MKB i svenska CDM projekt

Sammanfattning: A respected and early invention among the means of control in environmental law is the impact assessment. Numerous countries have implemented EIA in their national legislation and international treaties regulates transboundary environmental impacts. UNFCCC also contains EIA regulations for projects within the clean development mechanism. In this study Swedish projects are examined to establish the purpose and application of EIA in the CDM system. The formal regulation and treaty text is not extensive and modalities are not provided for the use of EIA. Therefore 25 large scale and 59 small scale projects with Swedish involvement are studied and a comparative analysis is carried out for the CDM and Swedish EIA regulation. The six different host countries show large variations in their application of EIA. In three of the countries there is just one ongoing project and the significans of the results, especially for the implementation, and conclusion must be evaluated with that in mind. China is the only country with enough projects to see a pattern in the use of EIA for CDM projects. The CDM regulation does not establish a clear purpose for the EIA regulation and applies a minimum standard that is based on the host country regulation. If the host country does not have national EIA laws there is nothing that protects the country from projects that might decrease environmental quality. Luckily, in most of the countries Sweden participate in projects there are EIA regulations and formally they do not differ that much from international standards or Swedish EIA regulations. Well established international standards for the EIA process such as the screening, scoping, establishing baselines and of alternative actions and mitigation are different in the studied countries but in case they are similar the enforcement and application of the rules does not differ that much. The public participation are many times conducted with questionnaires and does not always invole personal meetings with the project owners. The methods of how to gain information and who that is considered in the selection of stakeholders are not always clear. Even with a more common law perspective the intention of using EIA regulations for CDM projects cannot be understood and remain unclear. The Swedish engagement does not clarify what purpose of the EIA and if the rules are vaguely formulated deliberately for the partners to selfestablish some agreement that eventually might be seen as an established custom or tradition, the application of EIA so far are not conclusive. The way the system is constructed does allow it to develop in customary ways but more likely the EIA regulation contains flaws that are consistent with prior reports of the CDM system. The foundation allows for changes that can still make the CDM system successful. To establish confidence for the system the quality of the PDD and validation reports needs to be increased. Another way to increase the confidence and gain goodwill for the system might be to include the public participation in EIA instrument and by that increase the awareness and understanding of environmental concerns to a wider group of people.