The EIA Directive requires the production of an Environmental Statement as the primary output of the EIA process, the minimum contents of which are prescribed by the EIA Directive and are closely aligned to that of the Environmental Report in the SEA process. Annex III of the EIA Directive dictates the minimum information that is to be provided as part of the Environmental Statement including, among others, a description of the physical characteristics of the project including its land-use requirements, an estimate (by type and quantity) of expected residues and emissions associated with the activity and a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed activity on the environment. A non-technical summary of the information is also to be included in the Environmental Statement so as to ensure that the implications of the scientific informa­tion are readily accessible by the general public. As with the SEA process, a crucial requirement of the EIA Directive is that the Environmental Statement identifies any measures envisaged to ‘prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment’ (EIA Directive, Annex 3, paragraph 5). The Environmental Statement is to be made available to the relevant members of the public, along with the application for development consent, and the public is to be given the opportunity to express its opinion on the project before any decision to initiate the project is taken.

However burdensome the EIA process may appear, one fundamental factor (and some may argue flaw) in the process is that an Environmental Statement which suggests significant harm to the environment does not actually prevent an authority from granting its consent for the activity in question. While the EIA Directive expressly requires the decision-maker to take the findings of the Environmental Statement into consideration, there is no overt obligation on the decision-maker to withhold consent for development where the negative environmental effects appear dispropor­tionately greater than the benefits that the activity would bring. Equally, neither is there an obligation on authorities to afford particular weight to the views of the public — although the public has the right to be consulted during the process, the practical value of that right is merely procedural.

Nonetheless, the authority must inform the public of its ultimate decision as well as the reasons and considerations upon which it is based.