Annex 4. Environment and climate risk screening |
The NDICI-Global Europe Regulation (Article 25.5) establishes that environmental screening, including for climate change and biodiversity impacts shall be undertaken at the level of actions, in accordance with applicable legislation, including the EU EIA Directive. It is also stipulated that, where relevant, Strategic Environmental Assessments, including the impact on climate change, shall be used in the implementation of sectoral programmes. The Global Gateway Communication stipulates that ‘projects will live up to the European Green Deal oath to do no harm and ensure the use of Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments’.
The purpose of the environment & climate risk screening is to determine if a given action is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment or is at significant risk from climate change and environmental degradation, and therefore whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and/or a Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) should be prepared. The aim of the screening and assessments is to identify, avoid, minimise and/or avoid negative impacts and to do no harm. In many cases the assessments also cover social risks and impacts (Environment and Social Impact Assessments - ESIA).
Yet, the EIA directive does not specify an impact as being negative or positive. The analysis and reflection triggered from the screening questionnaires not only allows to identify environmental and climate risks but also opportunities that should be addressed in the design of the action, regardless of whether an SEA, an EIA or a CRA are required. The screening process thus can also be used to apply the ‘green lens’ approach and look at ways to ‘do good’ to environment or climate. The screening consists of three parts:
The formal screening is compulsory: it should be performed as soon as there is a clear idea of the objectives and scope of the action that is promoted. In the case of DG INTPA, this information is normally available at the time when the SSC Fiche is prepared. In the case of DG NEAR, the necessary insight into the action may be available at the Identification phase (i.e., ahead of QR1). At the very latest, the screening should be undertaken during formulation. In case an SEA, and EIA and/or a CRA are required, it is necessary to allocate sufficient resources and time for their preparation. Thus, the earliest the screening is done, the better.
Screening for greening opportunities can best be done at the earliest stage of identification as it may influence objectives and scope of an action.
In the case of blending and budgetary guarantees, it is the screening procedure of the lead financial institution (LFI) that is applicable. Nevertheless, it is good practice to check whether those projects would require an SEA, EIA and/or CRA based on the INTPA/NEAR screening and, if there are significant environmental and/or climate risks involved, ensure that the LFI will apply the relevant tools, assessments and mitigation measures.
A basic understanding of the environmental and climate change context for the project’s location and area of influence is necessary, including relevant environmental and climate change objectives. Annex 5 on ‘Sources to understand the environment and climate change context’ can be useful to this effect.
If the action offers very few or indirect links to environment and climate (e.g. support to electoral processes), the screening can be done in-house and with the support of the delegation’s green focal point.
For other actions, it is recommended to undertake the screening in a participatory manner, for example, expert advice (e.g. consultants engaged in identification, green focal point in the delegation) supplemented by a focused workshop with key stakeholders. Such a screening will be useful not only to determine the need for an SEA, and EIA and/or a CRA, but also to start defining the scope of any of the analyses required and to identify greening opportunities that go beyond formal assessment requirements but may significantly contribute to reaching EU goals and targets.
Since virtually all countries have EIA regulations, preferably the screening procedure of the national EIA system are followed, making sure that these are compliant with the minimum requirements defined under the EIA Directive. Take note that climate risk screening is not yet regularly included in national EIA systems. In case of capacity problems with the implementation of national EIA regulations, consider a capacity development component where relevant.
If the screening was undertaken at the identification phase (SSC Fiche in the case of INTPA), its findings should be indicated in the SSC fiche (INTPA) or the action document for QR1 (NEAR). These should include an indication as to whether an SEA, an EIA and/or a CRA are required, and the rationale for the decision.
In any case, the results of the screening must be indicated in the formulation of the action document through the CCT/RCT/TCT (INTPA) or going to QRM/QR2 (NEAR).
The purpose of the SEA screening is to identify whether a SEA should be carried out for the action to be supported. An SEA is generally required to inform investment plans, programmes and other strategies, which:
- Agriculture
- Energy
- Fisheries
- Forestry
- Industry (including mining)
- Private sector development
- Telecommunications
- Tourism
- Town and country planning or land use
- Transport
- Waste management
- Water management
When the implementation of a plan or programme is likely to have significant transboundary environmental, including health, effects, it is recommended to notify the affected country as early as possible before the adoption of the plan or programme, following the procedural steps described in Article 10 of the UNECE Protocol on SEA to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).
Considering the above points, an SEA is required for following types of actions in an environmentally sensitive sector[48]:
An SEA may not be required for points 1 and 2 above if a recent SEA, or equivalent assessment, has recently been prepared (by the national government or a development partner) that serves the purposes of informing the integration of environment and climate change in the relevant sector strategy. In this case, a simplified study may be undertaken to identify the opportunities to enhance the environmental and climate change performance of the EU support programme.
Actions falling under any of the four categories above have to be assessed against the standard screening questions. A positive reply to any of the questions below indicates the need for preparing an SEA. If the relevant technical expertise is not available in the EU Delegation, assistance can be obtained from the relevant thematic units in HQ or support facilities.
Voluntary SEA is strongly suggested for programmes/strategies in environmentally sensitive sectors where opportunities for greening can be expected, following environmental, biodiversity, climate and circular economy objectives. More often than not, the benefits of greening activities go beyond sector boundaries; opportunities for such benefits may go unnoticed with a strict sector-focus (e.g. biodiversity and human health gains with nature-based solutions for urban climate adaptation; multiple social, economic, climate and health benefits from pollution reduction; etc.). SEAs should be considered whenever the EU is engaged for several years in supporting a sector corresponding to the above criteria, in order to inform and green the next policy/strategic planning cycle, as well as EU support and policy dialogue.
An EIA is required for all projects that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment and health, i.e., large infrastructure works or other installations or schemes, and other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources and large-scale land use. It is important to note that in general, an EIA is to be applied for new projects as well as for changes and extensions of already existing projects, should such a change or extension in itself meet the screening thresholds. In most partner countries EIAs are a legal obligation and a condition to receive the project development consent from the competent authority. Where such legislation is lacking, or where it is significantly weaker than EU standards, the application of EU standards is strongly encouraged.
Projects can be divided into two categories[51]:
In both cases transfers of piped drinking water are excluded.
iii) drilling for water supplies;
with the exception of drillings for investigating the stability of the soil;
iii) application of protective fused metal coats;
Manufacture and treatment of elastomer-based products.
The screening criteria below, or those defined in the applicable national legislation, have to be applied to determine if a Category B project requires an EIA.[55]
Criteria | Guiding questions |
1. Characteristics of projects The characteristics of projects must be considered, with particular regard to: | |
a. the size and design of the whole project; b. cumulation with other existing and/or approved projects; c. the use of natural resources, in particular land, soil, water and biodiversity; d. the production of waste; e. pollution and nuisances; f. the risk of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned, including those caused by climate change, in accordance with scientific knowledge; g. the risks to human health (for example due to water contamination or air pollution). | • Is there a possibility of cumulation of the likely impacts on environment and health with other existing and/or approved projects? • Is the action likely to require (during or after implementation) significant amounts of water, wood, minerals, other materials or natural resources? (Note that the availability, productivity or regeneration of these resources may be threatened by the effects of climate change). • Is the action likely to result in the production of significant quantities of waste, especially of hazardous wastes? Are there appropriate facilities in the country for the recycling and treatment of such waste? • Is the action likely to produce significant amounts of liquid effluents or air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, during construction and/or operation? Are the quantities and concentrations of these emissions likely to exceed national and international environmental standards? • Is the action likely to produce significant environmental nuisance (e.g. noise, odours, vibration, visual impact)? • Is the action likely to affect important water bodies or significantly affect water regimes? (e.g. due to intensive water extraction, polluting effluents, land use change, removal of vegetation that would increase sediment load of water bodies). • Is the action likely to require significant accommodation or service amenities to support the workforce (during or after construction)? • Is the action likely to require significant use of fertilisers, pesticides or other chemicals? • Is the action likely to include the introduction of genetically modified organisms or invasive species? • Is the action likely to attract or displace a significant population and economic activities? • Is the action likely to promote (directly or indirectly) new settlements, including irregular settlements? (e.g. associated to the construction of roads). • Is the action likely to cause significant soil erosion or degradation, considering its activities and its location on steep slopes or vulnerable soils? (Note that this could lead to increased local vulnerability to the possible combined effects of climate change and other pressures). • Is the action likely to significantly affect particular ecosystems, such as natural forests, wetlands, coral reefs, mangroves? (Note that this may lead to weakening ecosystems resilience to the effects of climate variability and change). • Are there other foreseen interventions in the area that are likely to affect the same environmental and socio-economic variables likely to be impacted by the action, such that the cumulative adverse impacts are likely to be significant? • Will the action constitute a risk for the surrounding environment and population (e.g. risk of explosion, risk of accidental release of polluting or hazardous substances), taking into account also the expected effects of climate change? • Can the feasibility and effectiveness of the action be significantly affected by climate change or existing/expected environmental degradation? |
2. Location of projects The environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects must be considered, with particular regard to: | |
a. the existing and approved land use; b. the relative abundance, availability, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources (including soil, land, water and biodiversity) in the area and its underground; c. the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to the following areas: i. wetlands, riparian areas, river mouths; ii. coastal zones and the marine environment; iii. mountain and forest areas; iv. nature reserves and parks; d. areas classified or protected under national legislation; e. areas in which there has already been a failure to meet the environmental quality standards, laid down in national legislation and relevant to the project, or in which it is considered that there is such a failure; f. densely populated areas; g. landscapes and sites of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. | • Is the action located inside or close to a protected area or other areas classified as vulnerable, and is it likely to affect its integrity and quality directly or indirectly? (e.g. roads can facilitate access to valuable natural resources and to poaching; linear projects can cut biological corridors, effluent discharges and run off of polluting substances can affect water quality and ecosystems downstream)? • Is the action compatible with existing and approved land uses? • Is the action likely to require the acquisition or conversion of significant areas of land that are important for ecosystem services? (e.g. for soil and water conservation, habitats, flood regulation, natural sea defences, recreation). • Will the action be located in areas classified or protected under national legislation or in the areas in which there has already been a failure to meet the environmental quality standards? • Will the action be located in a site where it can significantly affect surface waters or groundwater (its quantity and/or quality)? • Will the intervention be located in a densely populated area and likely to produce significant nuisances such as air pollution, noise, vibration and odours? • Will the intervention be located in or close to a site of high cultural or scenic value? |
3. Type and characteristics of the potential impact The likely significant effects of projects on the environment must be considered in relation to criteria set out in points 1 and 2 above, with regard to the impacts of the intervention on the following factors: | |
a. population and human health; b. biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under national legislation or international convention and treaties; c. land, soil, water, air and climate; d. material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape; e. the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a) to (d).
Taking into account: a. the magnitude and spatial extent of the impact (for example geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected); b. the nature of the impact; c. the transboundary nature of the impact; d. the intensity and complexity of the impact; e. the probability of the impact; f. the expected onset, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact; g. the cumulation of the impact with the impact of other existing and/or approved projects; the possibility of effectively reducing the impact. | |
The purpose of a climate risk screening is to identify and assess potential climate change related risks -current and future- that may affect the achievement of the project objectives. The findings of the screening will help determine if the design of the action would require a more detailed Climate Risk Assessment (CRA). For each significant risk identified, relevant adaptation measures should be considered and assessed.
If a Climate Risk Assessment is required, it can either be prepared as a stand-alone assessment, or integrated in the scope of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Please go through the screening questionnaire to complete the CRA screening table below. Annex 5 provides links to useful sources of data on climate risks, including Climate Risk Regional or Country Profiles.
Q1: What timescale is relevant to the intervention?
Explanation: This is used to determine the time-horizon of the climate analysis. The answer should focus on how long the project outcomes are expected to last. This is different from the project implementation period.
This question helps to determine if the project will be able to regularly monitor climate change impacts, to adjust its level of resilience as and when needed during its lifetime (e.g. in the context of a project addressing flood impacts, by gradually increasing the height of flood defence systems).
Q2: In this timescale, which climate-related hazards are relevant? What is the likelihood that they occur?
The identified hazards should cover both extreme events and chronic stresses caused by climate change (the climate-related hazards) as well as additional hazards and their underlying drivers. Please provide an estimate of their likelihood using the table below, using the categories: ‘Likely’, ‘Unlikely’, ‘Highly unlikely’.
The following guidance can be used to determine Likelihood. Keep in mind that Likelihood must be assessed taking into account the climatic parameters expected with climate change during the lifespan of the project.
Annex 5 of the Toolbox provides sources of information and analysis on the expected impacts of climate change.
Q3: How significant are their potential consequences?
Please identify the likely consequences expected if the hazards identified occur. Likely consequences should be estimated for: (1) the project itself, (2) natural systems (e.g. ecosystems) and (3) assets and persons (e.g. water infrastructure, humans and their livelihoods, etc.). In the table, indicate if the consequences are expected to be: (1) Extremely harmful, (2) Harmful or (3) Slightly harmful.
The following guidance can be used to determine potential consequences:
Based on the above, complete the column on Estimated Risk Level in the CRA screening table to indicate the significance of the risks that could compromise the achievement of the activity with the help of the matrix provided below.
If the screening indicates that the action faces medium or high risks, those involved in the design and monitoring of the action should be alerted to ensure that the design and implementation of the action properly takes the expected risks over its lifetime into account.
Partners involved in the action should also be informed on the identified risks and take them into account. When it comes to climate change, the action beneficiaries/partners should be made fully aware that they should not base the action design and implementation arrangements on the historic experience and data only and that the existing design norms and standards that have evolved over past decades may not sufficiently reflect the expected changes in the future climatic conditions.
What hazards associated with climate change and other hazards could be expected during the timespan of the action? | What is the Likelihood that the hazards occur? (Likely/Unlikely/ Highly Unlikely) | How severe could be the potential consequences of these hazards for: (Extremely harmful / Harmful / Slightly harmful) | Estimated Risk level | |||
Category | Hazards | Proposed activity | Ecosystems | Assets & people | (L/M/H) | |
Heat
| · Increasing temperature (slow onset) · Heatwaves (rapid onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dry
| · Increasing aridity (slow onset) · Droughts (rapid onset) · Fire |
|
|
|
|
|
Wet
| · Decreasing/increasing/more variable precipitation (slow onset) · Extreme precipitation (rapid onset) · Flash floods, Floods (rapid onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wind | · Tornados, Tropical storms, Hurricanes, Cyclones (rapid onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Coast/ Ocean | · Rising sea level, coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion (slow onset) · Storm surges (rapid onset) · Ocean warming (slow onset) · Ocean acidification (slow onset) · Algal blooms (rapid onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Snow & Ice | · Snowstorms (rapid onset) · Cold spells (rapid onset) · Receding glaciers, snow cover, permafrost (slow onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Geo | · Landslides, mudslides, avalanches |
|
|
|
|
|
Env | · Loss of biodiversity & ecosystem services · Soil degradation and desertification |
|
|
|
|
|
Bio / Chem | · Pest and disease outbreaks (crops) · Invasive species · Infectious diseases (human /animal) |
|
|
|
|
|
Tech
| · Construction / Structural failure/ Infrastructure failure (rapid onset) |
|
|
|
|
|
Societal | · Financial shocks · Societal conflicts |
|
|
|
|
|
Once the project documentation is updated with stakeholder feedback, please answer the following questions.
Q4: Can the proposed action be made resilient to these risks, or can it be modified to respond to these hazards when they arise? Notably, could the action be made more resilient with nature-enhancing measures?
Please identify adaptation solutions to ensure climate resilience at the level of the action. These should address any climate change concerns that may have been identified through this screening process.
The design of the action should be modified to eliminate any High risk, and efforts should be made to introduce design features that reduce medium risks. Risk mitigation measures should be put in place to manage low and (especially) medium risks.
The level of risk can be reduced be either reducing the likelihood of hazards occurring (e.g. stabilisation of slopes through afforestation to reduce the likelihood of landslides, increasing green areas in urban centres to reduce temperature peaks) or by reducing the consequences in case they occur (e.g. higher bridges will be less prone to be washed away by a flash flood, locating infrastructure outside flood-prone areas, increasing resistance of infrastructure to higher wind speeds, use of drought-resistant crop varieties).
If the solutions are sufficient to reduce the level of climate-related risks to levels that can be addressed by simple risk management systems, then the reply is YES. In this case, there is no need for further climate assessment.
Should the action face any outstanding high risks that cannot be managed as part of the design and/or implementation, or in case of doubt, the answer is NO. The project Identification team considers the project at risk from climate change, depending on the degree of exposure of its individual components. In this case, there are two possibilities:
o If an EIA or an SEA is foreseen, it shall be designed to explicitly consider the project’s vulnerability to climate change;
o If an EIA or SEA are not foreseen, a specific CRA should be launched, considering the specific hazards, exposure and vulnerability of the action.
1 Reports | UNFCCC ; National Reports (cbd.int); Country profiles | UNCCD.
2 Multidimensional Vulnerability Index.
3 The SEA Directive does not apply to policies, but good practice promotes the application of SEA at this level.
4 Environmentally sensitive sectors include: agriculture; energy; fisheries; forestry; industry; private sector development; telecommunications; tourism; town and country planning or land use; transport; waste management; and water management.
5 Support is considered to be at a strategic level if (i) support is provided to the development/revision of the sector’s policy, regulatory and/or institutional framework, and/or (ii) foresees the implementation (or sets the framework for the implementation of) multiple projects that may have significant cumulative impacts on the environment (e.g. multiple infrastructure projects, projects requiring execution of construction works or multiple projects that require land use change or intensive use of natural resources).
6 Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU.
Annex 3. Model terms of reference for a Country Environmental Profile |
Annex 5. Sources to understand the environment and climate context |