Although aligned with EU legislation, procedures linked to environmental and nature protection which are implemented in relation to RES projects prior to the attainment of location, namely, construction permits are very complicated and last unpredictably long, in other words, considerably longer than the stipulated deadlines. The reason, apart from the administrative procedure itself, is certainly the lack of staff capacities of all the participants in these procedures. In order to illustrate the data on the breaking of deadlines, we are pointing out the fact that in most cases from the time of submitting the request to the announcement of information on the request often up to six months pass while the deadline prescribed by law for the implementation the entire procedure is four months (with the possibility of prolonging it for another two months), and begins from the time of the correctly submitted request. However, in practice the assessment procedures from the time of submitting the request to the attainment of the decision as a rule last two to three years. In comparison, the EU Directive on Renewable Energy Sources decrees that all permits for RES projects should be completed in a period of two years.
The RESC analysis of the breaking of deadlines stipulated by law for environmental and nature protection procedures (OPUO)
In the period from March of this year to the present RESC has analyzed the announcements on the requests for initiating the assessment procedures on the need to evaluate the environmental impact of interventions (OPUO), assessment of the environmental impacts (PUO), and Main assessment of acceptability for the environmental network (GO) in regard to interventions linked to renewable energy sources and whose implementation falls under the authority of the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development.
The analysis has established that in the course of March and April 2023, a total of 21 announcements were made on initiating OPUO, of which only eight of the procedures decisions were brought, but not in the legally prescribed timeframe. The remaining requests are still in the process of being resolved.
The procedure from the time of submitting the request to the bringing of a decision for eight of the solved requests lasted from 4.3 to 7.6 months, namely, an average of six months, which is overstepping the legally prescribed timeframe for OPUO procedures by four months on average.
As far as the content of the decision is concerned, only one procedure established the ways and means of implementing the Main assessment but in no case was the implementation of PUO required. Some of the remaining unsolved 13 requests for OPUO, according to the Environmental Protection Study go as far back as August 2022, meaning that 9.5 months have already passed since the submission of the request.
However, that is not the longest duration of an OPUO procedure. Namely, an insight into the official website of the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development, one can see that some of the OPUO procedures from 2022 have still not been solved, for which the requests were submitted in January, namely, March 2022, which puts them on the list of requests waiting for a resolution longer than one and half years.
Given the fact that UPUO procedures are still lasting much longer than envisaged by law, it is evident that certain changes are required as well as the enhancement of administrative capacities.
RESC analysis on exceeding the legally prescribed deadlines for PUO procedures
Although the multifold surpassing of deadlines for OPUO procedures seems bad, the situation is even worse when it comes to PUO procedures. It has been established that the first information on the initiation of the procedure is announced almost six months after the submission of the request so it has become almost a rule that the PUO lasts an unbelievable two to three years. The law provides that a PUO should be implemented within a time frame of 4 months from the day of submission of a correctly prepared request with the possibility of prolonging the period for another two months.
Analysis of the Main Assessment (GO) procedure
The Main Assessment (GO) procedure is implemented in case such a decision was brought in the previous assessment of the impact on the ecological network in the OPUO procedure. The OIEH analysis has shown that in such an inappropriate practice of exceeding all possible deadlines of the procedure’s duration, only the Main Assessment is implemented in the course of six to eight months. The OPUO, PUO and GO procedures are implemented in different departments of the Ministry of the Economy and Sustainable Development and it is a real shame that the idea of integrating the procedures implemented on the basis of various regulations, instead of shortening the timeframe of the procedures has resulted in a completely opposite way. When previous assessments of the impact of the interventions on the ecological network, namely, the Main Assessment, are implemented as independent procedures, then they last two, namely, six to eight months. The Law stipulates in which cases they will be implemented as independent procedures.
The Labyrinth of OPUO and PUO Procedures
In the text that follows we are presenting a tabular display, namely, a hologram of activities required for an OPUO procedure and three most frequent cases. The OIEH analysis showed that the path to acquiring a decision is quickest in variant 1 if specific conditions are met that are explained in more detail under the picture. Although all the procedures begin with the same stipulations, the lower pictures show how the procedure can become complicated and prolonged (variants 2 and 3).
Variant 1: In order for the competent body to determine that the UPUO request is complete and so that other bodies and the public would not have comments regarding the request, it is necessary to prepare an appropriate expert foundation – Study on environmental protection. Namely, the mentioned Study should contain all the stipulated chapters, not only formally but content-wise as well. That means that the description of the intervention regarding the impact on the component parts and burden on the environment should be given concisely and systematically and be relevant for the intervention and location in question. It is also advisable, within each one of the chapters on the impact to present in a concise way the main impacts and clearly indicate which ones are not relevant, namely, which one of them and in which way is it possible to bring it down to an acceptable level.
However, if it is necessary to supplement the request with some data and explanations (in cases of variants 2 and 3) it will lead to a prolongation of the OPUO procedure itself, making it necessary to adequately respond to the additional requirements as soon as possible.
These are only some of the recommended measures that can be undertaken although it is still not a guarantee that the procedure will be carried out in the legally stipulated timeframe due to other circumstances over which the submitter of the request has no influence (for example lack of administrative capacities).
Hologram of activities for the three most frequent PUO cases
The submitter of the request for the assessment of the environmental impact can contribute to the acceleration of the assessment process, in the first place by submitting a complete request for initiating the procedure. Meaning that the supplements submitted with the request be clearly linked to the concrete intervention and location and that the expert groundwork (Environmental Impact Study, and if required, the Main Assessment Study) be of high quality and expertly based. Every request for supplementation prolongs the assessment procedure, but if it does come to that it is necessary to submit the requested supplements as soon as possible in a way that provides answers to all that was asked for.
In addition, when selecting the competent entity for the elaboration of the expert foundations the price should not only be the guiding principle but also all other references of the entity, such as the timeframe of the previously done assessment procedures for which the given entity has drawn up expert backgrounds and its experience in the elaboration of professional backgrounds for RES projects. A good practice is to present the project to the units of local administration and self-governing bodies on whose territory the development of the projects is planned and do so in the earliest possible phase of development, namely, in this case prior to initiating the assessment procedure. In this way, reactions of the public will be obtained and the comments anticipated beforehand in the course of the public discussion, if the project is adapted, or corresponding protection measures foreseen beforehand.
It is visible from the graphic display of the course of the assessment procedure for variant 2, which is in effect the most frequent case, that it is considerably longer than in variant 1, mainly due to repeated requests for supplementation. Variant 2 can become even more complicated if a negative effect over state borders is depicted or the need becomes apparent for establishing the dominant public interest.
Considering that the submitter of the assessment request provides the required supplements, first of all, the requirement for a supplement should be avoided, namely, it is necessary to react right away. Variant 1 has the greatest prospects for attaining a decision in the legally stipulated timeframe in which the competent entity establishes that the request is complete and does not require additional work on the documentation and that it will be assessed without delay. Variant 1 implies that the expert documentation is of high quality and complete.
However, in this case as well the same rule applies to OPUO procedures. Even if all the conditions have been met for the speedier solution of procedures, that unfortunately does not mean that it will be implemented in the framework established by law due to, for example, the lack of administrative capacities, the reaction of the public, cross-border issues, etc.
Regardless of the fact that RES projects, both at the EU level as well as in Croatia, have been defined as a priority in order to achieve climate and energy goals, concrete improvements are not to be expected until there is serious support for their realization.
