A key practical consideration in relation to EIA is who should be respon­sible for carrying out the EIA assessment and producing the Environmental Statement, and thus bear the costs of doing so. The EIA Directive stipulates that the developer is to carry out the EIA and provide the requisite infor­mation to the authority. For the purposes of the EIA directive, the ‘devel­oper’ is defined as either the person making an application for authorisation of a private project, or the public authority which initiates a project. Accordingly, the obligation to carry out the EIA lies firmly with the party initiating the project, and in the case where this is a private party, the obli­gation on the authority is to ensure that the EIA has been properly formu­lated. This will necessarily mean that early engagement with the process is essential, for both the developer and the authority, particularly so that detailed arrangements for public consultation can be coordinated.

However, the EIA process does not (and should not) end with the deci­sion of the authority giving consent for the activity to proceed. Where an activity is deemed to be justified in light of its environmental effects, the activity and its effects on the environment should be subject to appropriate supervision. This process is known as ‘monitoring’ and can be distinguished from the main EIA process and preparation of the Environmental Statement on the basis that it should continue throughout the life of the activity in question. The purpose of monitoring is essentially to ensure that the environmental effects which were identified in the EIA Environmental Statement were correct, but also to provide authorities with sufficient infor­mation to enable them to decide whether enhanced measures are required to mitigate the environmental damage that will occur. This additional facet of EIA is not necessarily present in all Member States’ domestic legislation. In the UK, for example, a development consent granted in reliance on EIA will usually have conditions attached where these are seen as necessary to ensure that environmental impacts are no greater than predicted. However, the Environmental Statement does not, of itself, create an enforceable set of standards to be applied to the development. In a nuclear context, moni­toring will necessarily extend beyond the life of a nuclear power plant, and continue throughout the decommissioning phase, with the primary purpose being to ensure that any hazardous or radioactive substances remaining on the nuclear-licensed site do not cause material harm to the natural environ­ment. In the United Kingdom, a separate, comprehensive EIA procedure must be complied with before the process of dismantling or decommission­ing a nuclear reactor can commence.

Under the EIA Directive, EU Member States are also required to engage in dialogue with the European Commission for the purposes of exchanging information on the experience gained in applying the EIA process. The reasoning behind this obligation may have had something to do with the discretion that Member States are afforded in setting the threshold of ‘sig­nificance’ in determining whether a proposed Annex II activity requires an EIA. This would seem to be supported by the EIA Directive, which further requires that Member States inform the European Commission of any criteria and/or thresholds adopted for Annex II projects, so as to ensure relative harmonisation of EIA standards across Member States. This is no doubt a fundamental, but secondary, requirement of the EIA Directive, since it does not actually establish any obligatory environmental standards that must be adhered to — quality control is largely a matter for individual Member States. Nonetheless, the European experience of EIA has shown that it is a valuable and successful tool in ensuring that a national planning system adequately addresses and adapts to environmental concerns.