthasarathy, S. (2010): Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy 37 (5): 355-367. Ryan, C.M.; Brody, D.O.B. & Lunde, A.I. (2011): NEPA Documents at the US Forest Service: A Blessing and a Curse? UVP-report 25 (4): 192-197. Schulze-Wolf, T. & Köhler, S. (2008): OnlineBeteiligung für das Raumordnungsverfahren zur Küstenautobahn A 22. UVP-report 22 (3): 104–110.

ANNEX 1

XXXV

Sinclair, A. J.; Schneider, G. & Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (2): 85-93. Steinberg, R. (2011): Die Bewältigung von Infrastrukturvorhaben durch Verwaltungsverfahren – eine Bilanz. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 22 (7-8): 340-350. Umweltbundesamt (2012): Aktuelle Informationen der UVP-Behörden. http://www.umweltbun desamt.at/umweltsituation/uvpsup/uvpoester reich1/kundmachung/ (Stand: 27.07.2012). Zschiesche, M. & Sperfeld, F. (2011): Zur Praxis des neuen Umweltinformationsrechts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 22 (2): 71-78.

XXXVI

ANNEX 2

Annex 289

published as Koch, S., Odparlik, L. und Köppel, J. (2014): Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 46 (4): 116–123. ©Verlag Eugen Ulmer. Online: http://www.nul-online.de/Archiv/Archiv/Wo-steht-die-Partizipation-beim-Netzausbau 89

ANNEX 2

XXXVII

Wo steht die Partizipation beim Netzausbau? Eine Analyse der Beteiligungsverfahren zu ausgewählten Projekten aus dem Bedarfsplan des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes Von Sabine Koch, Lisa Odparlik und Johann Köppel Abstracts Bei der Umsetzung der Energiewende soll durch die Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit die Legitimität und Akzeptanz von Planungs- und Entscheidungsprozessen erhöht werden. Mit dem Ziel, die Genehmigungsverfahren von Höchstspannungsleitungen zu straffen, wurde 2009 das Energieleitungsausbaugesetz (EnLAG) beschlossen. Einer der Hauptkritikpunkte am EnLAG war die als intransparent wahrgenommene Bedarfsermittlung. Im Hinblick auf die erfolgte Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung untersucht der Beitrag eine geschichtete Stichprobe von Vorhaben des EnLAG-Bedarfsplans. Die Partizipation zu diesen Verfahren wurde unter Aspekten wie der Dauer und den Zeitpunkten der Beteiligung, der Anzahl und des Inhalts der Einwendungen, der Art der bereitgestellten Information und Internetnutzung sowie weiterer Fragen analysiert. Es zeigte sich, dass es bei vielen Vorhaben durchaus ein umfassendes Informationsangebot gab. Bei einigen Projekten wurden die betroffenen Bürger und Gemeinden frühzeitig bereits während der Erstellung der Planungsunterlagen einbezogen. Konsultation und Kooperation erfolgten insgesamt jedoch selten über die gesetzlichen Mindestanforderungen hinaus. Public Participation in the Process of Grid Expansion – Analysis of participation procedures in select projects in the context of the law on energy line extension Legitimacy and acceptance of planning and decision processes for the implementation of the turnaround in energy policy are to be increased by public participation. In 2009 the ‘law on energy line extension’ (Energieleitungsausbaugesetz) has been adopted with the aim to tighten the approval procedures of extra-high voltage lines. One major criticism of this law was the assessment of demand which had been perceived as being intransparent. In view of the public participation carried out the study investigated a stratified sampling of projects of the requirement plan. The participation in the context of these projects was analysed investigating the aspects length and timing of paticipation, number and content of objections, kind of information provided, use of the internet etc. The results showed that many projects provided comprehensive information. Some projects even included the citizens concerned and the local communities very early during the development of the plans. Altogether, consultation and cooperation however only rarely comprised more than the legally required minimum requirements.

1. Einleitung – Netzausbau, Partizipation, EnLAG, methodisches Vorgehen Der Neubau von Stromleitungen wird für den Fortgang der Energiewende als unabdinglich erachtet (BMWI 2012), problematisch ist jedoch, dass es bei großen Leitungsbauvorhaben oft zu Verzögerungen kommt. So war beispielsweise die Inbetriebnahme des zweiten Planungsabschnitt der „Südwestkuppelleitung zwischen Bad Lauchstädt in Sachsen-Anhalt und Redwitz in Bayern,

XXXVIII

ANNEX 2

einem wichtigen Verbindungsglied zwischen alten und neuen Bundesländern, anfänglich für das Jahr 2008 (BNetzA 2011) angesetzt, mittlerweile wird von 2015 ausgegangen (BNetzA 2013b). Die Fertigstellung der gesamten Leitung, ursprünglich für 2010 geplant (BNetzA 2011), könnte sich sogar bis 2017 hinziehen (BNetzA 2013b). Als Hauptgrund für die Verzögerung werden „Akzeptanzprobleme in der Bevölkerung“ (BNetzA 2012, online) angegeben. Dies ist kein Einzelfall – die geplanten Leitungen rufen immer wieder Proteste und Widerstand hervor (May 2011) und tragen somit zu einem Rückstand beim Netzausbau bei. Die Netzstudie I der Deutschen Energie-Agentur (dena) aus dem Jahr 2005 stellte fest, dass zur Umsetzung des energiepolitischen Ziels von 20 % Erneuerbaren Energien an der Stromerzeugung ein großer Netzausbaubedarf im Höchstspannungsbereich besteht. Insgesamt ging diese Studie von einem Neubau von850 km 380-kV-Leitungen, sowie einer Verstärkung von weiteren 400 km bestehender Leitungen aus. Hierbei sollte vor allem der durch den verstärkten Ausbau der Onund Offshore-Windenergie erzeugte Strom in das Stromnetz integriert werden (dena 2005). 2009 wurde das Energieleitungsausbaugesetz (EnLAG) erlassen. Das EnLAG enthält einen Bedarfsplan mit 24 Netzausbauprojekten (Abb. 1) von vordringlichem Bedarf (EnLAG § 1 Abs. 2), der unter anderem auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse der dena- Netzstudie I sowie auf der Liste der Vorhaben „gemeinsamen Interesses“ der TEN-E Leitlinien der EU erlassen wurde (EnLAG Gesetzesbegründung). Einer der Hauptkritikpunkte am EnLAG war die intransparente Bedarfsermittlung, die unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit stattfand, jedoch im weiteren Planungsverlauf gesetzlich bindend ist. Indem die Notwendigkeit der im EnLAG-Bedarfsplan enthaltenen Leitungen gesetzlich festgelegt wurde und diese somit im weiteren Planungsverlauf nicht mehr in Frage gestellt werden können, sollten mit dem EnLAG die Planungsverfahren zu den einzelnen Vorhaben gestrafft werden. Hinzu kommen die durch das EnLAG vorgenommenen Bestimmungen von Erdkabelpilotstrecken und Verkürzung des Rechtsweges auf eine Klageinstanz. Gesetzliche Schritte, um die Transparenz der Verfahren und den Grad der Beteiligung zu erhöhen, wurden nicht unternommen. Die Öffentlichkeit wird somit erst im Planfeststellungsverfahren beteiligt, indem die Planungsunterlagen öffentlich ausgelegt werden und den Betroffen die Möglichkeit gewährt wird, sich zu äußern (EnWG § 43b, Abs. 1). Im Raumordnungsverfahren ist die Art und Weise, wie die Öffentlichkeit beteiligt wird, von den gesetzlichen Regelungen der Bundesländer abhängig. Welche Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten jedoch in der Praxis vorhanden sind, ist im Einzelfall abhängig von der Ausgestaltung des Verfahrens durch die Planungsverantwortlichen (Vetter 2007).

ANNEX 2

Abb. 1: Karte der EnLAG Vorhaben, Stand 30.09.2013 (BNetzA 2013a, online).

XXXIX

XL

ANNEX 2

Der Begriff der Partizipation kann relativ breit ausgelegt werden. Ein bekannter Ansatz ist Arnsteins (1969) „ladder of participation“ (Abb. 2). Die Leiter besteht aus acht Ebenen, wobei jede Sprosse ein zunehmendes Ausmaß der Einflussnahme der Bürger auf den Entscheidungsprozess darstellt. Die verschiedenen Stufen können vereinfacht zu den groben Ebenen „Nicht-Partizipation“, „Schein- Partizipation“ und (echte) „Partizipation“ zusammengefasst werden und ermöglichen es, die Qualität verschiedener Formen der Bürgerbeteiligung zu beurteilen. Die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Beteiligung kann auf der Stufe der Konsultation eingeordnet werden. Die Bürger werden informiert und erhalten die Möglichkeit, ihre Meinung einzubringen, haben aber keinen Einfluss auf die abschließende Entscheidung (UfU 2012). Information und Konsultation zählen zur Ebene der Schein- oder Alibibeteiligung, „echte“ Partizipation beginnt erst ab der Stufe der Kooperation.

Abb. 2: Ladder of participation - Stufen der Partizipation (Arnstein 1969, Übersetzung S. Koch).

Auch wenn die reine Information der Öffentlichkeit über das Vorhaben und das Verfahren bei Arnstein „nur“ zur Stufe der Scheinbeteiligung zählt, stellt sie doch eine wichtige Basis für die Beteiligung dar. Die Art der bereitgestellten Informationen und der leichte Zugang zu ihnen tragen maßgeblich zum Erfolg der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung bei. Wichtig ist, dass der Öffentlichkeit allgemeinverständliche Informationen über das Projekt selbst, also beispielsweise über die technische Ausgestaltung des Vorhabens, den räumlichen Verlauf und die Umweltauswirkungen, zugänglich sind. Neben den projektbezogenen Angaben spielen auch solche über das Planungsverfahren und vor allem über die Möglichkeiten der Bürger, daran teilzunehmen, eine wichtige Rolle. Die betroffene Öffentlichkeit muss z.B. erfahren, wann welche umweltrelevante Entscheidung ansteht und wie sie genau mitwirken kann (Odparlik et al. 2012, Odparlik & Köppel 2013). So ist das fehlende Wissen über Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten ein Hauptgrund für die oft geringe Bürgerbeteiligung an formalen Verfahren (Wiklund 2010). Ob und wie in der deutschen Praxis bereits versucht wird, die Akzeptanz des Netzausbaus durch transparente Beteiligungsverfahren zu fördern, haben wir anhand einer geschichteten Stichprobe der Vorhaben des EnLAG-Bedarfsplans exemplarisch untersucht.

ANNEX 2

2.

XLI

Methode

Im ersten Schritt wurde aus den 24 EnLAG-Vorhaben mit insgesamt 53 Abschnitten nach einer groben Analyse eine Vorauswahl getroffen. Dabei wurden Projekte und Teilabschnitte nicht weiter berücksichtigt, bei denen entweder noch keine Beteiligung der Bürger stattgefunden hatte oder bei denen per Gesetz die Öffentlichkeit nicht mit einbezogen werden musste, da es sich um Zubeseilungsmaßnahmen handelte. Bei diesen Maßnahmen wird die Übertragungsleistung einer bestehenden Leitung durch das Anbringen eines weiteren Stromkreises erhöht und bedarf keines Planfeststellungsverfahrens und keiner Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Berücksichtigt wurden sowohl Vorhaben im Planfeststellungsals auch im Raumordnungsverfahren. Neben dem Verfahrensstand erfolgte die Auswahl nach verfahrensführender Behörde und verantwortlichem Übertragungsnetzbetreiber, um auch eine dahingehend breit gefächerte Stichprobe zu erhalten. Im folgenden Schritt (Feinanalyse) wurde anhand definierter Kriterien (Box 1) analysiert, wie die Beteiligungsverfahren in der Praxis ausgestaltet wurden, ob über die gesetzlichen Mindestanforderungen an die formale Beteiligung hinausgegangen wurde, wie die Bürger zum Projekt und zu den Verfahren informiert wurden und inwiefern es Ansätze zur Kooperation mit den Bürgern gab. Box 1: Kriterienkatalog für die detaillierte Untersuchung Formales und Inhalt der Beteiligung   

Wann, wo, wie lange hatte die Öffentlichkeit die Möglichkeit zur Beteiligung? Worüber konnte mitgesprochen werden? Wann und wie fanden Erörterungstermine statt?

Einwendungen  

Wie viele Einwendungen sind im Rahmen der formellen Beteiligung eingegangen? Was für Einwendungen gab es?

Informationsmöglichkeiten und Internetnutzung   

Wie wurde über das Projekt informiert? Welche Informationsmedien werden genutzt? Wie wurde über das Planungsverfahren und die Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten informiert? Wie wurde das Internet genutzt?

Informelle Partizipationsangebote      

Wurden neue Formen der Partizipation genutzt? Zu welchem Zeitpunkt? Wer war der Initiator? Wer waren die Teilnehmer? Was war das Ziel? Was war das Ergebnis?

Die Auswahl der Kriterien erfolgte auf Basis der gesetzlichen Vorgaben, vorausgehender Untersuchungen und Publikationen (Scott & Ngoran 2007, Wiklund2010, Kubicek et al. 2011) sowie nach weitergehenden Überlegungen, an welchen Punkten im Planungsverfahren theoretisch Möglichkeiten zu mehr Transparenz und einer stärkeren Einbeziehung der Öffentlichkeit bestehen. Maßgeblich war dabei, dass das jeweilige Kriterium direkt von den Verfahrensverantwortlichen beeinflusst werden kann, wie beispielsweise Ort und Dauer der Auslage der Planungsunterlagen, Nutzung des Internets durch verfahrensführende Behörde und Vorhabensträger zur Information

XLII

ANNEX 2

und Konsultation der Öffentlichkeit und Informationsmöglichkeiten. Um außerdem einen Eindruck über die Beteiligung im formalen Verfahren zu erhalten, wurden die Kriterien „Anzahl der Einwendungen“ und „Inhalt der Einwendungen“ mit aufgenommen. Sowohl die Vorauswahl aus den 24 Vorhaben als auch die Feinanalyse erfolgte durch eine Internetrecherche. Ausgangspunkt für den allgemeinen Überblick waren der Onlineauftritt und die Veröffentlichungen der Bundesnetzagentur zu den EnLAG-Projekten. Nachdem im ersten Schritt die zuständigen Behörden und Netzbetreiber für die einzelnen Vorhaben ermittelt wurden, waren in der Feinuntersuchung die Homepages der verfahrensführenden Behörden, betroffenen Gemeinden und Netzbetreiber Hauptinformationsquelle. Desweiteren dienten die Seiten von Bürgerinitiativen und NGOs sowie Onlineveröffentlichungen von lokalen und regionalen Zeitungen als wichtige Datenbasis, um die in Box 1 genannten Fragen für die ausgewählten Vorhabensabschnitte zu bearbeiten. Da meist nur zu einer Teilmenge der ausgewählten Fallbeispiele Informationen zu einem bestimmten Kriterium zu Verfügung standen, konnte die Erfassung der Kriterien nicht durchgängig umfassend erfolgen.

3.

Ergebnisse

3.1

Formales und Inhalt der Beteiligung

3.1.1 Wann, wo, wie lange hatte die Öffentlichkeit die Möglichkeit zur Beteiligung? Gesetzlich vorgeschrieben ist, dass der Öffentlichkeit ab Einreichung des vollständigen Plans eine Frist von vier Wochen zur Einsichtnahme in die Planfeststellungsunterlagen und zwei weitere Wochen zur Einreichung von Einwendungen gewährt werden muss (EnWG § 43b). Aus der Analyse wurde ersichtlich, dass diese Fristen in den meisten Fällen exakt eingehalten wurden:  Von 22 dahingehend untersuchten Vorhabensabschnitten gab es in 14 Fällen vier Wochen Zeit zur Einsichtnahme und weitere zwei Wochen zur Abgabe von Einwendungen (insgesamt sechs Wochen Anhörungsfrist).  Bei vier Abschnitten wurde die Auslage der Unterlagen auf sechs Wochen verlängert, Einwendungen waren allerdings nicht über den Zeitraum hinaus möglich (insgesamt sechs Wochen Anhörungsfrist).  In drei Fällen wurde die Einwendungsfrist um zwei Wochen verlängert, es gab somit vier Wochen Zeit zur Einsichtnahme und weitere vier Wochen zur Abgabe von Einwendungen (insgesamt acht Wochen Anhörungsfrist).  In einem Fall wurden die Unterlagen über sechs Wochen – von Mitte Dezember bis Mitte Januar – ausgelegt, mit anschließend zwei weiteren Wochen Zeit zur Abgabe von Einwendungen (insgesamt acht Wochen Anhörungsfrist). Eine stichprobenhafte Untersuchung zu Abschnitten der Vorhaben Kassø – Dollern (EnLAG Nr. 1), Dörpen/West – Niederrhein (EnLAG Nr. 5) und Niederrhein– Osterath (EnLAG Nr. 14) zeigte, dass die Öffnungszeiten der Ämter zum Teil sehr eingeschränkt sind und somit die Beteiligung für bestimmte Bevölkerungsgruppen erheblich erschwert wird. So war in einigen Gemeinden an keinem Wochentag eine Einsichtnahme nach 17:00 Uhr möglich. Damit alle Interessierten trotzdem Einsicht in die Unterlagen nehmen konnten, bestand bei einigen Ämtern die Möglichkeit, außerhalb der regulären Öffnungszeiten telefonisch einen Termin zur Einsichtnahme zu vereinbaren. Ein weiterer Weg wäre die Veröffentlichung der Unterlagen im Internet, diese Möglichkeit wurde in insgesamt neun (von 22) Beispielen genutzt (siehe dazu Punkt „Internetnutzung“).

3.1.2 Wann und wie fand der Erörterungstermin statt?

ANNEX 2

XLIII

Bei den untersuchten Vorhaben wurde im Planfeststellungsverfahren in jedem Fall ein Erörterungstermin durchgeführt, obwohl dies für Hochund Höchstspannungsleitungen mit dem Infrastrukturplanungsbeschleunigungsgesetz 2006 zeitweise ins Ermessen der Behörde gestellt war. Mit der Novellierung des Energiewirtschaftsgesetzes im Jahr 2011 wurde die Ermessensregelung wieder rückgängig gemacht. Die Zeitspanne zwischen Planauslage und Durchführung des Erörterungstermins lag in allen untersuchten Fällen bei über drei Monaten. Bei den zwei Vorhabensabschnitten Hamburg/Nord – Dollern (Leitung Kassø – Dollern, EnLAG Nr. 1) und Vieselbach – Altenfeld (Leitung Bad Lauchstädt – Redwitz, EnLAG Nr. 4) lagen über eineinhalb Jahre zwischen der ursprünglichen Planauslage und der Erörterung der Einwendungen. Die langen Zeitspannen können in diesen Fällen auf Planänderungsverfahren mit erneuter Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung zurückgeführt werden. Die Teilnahme am Erörterungstermin ist im Regelfall dem Vorhabensträger, den beteiligten Behörden, den Betroffenen und den Einwendern vorbehalten (VwVfG § 73, Abs. 6). Die allgemeine Öffentlichkeit hat kein Recht darauf, der Erörterung beizuwohnen. Ein einfacher Schritt zur transparenteren Gestaltung des Planungsverfahrens besteht jedoch darin, die Teilnahme am Erörterungstermin allen interessierten Bürgern zu ermöglichen. Beim Abschnitt Friedrichsdorf – Bechterdissen der Leitung Gütersloh – Bechterdissen (EnLAG Nr. 17) und den nordrhein-westfälischen Abschnitten der Leitung Wehrendorf – St. Hülfe (EnLAG Nr. 2) wurde von der Verhandlungsleitung ausdrücklich allen interessierten Bürgern die Teilnahme am Erörterungstermin gestattet, dies wurde im Vorfeld in Informationsblättern bekannt gegeben. Zu allen anderen untersuchten Beispielen waren die nicht betroffenen Bürger vom Erörterungstermin ausgeschlossen. Im Raumordnungsverfahren ist in der Regel keine obligatorische Erörterung der von der Öffentlichkeit eingereichten Einwendungen vorgesehen (vgl. LPlG RP § 17 Abs. 7, NROG § 10 Abs. 4, GROVerfV § 5 Abs. 4), es kann aber durchaus hilfreich sein, zur Verminderung von Konflikten trotzdem einen Erörterungstermin durchzuführen (BMVBS 2012). In den untersuchten Raumordnungsverfahren fanden beispielsweise zum Vorhaben Wahle – Mecklar (EnLAG Nr. 6) insgesamt sieben Erörterungstermine statt. Zu diesen waren neben den Trägern öffentlicher Belange auch Bürgerinitiativen eingeladen, die allgemeine Öffentlichkeit wurde zwar in der Einwendungsphase konsultiert, blieb beim Erörterungstermin allerdings außen vor und wurde „durch ihre Kommunen und die Bürgerinitiativen im Erörterungstermin vertreten“ (ML Niedersachsen 2011, Seite 5).

3.1.2 Einwendungen – Anzahl und Inhalt Die Anzahl der Einwendungen wurde für Vorhabensabschnitte im Raumordnungsverfahren und im Planfeststellungsverfahren ermittelt. Die Informationen standen für insgesamt dreizehn Abschnitte zur Verfügung. Die Zahl der Einwendungen unterschied sich bei den untersuchten Vorhaben sehr stark voneinander (Abb. 3). Erneut fällt das Vorhaben Wahle – Mecklar auf, zu dem fast 20 000 Einwendungen im Raumordnungsverfahren eingingen. Die Einwendungen sind online als 2000-seitige Synopse abrufbar (Stand 09.09.2013), die neben dem Inhalt der Einwendungen auch die Erwiderungen des Vorhabensträgers und der verfahrensführenden Behörde enthält. Die Inhalte der Einwendungen zu den vier weiteren dahingehend untersuchten Projekten ergaben sich aus den jeweiligen Planfeststellungsbeschlüssen oder zusammenfassenden Erklärungen der Anhörungsbehörden.

XLIV

ANNEX 2

Abb. 3: Anzahl der Einwendungen zu den untersuchten Vorhaben.

Häufige Themen der Einwendungen sind die Forderung nach einer Ausführung der Leitung als Erdkabel oder die Wahl einer alternativen Trasse. Außerdem stießen die mangelnde Transparenz und fehlende Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit bei der Bedarfsermittlung auf Kritik. Die Fragen des Bedarfs und der technischen Ausführung der einzelnen Leitungen, die über das EnLAG „top-down“ geklärt werden sollten, wurden in den Verfahren von den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern immer wieder vorgebracht.

3.2

Informationsmöglichkeiten und Internetnutzung

3.2.1 Informationen zum Projekt Die Anhörungsbehörde ist dazu verpflichtet, die Bürger rechtzeitig über die einzelnen Schritte im Anhörungsverfahren durch eine ortsübliche Bekanntmachung zu informieren (VwVfG § 73). Für die Bekanntmachungen wird neben den Amtsblättern und Tageszeitungen zunehmend das Internet genutzt. Außerdem bieten viele Ämter kurze Projektinformationen auf ihren Homepages an. Ein umfassendes Informationsangebot bietet das Land Niedersachsen: Unter www.netzausbau-

ANNEX 2

XLV

niedersachsen.de wird über die einzelnen Netzausbauprojekte in Niedersachsen und allgemein zum Netzausbau informiert. Verantwortlich für die Homepage ist die Niedersächsische Staatskanzlei. In einigen Fällen wurden von Behörden Veranstaltungen außerhalb des formellen Anhörungsverfahrens organisiert. Diese können den Vorteil haben, dass sie unter Umständen als neutraler und objektiver wahrgenommen werden, als wenn der Vorhabensträger als Initiator auftritt. So hat der Landkreis Emsland als zuständige Behörde im Raumordnungsverfahren für den niedersächsischen Abschnitt der Leitung Dörpen West – Niederrhein (EnLAG Nr. 5) mehrere Informationsveranstaltungen und Bürgerversammlungen zum Raumordnungsverfahren angeboten. Die Stadt Attendorn, die im Fall der Leitung Kruckel – Dauersberg (EnLAG Nr. 19) als betroffene Gemeinde vertreten ist, organisierte eine Informationsveranstaltung, bei der neben dem Vorhabensträger auch ein Experte zu elektromagnetischer Strahlung für Fragen der Bürger zur Verfügung stand. Auch die Netzbetreiber stellen in unterschiedlichem Umfang online Informationen zur Verfügung. Weitere von den Netzbetreibern genutzte Informationsformen sind Projektbroschüren, Informationsveranstaltungen, Projektbüros und Projektnewsletter. Tab. 1 gibt eine Übersicht über die angewandten Formen der Informationsvermittlung.

3.2.2 Informationen zum Verfahren Viele Bürgerinnen und Bürgern haben keine Kenntnis darüber, wie die Genehmigung von Vorhaben abläuft und welche Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten sie dabei haben. Die Unwissenheit über die Verfahrensabläufe ist ein wichtiger Grund für die oftmals geringe Teilnahme von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern an Planungsverfahren (Wiklund 2010). Um eine erfolgreiche Beteiligung zu ermöglichen, müssen sich die Bürger daher über das Verfahren und die Partizipationsmöglichkeiten umfassend und ohne Schwierigkeiten informieren können (Sinclair et al. 2012). Die Recherche auf den Homepages von zwölf Genehmigungsbehörden nach Informationen zum Planungsverfahren ergab, dass man sich in den meisten Fällen über Ziel und Ablauf der Verfahren online informieren kann. In fünf Fällen waren die Informationsmöglichkeiten relativ ausführlich bis sehr ausführlich, dazu gehören das Internetangebot der Niedersächsischen Staatskanzlei (www.netzausbau-niedersachsen.de), der Bezirksregierung Köln (www.bezreg-koeln.nrw.de/) und der Bezirksregierung Detmold (www.bezreg-detmold.nrw.de/). Von den verbleibenden sieben Beispielen boten drei Behörden nur einen sehr groben Überblick über das Ziel eines Planfeststellungsverfahrens und die entsprechenden Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten und in vier Fällen waren überhaupt keine Informationen über die Abläufe eines Planungsverfahren online auffindbar.

3.2.3 Weitere Internetangebote der Behörden und Netzbertreiber Das Internet kann als Informationsplattform dienen, aber auch zum Austausch oder zur Abgabe von Meinungen und Einwendungen genutzt werden.

XLVI

ANNEX 2

Tab. 1: Informationsangebot der Vorhabensträger zu den untersuchten Vorhaben.

Tab. 1: Informationsangebot der Vorhabensträger zu den untersuchten Vorhaben Informationen Vorhaben

Abschnitt

Broschüre, InformatiOnline, ProjektInonsveranHomepage büro fomappe staltung

Newsletter, rss feed, Email Verteiler

Informationsweg wird vom Netzbetreiber genutzt Informationsweg wird genutzt, Informationen sind veraltet oder sehr knapp Informationsweg steht für diesen Projektabschnitt nicht zur Verfügung AudorfHam1 Neubau Kassø (DK) – burg/Nord Hamburg Nord – Dollern Hamburg – Nord-Dollern 2 Ganderkesee – Wehren- Ganderkesee – St.Hülfe dorf Wehrendorf – St. Hülfe Neuenhagen – Vierra3 Uckermarkleitung den Vieselbach – Altenfeld Altenfeld - Landes4 Thüringer Strombrücke grenze Landesgrenze - Redwitz Dörpen – Meppen 5 Dörpen/West - NiederLöchte – Bredenwinkel rhein Bredenwinkel - Wesel Niedersachsen / Hes6 Wahle – Mecklar sen 9 Krümmel - Görries Schleswig- Holstein 11 Neuenhagen – WusterBrandenburg/Berlin mark 14 Niederrhein - Osterath Fellerhöfe – St. Tönis Osterath – Rommerskirchen Rommerskirchen – 15 Osterath - Weißenthurm Sechtem Neuenahr - Weißenthurm 17 Gütersloh - Bechterdis- Friedrichsdorf sen Bechterdissen 19 Kruckel – Dauersberg NRW 21 Marxheim-Kelsterbach Hessen 23 Neckarwestheim – MühlBaden - Württemberg hausen

In neun von 22 analysierten Fällen wurden die Planungsunterlagen online bereitgestellt, mit dem Vorteil, dass die Einsichtnahme von den Öffnungszeiten der Ämter und Rathäuser entkoppelt werden konnte. Neben den Planungsunterlagen stehen oft zusätzliche Informationen zum Download bereit, wie zum Beispiel Projektbroschüren und Karten zu den Trassenverläufen. Das Bereitstellen zusätzlicher Dokumente wie Protokolle und Einwendungen erfordert zwar einen höheren Bearbeitungsaufwand, kann aber gleichzeitig einen hohen Beitrag zur Verbesserung der Transparenz des Verfahrens leisten. In den Raumordnungsverfahren der Leitungen Wahle – Mecklar (EnLAG Nr. 6) und zum niedersächsischen Teil der Leitung Dörpen/West – Niederrhein (EnLAG

ANNEX 2

XLVII

Nr. 5) waren nicht nur die Planungsunterlagen im Internet einsehbar, es gab über dies hinaus die Möglichkeit, dazu online seine Stellungnahme abzugeben (Online-Beteiligung). Um die interessierte Öffentlichkeit über aktuelle Entwicklungen auf dem Laufenden zu halten, bieten sowohl die Übertragungsnetzbetreiber (Tab. 1) als auch einige Behörden online-Benachrichtigungsformen wie RSS Feeds (fünf von zwölf untersuchten Genehmigungsbehörden), E-Mail Newsletter (eine von zwölf) oder Twitter (eine von zwölf) an. So twittert beispielsweise die Bezirksregierung Köln (@BezRegKoeln) über die Entwicklungen und Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten bei laufenden Planfeststellungsverfahren und der Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau und Verkehr Schleswig-Holstein bietet einen RSS Feed zu aktuellen Erörterungsterminen an.

3.3

Informelle Partizipationsangebote

Unter diesem Kriterium wurden in der Untersuchung Partizipationsangebote zusammengefasst, die außerhalb des formalen Verfahrens den Bürgern Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten boten, welche über reine Informationsveranstaltungen hinausgingen. Solche zusätzlichen Partizipationsangebote fanden sich jedoch nur selten bei den untersuchten Projekten. Im Fall Hamburg/Nord – Dollern (Leitung Kassø – Dollern (EnLAG Nr. 1)) wurden, nachdem über das formelle Beteiligungsverfahren Konflikte nicht gelöst werden konnten, Runde Tische in den betroffenen Gemeinden Kummersfeld, Moorege und Quickborn anberaumt. Im Rahmen dieser Veranstaltungen sollten Problemlösungen gesucht werden. Dies verlief in Kummersfeld und Moorege positiv, dort einigte man sich auf kleinräumige Änderungen des Trassenverlaufs. In Quickborn dagegen, wo über ein Jahr lang Verhandlungen stattfanden, kam es bis zum Planfeststellungsbeschluss im Mai 2013 zu keiner Einigung. Für die Leitung Bünzwangen – Goldhöfe (EnLAG Nr. 24) setzt der zuständige Netzbetreiber dagegen auf frühzeitige Einbeziehung der Bürger: Hier finden seit Sommer 2013 abschnittsweise so genannte Trassierungswerkstätten statt, an denen sich alle interessierten Bürger nach Anmeldung beteiligen können. In diesen Veranstaltungen sollen die Trassenvarianten entwickelt werden, die dann im Raumordnungsverfahren näher untersucht werden. Allerdings stellte sich auch hier heraus, dass von der Bevölkerung vor allem der Notwendigkeit der Leitung in Frage gestellt wird. Das Argument, dass der Bedarf der Leitung gesetzlich festgelegt ist, wurde „vom Publikum als nicht ausreichend empfunden und vehement kritisiert“ (Transnet BW 2013, S. 5). Inwiefern die Trassierungswerkstätten zur Leitung Bünzwangen – Goldhöfe (EnLAG Nr. 24) erfolgreich sein werden, bleibt daher abzuwarten (Stand September 2013).

4.

Diskussion und Fazit

Die hier vorgestellte empirische Studie hat anhand der verfügbaren Informationen gezeigt, wie die Einbeziehung der Bevölkerung beim Netzausbau – einem Schlüsselfaktor der Energiewende – in der Praxis Anwendung findet. Es wurde dargestellt, welche Anstrengungen Behörden und Netzbetreiber bei EnLAG-Projekten unternehmen, um die Beteiligung bürgerfreundlich zu gestalten und damit die Transparenz und möglicherweise die Akzeptanz für das jeweilige Vorhaben zu verbessern. Insgesamt hat sich herausgestellt, dass Arnsteins Partizipationsstufe der Information bei vielen Vorhaben durch ein umfassendes Angebot erfüllt wurde. Die Unterlagen und Verfahrensinformationen sind zunehmend online verfügbar, Netzbetreiber und Verwaltung setzen immer öfter auf Veranstaltungen und direkten Kontakt mit der Öffentlichkeit. Die Bürger haben zum Teil die Möglichkeit, über E-Mail-Newsletter oder Twitter zu aktuellen Verfahren auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben. So sind zahlreiche Bemühungen erkennbar, den Planungsund Genehmigungsprozess transparenter zu gestalten.

XLVIII

ANNEX 2

Hinsichtlich der Konsultation, der nächsten Stufe auf Arnsteins Leiter der Partizipation, gab es wenige Fälle, in denen über die gesetzlichen Anforderungen hinausgegangen wurde. In zwei Fällen konnten Stellungnahmen online vorgebracht werden. Bei einigen Projekten wurden Bürgerinitiativen und Gemeinden als Vertreter der Öffentlichkeit jenseits des formellen Verfahrens zu Runden Tischen eingeladen. Dies ist zwar ein Schritt hin zu einer stärkeren Einbindung der Öffentlichkeit in der Praxis von Netzausbauvorhaben, aber immer noch weit entfernt von direkter Kooperation mit den Bürgern und „echter“ Partizipation im Sinne von Arnstein (1969). Dass die allgemeine Öffentlichkeit direkt an der Trassenplanung teilnehmen konnte, war bisher nur in einem Beispiel der Fall und ist die Ausnahme in der Praxis der Netzausbauplanung. Einschränkend bezüglich der Ergebnisse der Untersuchung ist festzuhalten, dass eine umfängliche Vergleichbarkeit der untersuchten Abschnitte schwierig war, da die Planungsverfahren unter sehr unterschiedlichen Rahmenbedingungen stattfanden (Leitungslänge, Naturraum, Bevölkerungsdichte etc.). Hinzu kommt, dass die online verfügbare Datenlage zu den einzelnen Vorhaben sehr unterschiedlich war, von sehr gering (z.B. Leitung Krümmel – Görries, EnLAG Nr. 9) zu relativ umfangreich (z.B. Leitung Wahle – Mecklar, EnLAG Nr. 6). Das EnLAG hat sein Ziel, die Planungsverfahren für vordringliche Vorhaben zu beschleunigen verfehlt – die meisten der 24 Vorhaben des EnLAG Bedarfsplans befinden sich im Rückstand, die Akzeptanz in der Bevölkerung für diese Leitungen ist gering. Bei den verfahrensführenden Behörden liegt die Möglichkeit, bereits durch kleine, hier vorgestellte Maßnahmen, die Transparenz und Qualität der Beteiligungsverfahren zu erhöhen, die Bürger stärker in den Planungsprozess einzubinden und damit vielleicht auch einen Beitrag zu einer höheren Akzeptanz der Planung zu leisten. Fazit für die Praxis Aus den positiven Beispielen zu den einzelnen Vorhaben lassen sich Handlungsempfehlungen für die einzelnen Kriterien ableiten, die mit relativ geringem Aufwand zu einem bürgerfreundlicheren Verfahren beitragen können:  gesetzlich vorgegebene Beteiligungsfristen als Mindestvorgaben betrachten, über die auch hinausgegangen werden kann (besonders dann, wenn die Auslage der Planunterlagen z.B. in die Sommerferien oder in die Weihnachtszeit fällt);  die Teilnahme am Erörterungstermin auch für Nicht-Einwender ermöglichen;  verschiedene Informationsmedien nutzen (Internet, Zeitungsartikel, Broschüren, Newsletter, Projektbüro);  die Bürger über den Ablauf des Planungsverfahrens und ihre Beteiligungsrechte über verschiedene Medien umfassend und vor allem anschaulich informieren;  direkte Gespräche mit den Bürgern oder Interessensvertretern der Bürger in einem frühzeitigen Stadium der Planung führen;  die Bürger in die Trassierung von Leitungstrassen aktiv einbeziehen, z.B.durch gemeinsame Workshops.

Mit den im Textkasten „Fazit für die Praxis“ zusammengefassten Vorschlägen gelingt es hoffentlich bald, dem Ziel einer stärkeren und besseren Bürgerbeteiligung in der Umsetzung der Energiewende und dem Netzausbau in Deutschland etwas näher zu kommen.

ANNEX 2

XLIX

Literatur Arnstein, S. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4), 216-224. BMVBS (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung, 2012): Planung von Großvorhaben im Verkehrssektor – Handbuch für eine gute Bürgerbeteiligung. Entwurf. BMWI (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, 2012): Die Energiewende in Deutschland. Mit sicherer, bezahlbarer und umweltschonender Energie ins Jahr 2050. Sonderheft Schlaglichter der Wirtschaftspolitik. BNetzA (Bundesnetzagentur, 2011): Bericht gemäß § 63 Abs. 4a EnWG zur Auswertung der Netzzustandsund Netzausbauberichte der deutschen Elektrizitäts- und Übertragungsbetreiber. Bonn. – (2012): EnLAG Nr. 4 Lauchstädt-Redwitz: www.netzausbau.de/cln_1932/DE/Vorhaben/ EnLAG-Vorhaben/EnLAG-04/EnLAG-04-node. html [zuletzt geprüft am 03.02 .2014]. – (2013a): Leitungsvorhaben aus dem Energieleitungsausbaugesetz: www.netzausbau. de/cln_1931/DE/Vorhaben/EnLAG-Vorhaben/ EnLAGVorhaben-node.html;jsessionid=80DC8B8CD4122FB4B5167B3F06CB2F48 [zuletzt aktualisiert: 30.09.2013, zuletzt geprüft am 03.02.2014]. – (2013b): Bauliche Fertigstellung der EnLAG- Vorhaben – Zweites Quartal 2013: www.netzausbau.de/DE/Vorhaben/EnLAG-Vorhaben/ EnLAGVorhaben-node.html [zuletzt geprüft am 03.02.2014]. dena (Deutsche Energieagentur, 2005): Zusammenfassung der wesentlichen Ergebnisse der Studie „Energiewirtschaftliche Planung für die Netzintegration von Windenergie in Deutschland an Land und Offshore bis zum Jahr 2020“ (dena-Netzstudie). Berlin. Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Koop, A. (2011): Materialband zur Studie „Nutzen und Erfolgsfaktoren konsultativer Bürgerbeteiligung. Eine vergleichende Analyse ausgewählter Beispiele“. Bremen, Gütersloh. May, H. (2011): Lange Leitungen – die Konflikte um Stromtrassen nehmen zu. NABU Magazin „Naturschutz heute“ 4/2011, 16-17. Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft, Verbraucherschutz und Landesentwicklung (ML Niedersachsen, 2011): 380 kV-Höchstspannungsverbindung Wahle –Mecklar Raumordnungsverfahren (ROV) mit integrierter Prüfung der Umweltverträglichkeit gem. §§ 12 ff. NROG1 für den niedersächsischen Abschnitt – Niederschrift über die Erörterungstermine. Odparlik, L.F., Köppel, J. (2013): Access to information and the role of environmental assessment registries for public participation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (4), 324-331. –, Köppel, J., Geissler, G. (2012): The grass is always greener on the other side: der Zugang zu Umweltprüfungs-Dokumenten in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. UVP-Report 26 (5), 236-243. Scott, J., Ngoran, J.M. (2003): Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the International Masters Degree in Environmental Policy and the Global Challenge. Sinclair, A.J., Schneider, G., Mitchell, L. (2012): Environmental impact assessment process substitution: experiences of public participants. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (2), 85-93. Transnet BW (2013): Neubau der 380-kV-Leitung Bünzwangen-Goldshöfe – erste Trassierungswerkstatt zu Abschnitt Zwei in Plüderhausen am 3. Juni 2013. UfU (Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen, 2012): Stellungnahme des Unabhängigen Instituts für Umweltfragen e.V. Berlin zum Entwurf für ein Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung und Vereinheitlichung von Planfeststellungsverfahren (PlVereinhG) in der Fassung vom 9.1.2012. Vetter, A. (2007): Lokale Bürgerbeteiligung: Ein wichtiges Thema mit offenen Fragen. In: Vetter, A., Hrsg., Erfolgsbedingungen lokaler Bürgerbeteiligung, Sammelband zur Tagung „Bürgerbeteiligung in Städten und Gemeinden – Reformen und ihre Konsequenzen im Bundesländervergleich“, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, 9-28. Weyer, H. (2011): Netzausbau in Deutschland – rechtlicher Rahmen und Handlungsbedarf. Arbeitspapier 05/2011 für den Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Wiklund, H. (2011): Why High Participatory Ideals Fail in Practice: A Bottom-Up Approach to Public Nonparticipation in EIA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 13 (2), 159-178.

L

ANNEX 2

Gesetze und Verordnungen Energieleitungsausbaugesetz (EnLAG) in der Fassung vom 21. August 2009 (BGBl. I S. 2870), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 5 des Gesetzes vom 07. März 2011 (BGBl. I S. 338). Entscheidung Nr. 1364/2006/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 06. September 2006 zur Festlegung von Leitlinien für die transeuropäischen Energienetze und zur Aufhebung der Entscheidung 96/391/EG und der Entscheidung Nr. 1229/2003/EG (TEN-E–Leitlinien). Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz – EnWG) vom 07. Juli 2005 (BGBl. I S. 1970, 3621), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 2 des Gesetzes vom 16. Januar 2012 (BGBl. I S. 74). Gesetz zur Beschleunigung von Planungsverfahren für Infrastrukturvorhaben (InfraStrPlanVBeschlG) in der Fassung vom 09.12.2006 (BGBl. I S. 2833). Landesplanungsgesetz Rheinland-Pfalz (LPlG RP) vom 10. April 2003 (GVBl. S. 41). Netzausbaubeschleunigungsgesetz Übertragungsnetz (NABEG) vom 28. Juli 2011 (BGBl. I S. 1690). Niedersächsisches Raumordnungsgesetz (NROG) vom 18. Juli 2012 (Nds. GVBl. 2012, 252). Verordnung über die einheitliche Durchführung von Raumordnungsverfahren im gemeinsamen Planungsraum Berlin-Brandenburg (Gemeinsame Raumordnungsverfahrensverordnung- GROVerfV) vom 14. Juli 2010 (GVBl. II/10, 406). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 102).

ANNEX 3

LI

Annex 3 Case Studies analysed in Chapter 2 and 5 Agency

Links

Australia Government of Western Australia – Environmental Protection Authority: EPA Reports

http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/about-environmentalimpact-assessment

Queensland Government – Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning: Assessments and Approvals – Coordinated Projects

http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects.html

New South Wales Government – Planning & Infrastructure: Major Project Assessments

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/page/

Tasmania – Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources: Infrastructure Projects

http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/road/projects

Tasmania – Environmental Protection Authority: EPA Approval Process

http://epa.tas.gov.au/assessment

Broken Hill City Council (New South Wales): Planning Proposals Open for Public Comment

https://www.brokenhill.nsw.gov.au/?option=com_jentlacontent&view=category&id=2224&Itemid=2716

Australia Pacific LNG (Origin + Conoco Phillips, Sinopec): Environmental Impact State-ment

https://www.aplng.com.au/about-us/compliance.html

Incitec Pivot Limited (Kooragang Islands NSW): Library – Environmental Impact Statements

http://www.incitecpivot.com.au/about-us/download-centre

Austria Umweltbundesamt Österreich: UVP-Datenbank

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/umweltsituation/uvpsup/uvpoesterreich1/uvpdatenbank/uvp_online/

Umweltbundesamt Österreich: UVP-Feststellungsverfahren

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/umweltsituation/uvpsup/uvpoesterreich1/uvpdatenbank/uvpfeststellungsverf/

BMVIT (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie): Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen

https://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/strasse/autostrasse/index.html

Niederösterreich: Umweltrecht aktuell

http://www.noe.gv.at/Umwelt/Umweltschutz/Umweltrecht-aktuell.html

Niederösterreich: UVP Flughafen Wien

http://noe.gv.at/Verkehr-Technik/Luftfahrt/Flugverkehr/Flughafen_vie.html

Flughafen Wien AG: VIE (Vienna International Airport)

http://www.viennaairport.com/drittepiste

Canada

LII

ANNEX 3

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency: Canadian Environmental Assessment Reg-istry (CEAR)

http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index-eng.cfm

Ontario Government: Environmental Registry

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/

Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Environmental Assessments

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministry-environment-and-climate-change

British Columbia Government: Project Information Centre (e-PIC)

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_home.html

Mackenzie Valley Review Board (Northwest Territories): Public Registry

http://www.reviewboard.ca/registry/

China The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Environmental Protection Department: Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/

Germany Amprion

http://www.amprion.net

Beteiligungsportal Baden-Württemberg

www.beteiligungsportal.baden-wuerttemberg.de

Beteiligungsportal Sachsen

www.buergerbeteiligung.sachsen.de

Beteiligungsportal anerkannter Naturschutzverbände

www.umwelt-beteiligung.de

Bundesnetzagentur

www.netzausbau.de

Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infratsruktur

www.bmvi.de

Landesbetrieb Straßenbau und Verkehr Schleswig-Holstein – FAQs Feste Fehmarnbeltquerung

http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Schwerpunkte/Fehmarnbeltquerung/Service/FAQ/faq_node.html

Ministerium für Energie Infrastruktur und Landesentwicklung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

http://www.regierung-mv.de/Landesregierung/em/

Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz

http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/startseite/

Saarland – Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau

http://www.saarland.de/29771.htm

50 hertz

http://www.50hertz.com/de/

Italy Autonome Provinz Bozen Südtirol – Abteilung Landesagentur Umwelt: UVP-Veröffentlichung von Plänen und Projekten

http://umwelt.provinz.bz.it/umweltpruefungen/veroeffentlichung-plaene-projekte.asp

UK Forestry Commission: Register of Environmental Impact Assessments

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-63GJZV

Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: Environmental Impact Assessment – Public Register

http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/land-manage/eia/

The Scottish Government: SEA Database

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/environmental-assessment/sea/SEAG

The Scottish Government: Offshore Wind – SEA Report

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy/wind

UK National Infrastructure Planning Inspectorate

https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

ANNEX 3

LIII

USA U.S. Government Printing Office: U.S. Federal Registry

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: EPA EIS Database

https://www.epa.gov/nepa

U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: Land Use Planning and NEPA Register

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do

U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management: NEPA Documents

https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/nepa/field_office_nepa.html

Bureau of Land Management + Department of Energy (both Washington Office): Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center

http://solareis.anl.gov/index.cfm

U.S. National Park Service: Planning, Environment & Public Comment Site (PEPC)

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/publicHome.cfm

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: SEQR Environmental Im-pact Assessment in New York State

http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/357.html

Californian Energy Commission: Energy Facilities Siting/ Licensing Process

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/

Washington State Department of Transportation: WSDOT Projects

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/?utm_expid=39054150-0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FProjects%2FSR28%2FEWenatcheetoRockIsPaving%2F

Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE): SEPA Register

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/separ/Register/ShowRegisterTable.aspx

Global Secretary of the Antarctic Treaty: EIA Database

http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ep_eia_list.aspx?lang=e

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Environmental and Social Impact Assessments

http://www.ebrd.com/esia.html

World Bank: Projects & Operations

http://projects.worldbank.org/search?lang=en&searchTerm=EIA

LIV

ANNEX 4

Annex 4 Case Studies analysed in Chapter 3 Agency

Links

Phase

TSOs 50 hertz

http://www.50hertz.com/de

Amprion

http://www.amprion.net

Tennet

http://www.tennet.eu/de

transnetBW

https://www.transnetbw.de/de

Joined website of the 4 TSOs providing information on the grid development planning in Germany

http://www.netzentwicklungsplan.de

1

Bundesnetzagentur

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1912/DE/Home/home_node.html

1

Verkehrsministerium

http://www.bmvi.de/DE/Home/home_node.html

1

Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

https://rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rpf/Seiten/default.aspx

2; 3

Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe

https://rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Themen/Bauen/Raumordnung/Seiten/Durchfuehrung.aspx

2; 3

Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart

https://rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rps/Seiten/default.aspx

2; 3

Regierungspräsidium Tübingen

https://rp.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rpt/Seiten/default.aspx

2; 3

Regierung von Oberfranken

http://www.regierung.oberfranken.bayern.de/oeffentliche_verfahren/index.php

2; 3

Regierung von Oberpfalz

http://www.regierung.oberpfalz.bayern.de/leistungen/bauen/genehmigungen/planfeststellungen/plan_strasse.htm

3

Regierung von Unterfranken

http://www.regierung.unterfranken.bayern.de/aufgaben/3/3/00531/index.html

2; 3

Regierung von Schwaben

http://www.regierung.schwaben.bayern.de/Aufgaben/Bereich_3/Planfeststellung_Strassenbau.php?PFAD=/index.php:/index2.php:/Aufgaben/Bereich_3/Bereich_3.php

3

Regierung von Mittelfranken

http://www.regierung.mittelfranken.bayern.de/aufg_abt/abt4/abt32001.htm

2; 3

Regierung von Oberbayern

http://www.regierung.oberbayern.bayern.de/aufgaben/allgemein/planfeststellung/

3

Federal Agencies

Baden-Württemberg

Bayern

ANNEX 4

LV

http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/aufgabenbereiche/3/planfeststellung_strassenrecht/strassenre_plafe/index.php

2; 3

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr/politik_planung/planfeststellungen/index.shtml

2

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, Abteilung Verkehr VII E 1

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr/politik_planung/strassen_kfz/planungen/index.shtml

3

http://www.bauumwelt.bremen.de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid=bremen213.c.3844.de

2; 3

Landesamt für Bauen und Verkehr

http://www.lbv.brandenburg.de/685.htm

2

Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft

http://www.lbv.brandenburg.de/683.htm

Landesamt für Bergbau, Geologie und Rohstoffe Brandenburg

http://www.lbgr.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.328515.de

2; 3

http://www.hamburg.de/bwvi/np-planfeststellungsverfahren/1776882/home-planfeststellungsverfahren.html

3

Regierungspräsidium Kassel

https://verwaltung.hessen.de/irj/RPKS_Internet?rid=HMdI_15/RPKS_Internet/sub/08c/08c50b22-be7bb011-1010-43765bee5c94,,22222222-2222-2222-2222222222222222,11111111-2222-3333-4444100000005003.htm

3

Regierungspräsidium Gießen

http://www.rp-giessen.hessen.de/irj/RPGIE_Internet?cid=3fe9712e704f20d6f06da716166b877a

3

Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt

http://www.rp-darmstadt.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMdI_15/RPDA_Internet/med/e90/e901060b-f666-1731-79cdaa2b417c0cf4,22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222 https://verwaltung.hessen.de/irj/RPDA_Internet?cid=1c4943bccc8fdbc3c1823cc15739953b

3

Ministerium für Energie, Infrastruktur und Landesentwicklung

http://www.regierung-mv.de/Landesregierung/em/Verkehr/

3

Bergamt Stralsund

http://www.bergamt-mv.de/cms2/Bergamt1_prod/Bergamt1/de/Bergamt_Stralsund/Aufgaben/Betriebsplanverfahren/Obligatorischer_Rahmenbetriebsplan/Planfeststellungsverfahren/index.jsp

2

Landesamt für Straßenbau und Verkehr

http://strassenbauverwaltung.mvnet.de/cms2/LSBV_prod/LSBV/de/aufg/index.jsp

3

http://www.strassenbau.niedersachsen.de/aufgaben/planfeststellung/planfeststellung-76801.html

2; 3

Regierung von Niederbayern Berlin

Bremen Senator für Umwelt, Bau und Verkehr Bremen Brandenburg

3

Hamburg Behörde für Wirtschaft, Verkehr und Innovation Hessen

Mecklenburg- Vorpommern

Niedersachsen Niedersächsische Landesbehörde für Straßenbau und Verkehr

LVI Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz

ANNEX 4

http://www.netzausbau-niedersachsen.de/recht/planfeststellung/index.html

2; 3

Bezirksregierung Arnsberg

http://www.bezreg-arnsberg.nrw.de/themen/p/planfeststellungsverfahren_landes_kreisstrassen/index.php

2; 3

Bezirksregierung Detmold

http://www.bezreg-detmold.nrw.de/200_Aufgaben/010_Planung_und_Verkehr/Planfeststellung___Plangenehmigung/Info_zu_Planfeststellungsverfahren/index.php

2; 3

Bezirksregierung Köln

http://www.bezreg-koeln.nrw.de/brk_internet/leistungen/abteilung02/25/planfeststellung/landesstrassen/index.html

2; 3

Bezirksregierung Münster

http://www.bezreg-muenster.de/de/verkehr/planfeststellung/index.html

2; 3

Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf

http://www.brd.nrw.de/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/index.jsp

2

Landesbetrieb Straßenbau NRW

http://www.strassen.nrw.de/planung-bau/mit-planung-zumbau/planfeststellung.html

2; 3

Struktur- und Genehmigungsdirektion Nord

https://sgdnord.rlp.de/de/planen-bauen-natur-energie/energie/netzausbau/

3

Landesbetrieb Mobilität

http://pfv.lbm-rlp.org/Planfeststellung/broker.jsp?uMen=ab77007b-bf6e-b421-2a57-eae7a7fd7276

2

http://www.saarland.de/29771.htm

3

https://www.lds.sachsen.de/index.asp?ID=4319&art_param=363

3

https://lvwa.sachsen-anhalt.de/das-lvwa/

3

Landesbetrieb Straßenbau und Verkehr

http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Landesregierung/LBVSH/Aufgaben/AnhoerungPlanfeststellung/planfeststellung.html

2; 3

Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume Schleswig-Holstein

http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Fachinhalte/E/energie/afpe.html

2; 3

http://www.thueringen.de/th3/tlvwa/wirtschaft/planfeststellungsverf

2; 3

Nordrhein- Westfalen

Rheinland- Pfalz

Saarland Landesbetrieb für Straßenbau Sachsen Landesdirektion Sachsen Abteilung 3 Sachsen- Anhalt Landesverwaltungsamt Sachsen- Anhalt Schleswig- Holstein

Thüringen Thüringer Landesverwaltungsamt – Referat PFV für Verkehrsbaumaßnahmen

1: Requirement Planning; 2: corridor planning; 3: plan approval procedure

ANNEX 5

XLII

Annex 590

This questionnaire was designed as an online questionnaire with specific filter questions and functions to guide participants through the questions according to their answers. Please note that this guidance cannot be displayed just by providing the questions. 90

ANNEX 5

XLIII

XLIV

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

XLV

XLVI

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

XLVII

XLVIII

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

XLIX

L

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LI

LII

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LIII

LIV

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LV

LVI

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LVII

LVIII

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LIX

LX

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LXI

LXII

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LXIII

LXIV

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LXV

LXVI

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 5

LXVII

LXVIII

ANNEX 5

ANNEX 6

LXIX

Annex 6 Reasons provided to Directive 2014/52/EU that support a better information provision Relevant explanations Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment Topic

Explanation to the directive

Establishment of a central portal or points of access

„(18) With a view to strengthening public access to information and transparency, timely environmental information with regard to the implementation of this Directive should also be accessible in electronic format. Member States should therefore establish at least a central portal or points of access, at the appropriate administrative level, that allow the public to access that information easily and effectively.“

Reasons when this access to information may be restricted:

„(19) Experience has shown that in cases of projects, or parts of projects, serving defence purposes, including projects related to activities by allied forces on the territory of Member States in accordance with international obligations, the application of Directive 2011/92/EU could result in the disclosure of relevant confidential information which would undermine defence purposes. Provision should therefore be made to authorise Member States not to apply that Directive in such cases, where appropriate.“

Also screening decisions need to be made available to the public

„(26) In order to enable the competent authority to determine whether projects listed in Annex II to Directive 2011/92/EU, their changes or extensions, are to be subject to an environmental impact assessment (screening procedure), the information which the developer is required to supply should be specified, focussing on the key aspects that allow the competent authority to make its determination. That determination should be made available to the public.“ „(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.“

Scoping

„(30) In order to improve the quality of an environmental impact assessment, to simplify the procedures and to streamline the decisionmaking process, the competent authority should, where requested by the developer, issue an opinion on the scope and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted in the form of an environmental impact assessment report (‘scoping’).“

LXX

ANNEX 6

The fact that also other relevant information is to be taken into account, e.g. decision taken on a higher planning level (SEA) or other EU Instruments e.g. the EU Habitats directive, is explained in (32).

„(32) Data and information included by the developer in the environmental impact assessment report, in accordance with Annex IV to Directive 2011/92/EU, should be complete and of sufficiently high quality. With a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, the results of other assessments under Union legislation, such as Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (15) or Directive 2009/71/Euratom, or national legislation should, where relevant and available, be taken into account.“

Also (37) indicates that these documents resulting from other relevant environmental assessments are to be taken into account, or even reported in a joined procedure, and therefore should be provided to the public as well.

„(37) Where the obligation to carry out assessments related to environmental issues arises simultaneously from this Directive and from other Union legislation, such as Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (16), Directive 2001/42/EC, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (17), Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (18) and Directive 2012/18/EU, Member States should be able to provide for coordinated and/or joint procedures fulfilling the requirements of the relevant Union legislation.“

Information how the competent authority has taken public comments into account shall be provided as well to increase transparency

„(34) With a view to ensuring transparency and accountability, the competent authority should be required to substantiate its decision to grant development consent in respect of a project, indicating that it has taken into consideration the results of the consultations carried out and the relevant information gathered.“

More time to prepare can be argued with the explanation (36).

„(36) [...] time-frames should, under no circumstances, compromise the achievement of high standards for the protection of the environment, particularly those resulting from Union legislation on the environment other than this Directive, and effective public participation and access to justice. „