PRVA REGIONALNA KONFERENCIJA O PROCJENI
UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ
FIRST REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ZBORNIK RADOVA
PROCEEDINGS
ZADAR, HRVATSKA / ZADAR, CROATIA
18.- 21. rujna 2013. / September 18th - 21st, 2013
PRVA REGIONALNA KONFERENCIJA O PROCJENI
UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ
FIRST REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
pod pokroviteljstvom / under the auspices of
Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode Republike Hrvatske /
the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
of the Republic of Croatia
ZBORNIK RADOVA
PROCEEDINGS
SEKCIJA 2 / SECTION 2
PROCJENA UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ZADAR, HRVATSKA / ZADAR, CROATIA
18.- 21. rujna 2013. / September 18th - 21st, 2013
Zagreb, lipanj 2014. / Zagreb, June 2014
NAKLADNIK / PUBLISHER
Hrvatska udruga stru njaka zaštite prirode i okoliša, Zagreb, Hrvatska /
Croatian Association of Experts in Nature and Environmental Protection, Zagreb,
Croatia
UREDNICI/ EDITORS
Marta Brki
Nenad Mikuli
TEHNI KI UREDNIK ZBORNIKA / TECHNICAL BOOK EDITOR
Bojana Nardi
Tajana Uzelac Obradovi
Jelena Fressl
NAKLADA / CIRCULATION
Online
ISBN
978-953-57772-1-2 (online)
Autori su odgovorni za sadržaj svojih tekstova kao i za lekturu i prijevod.
© 2014 autori
Authors are responsible for the content of their texts, as well as for proofreading and
translating them.
© 2014 authors
Zagreb, lipanj 2014. / Zagreb, June 2014
ORGANIZACIJSKI ODBOR / ORGANIZINIG COMMITEE
Marta Brki
Tomislav urko
Dalibor Hati
Ivan Martini
Nenad Mikuli
Zvonimir Sever
Ilija Šmitran
Tadenko Tabain
Davor Vešligaj
ZNANSTVENI ODBOR /
SCIENTIFIC COMMITEE
SAVJETODAVNI ODBOR /
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Nenad Mikuli
Ji í Dusík
Oleg Antoli
Vasilije Buškovi
Mehmed Cero
Ognjen aldarovi
Hamid ustovi
Mojca Golobi
Nevenko Herceg
Stjepan Husnjak
Vladimir Jelavi
Predrag Jovani
Vesna Koš ak Mio Stoši
Tarik Kupusovi
Tarzan Legovi
Muhamet Malisiu
Ivan Martini
Darko Mayer
An elka Mihajlov
Aleš Mlakar
Rodoljub Olja a
Ines Rožani
Dragica Stankovi
Zdravko Špiri
Jerzy Jendroska
Vesna Kolar Planinši
Ursula Platzer-Schneider
Dinko Poli
Petr Roth
Barry Sadler
Wiecher Schrage
Zoran Šiki
TEHNI KI ODBOR /
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Jelena Fressl
Bojana Nardi
TAJNIŠTVO /
SECRETARIAT
Jelena Fressl
Tajana Uzelac Obradovi
SADRŽAJ / TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEKCIJA 2 - PROCJENA UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ /
SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................ 24
Nebojša Pokimica, An elka Mihajlov
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): meaning and framework .......... 25
Niko Malbaša, Vladimir Jelavi
Povijesni pregled i aktualni problemi procjene utjecaja na okoliš u Republici
Hrvatskoj .................................................................................................................... 31
Katarina Celi
Screening in Environmental Impact Assessment .......................................................... 44
Anamarija Matak, Anita Gulam
Stalno povjerenstvo u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš – prednosti i nedostaci . 56
EIA Standing Committee – Advantages and Weaknesse ............................................... 63
Goranka Radovi
Interakcija prostornih planova i studija utjecaja na okoliš ............................................ 70
Zrinka Vladovi -Relja, Dubravka Ba un
Proces izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš ........................................................ 76
The process of preparing the environmental impact assessment study ......................... 86
Koraljka Vahtar-Jurkovi
20 godina provedbe postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš na podru ju Primorskogoranske županije ....................................................................................................... 97
20 years of applying the procedure of the environmental impact assessment in
Primorsko-goranska County ..................................................................................... 108
Ines Rožani
Economic Analysis as Part of the Environmental Impact Assessment - Comparison of
Methodologies used in Croatia and the EU ............................................................... 118
Anita Gulam, Tatjana Bakran-Petricioli
Usporedba studija o utjecaju na okoliš za uzgajališta tuna s obzirom na programe
pra enja .................................................................................................................... 137
Vanja Satinovi , Daniela Klai Jan ijev, Željko Koren
Environmental Impact Assessments for Linear Infrastructural Objects: Instrument to
Achieve Harmonization between Developmental Plans and Environment or to Stop
Progress? ................................................................................................................. 147
Igor Radovi , Dušan Mijuk
Postupak procene uticaja na životnu sredinu u projektima autoputeva na
“Koridoru X” .......................................................................................................... 153
Vanja Skopljak Štuli , Iva Jureti , Hrvoje Krhen
Planiranje trasa magistralnih plinovoda uz primjenu kriterija o uvanja okoliša ........ 161
Planning the route of the main gas pipelines using the criteria of environmental
protection.................................................................................................................. 170
Mario Pokriva , Zoran Poljanec, Domagoj Vranješ
Specifi nosti procjene utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate zra nih luka .............................. 179
Toni Safner, Jelena Liki , Mirko Mesari , Marijan Gredelj
Influence of transport infrastructure on the genetic diversity - implications for impact
assessment ................................................................................................................ 188
Tanja Tudor, Melita Milosti
Utjecaj stabilnosti atmosfere i meteoroloških parametara na prostorno širenje buke .. 195
Influence of atmospheric stability and meteorological parameters on the spatial noise
propagation .............................................................................................................. 206
Merica Pletikosi
Specifics of the environmental impact of biomass use in the cement industry............ 217
Vesna Trbojevi , Dunja Bariši , Elizabeta Kos
Provedba na ela kombiniranog pristupa prema Okvirnoj direktivi o vodama EU u
postupcima procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš ......................................................... 225
Application of the combined approach principle according to the EU Water Framework
Directive in environmental impact assessment .......................................................... 234
Niko Malbaša, Veronika Tomac
Kriteriji toplinskog optere enja vodotoka .................................................................. 244
Ivan Pilaš
Zaštita i upravljanje tlom u EU i njeni u inci na procjenu utjecaja na okoliš u
Hrvatskoj .................................................................................................................. 254
Martina Lipovš ak, Aleksandra Ani Vu ini , Nenad Mikuli
Utjecaj golf terena na agroekosustav ......................................................................... 265
Impact of Golf Courses on Agroecosystem ............................................................... 274
Antun Schaller, Indira Juratek
Waste Management Centre of the County of Zadar: Environmental Impacts and
Environmental Protection Measures ......................................................................... 283
Mihone Kerolli-Mustafa, Violeta Lajqi-Makolli, Letafete Latifi
Environmental Impact Assessment of Metallurgical Waste: Trepça case study in
Kosovo ..................................................................................................................... 292
Nirvana Frankovi Mihelj, Vladimir Jelavi , Juraj Šipuši
Oporaba otpada iz TE Plomin C-500 ......................................................................... 301
Reuse of waste from power plant Plomin C-500 ........................................................ 309
Sonja Jurkovi
Studije vizualnih promjena u krajobrazu uzrokovanih planiranom izgradnjom .......... 317
Assessment of the Visual Impact of Changes Resulting from Planned Construction ... 324
Iznimna mi je ast i veliko zadovoljstvo što Vas u ime Hrvatske udruge stru njaka
zaštite prirode i okoliša, kao predsjednica njezinog Upravnog odbora, mogu pozdraviti i
obratiti vam se s nekoliko prigodnih rije i.
Konferencija je organizirana pod pokroviteljstvom Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode
i koristim ovu prigodu da se u ime Udruge zahvalim (resornom) ministarstvu a posebno
ministru Zmajlovi u što je prepoznao zna aj ovog skupa.
Dozvolite mi da vam na samom po etku ukratko predstavim Hrvatsku udrugu
stru njaka zaštite prirode i okoliša koja je organizator ovog skupa.
Udruga je osnovana 2004. godine od strane renomiranih tvrtki i stru njaka koji se u
Hrvatskoj profesionalno bave zaštitom prirode i okoliša. U ovom trenutku okuplja više
od 60 tvrtki i individualnih lanova.
Glavni ciljevi udruge su da u našem svakodnevnom radu:
unaprje ujemo stru na znanja i profesionalnost u obavljanju stru nih poslova
zaštite prirode i okoliša,
promi emo strukovnu etiku i
sura ujemo s doma im i me unarodnim organizacijama i udrugama koje se bave
ovim interdisciplinarnim podru jem.
Donijeli smo hrabru odluku organizirati konferenciju kako bi na jednom mjestu okupili:
profesionalce, znanstvenike, predstavnike upravnih tijela, predstavnike lokalne i
podru ne samouprave, nevladine organizacije, stru njake za odnose s javnoš u,
investitore i developere iz Hrvatske, regije ali i šire, koji sudjeluju u postupku procjene
utjecaja na okoliš i koji su spremni ovdje podijeliti svoja znanja i iskustva.
Danas možemo re i da je konferencija bila uspješna radi iznimno velikog broja radova i
iznena uju e velikog broja sudionika. To nas kao organizatore posebno raduje te
ukazuje da su teme o kojima smo raspravljali aktualne i zna ajne. Zahvaljujemo se svim
sudionicima što su odvojili vrijeme, našli volju i sredstva kako bi sudjelovali na
konferenciji, osobito u ovima teškim vremenima u kojima se svi nalazimo.
Vjerujem da smo mi kao organizatori ovog skupa ispunili Vaša o ekivanja te da smo u
konstruktivnom dijalogu podijelili naša znanja, iskustva i stavove o glavnim temama
ove konferencije.
Teme su redom:
Strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš
Natura 2000 – procjena utjecaja na ekološku mrežu
Sudjelovanje javnosti u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš
Zaštita okoliša i financiranje projekata
Ove su teme s aspekta zaštite prirode i okoliša klju ne, posebice s obzirom na veliki
investicijski potencijal u regiji koji je potrebno planirati i realizirati vode i istovremeno
brigu o o uvanju kvalitete prirode i okoliša.
Svjedoci smo da je u praksi vrlo esto narušen odnos izme u dionika u postupku
procjene utjecaja na okoliš što dovodi do usporavanja cijelog procesa a time i
nesigurnosti u pogledu pripreme i realizacije investicija kao preduvjeta gospodarskog
rasta.
Jedan od glavnih ciljeva konferencije je upravo uklanjanje barijera u komunikaciji i
pove anju razumijevanja i povjerenja izme u zainteresiranih strana uz poštivanje
stru nih znanja i najbolje prakse.
Brojni stru ni radovi, a njih je više od 150, koji su predstavljeni tijekom ove
konferencije te tematski okrugli stolovi nose u sebi kriti nu masu znanja i najbolje
prakse koji mogu motivirati promjene na bolje.
Svjesni smo da moramo krenuti prvo od sebe i mijenjati postoje e obrasce ponašanja.
Upravo zato ova je konferencija bila prva „uglji no neutralna“ konferencija u Hrvatskoj
i regiji s kompenziranim emisijama stakleni kih plinova. Ulaganjem u jedinice
smanjenja stakleni kih plinova ostvarenih kroz projekte obnovljivih izvora energije i
pošumljavanja neutralizirane su emisije dolaska i odlaska sudionika na konferenciju,
no enja, logistike i prostora.
Zahvaljujemo pokrovitelju, sponzorima, lanovima Organizacijskog, Znanstvenog i
Savjetodavnog odbora, autorima, uvodni arima, panelistima okruglih stolova,
moderatorima, sudionicima te svima ostalima koji su pomogli uspješnoj realizaciji prve
konferencije ovakvog opsega i teme u regiji!
Dozvolite mi da se posebno zahvalim svim sponzorima bez ije financijske potpore ova
konferencija ne bi mogla biti organizirana.
Iako je ovo bila prva konferencija planiramo zadržati štafetu i u initi ovakve
konferencije tradicionalnima.
Marta Brki ,
predsjednica Udruge
It is a great honour and pleasure to welcome you, on behalf of the Croatian Association
of Professionals in Nature and Environmental Protection, as its Executive Board
President, and to address you with some relevant information.
The Conference was organized under the auspices of the Ministry of Environmental and
Nature Protection, and I would like to use this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the
Association, the Ministry and especially the Minister, Mr. Zmajlovi , for recognizing
the importance of the event.
At the beginning, allow me to briefly introduce to you the Croatian Association of
Professionals in Nature and Environmental Protection which is the organizer of the
event.
The Association was established by well-respected companies and individual experts
that work professionally in the field of environmental and nature protection, back in
2004. Currently, it has more than 60 members, companies as well as individual
members.
Main aims of the Association that are incorporated in our everyday operations are:
advancing the expert knowledge and professionalism in performing expert tasks
in the field of environmental and nature protection,
advancing professional ethics,
cooperating with domestic and international organizations and associations in
this interdisciplinary field.
We have made a brave decision to organize a conference so it would bring together:
professionals, scientists, authorities’ representatives, local and regional government
representatives, nongovernmental organizations, public relations experts, investors and
developers from Croatia, region and further still, who participate in the environmental
impact assessment procedures and who are willing to share their knowledge and
experiences.
Today, we can say the Conference was a success because of an exceptionally large
number of papers and a surprising number of participants. This makes us, as organizers,
especially joyful since it suggests that the topics that were discussed are current and
relevant. We thank all of participants for finding time, enthusiasm and financial means
to participate at the Conference, especially in these hard times we are all living in.
I believe that we, as the organizers of this gathering, have lived up to your expectations,
and that we have shared our knowledge, experiences and opinions on the topics of this
conference in a constructive dialogue.
The topics were the following:
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment
Natura 2000 – Ecologic Network Impact Assessment
Public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure
Environmental protection and project financing
These topics are crucial from the nature and environmental protection perspective,
especially given the significant investment potential of the region that has to be planned
and realized, while making sure that the quality of nature and environment is protected.
We are witness that in practice there is often a discord between the stakeholders in an
environmental impact assessment procedure which delays the entire procedure and
introduces uncertainties regarding investment preparation and realization, which is a
precondition of economic growth.
One of the main goals of the Conference was to remove communication barriers and
increase mutual understanding and trust between the stakeholders, all the while
respecting expert knowledge and best practice.
Numerous expert papers, more than 150 of them, which were presented during the
Conference as well as theme round tables have brought forth a critical mass of
knowledge and best practice that can motivate changes to the better.
We are aware that we must start from ourselves if we wish to change the existing
behavioural patterns. This is exactly why this was the first “carbon neutral” conference
in Croatia, and the region, which means that all of the greenhouse gas emission from the
event were compensated. By investing in greenhouse gas reduction units created
through renewable energy resources projects and forestation, emissions of participant
transport and lodging, conference logistics and venue were neutralized.
We would like to thank our patron, sponsors, members of the Organizing, Scientific and
Advisory Committees, authors, key lecturers, round table panellists, moderators,
participants and all others that have contributed to the successful realization of the first
conference of such scale and topic in the region!
Allow me to specially thank all sponsors without whose financial support this
conference could not be organized.
Even though this was only the first Conference, we plan to keep the positive momentum
and make it a traditional event.
Marta Brki ,
Association President
Procjena okoliša danas
Prof.dr.sc. Nenad Mikul , predsjednik Znanstvenog odbora
U uvodnom izlaganju u iznijeti pretežno naša iskustva u Republici Hrvatskoj. Držim
da nam je mnogo toga zajedni ko i da ta iskustva mogu biti od koristi posebno za one
naše susjedne i prijateljske države pred kojima je trnovit pristupni put u Europsku uniju.
Procjena utjecaja pojedina nog zahvata (projekta) - PUO
Prva iskustva bilježimo u SAD, Kanadi , Australiji i Novom Zelandu ranih '70-tih
godina prošlog stolje a, '80-tih godna širi se u Europi koja 1985 godine donosi
Direktivu EU EIA Directive 85/337 da bi od '90-tih godina postala globalna i danas se
primjenjuje u gotovo svim državama svijeta. I dok se metodološke cjeline postupka od
države do države uglavnom bitno ne razlikuju (ocjena o potrebi procjene, odre ivanje
sadržaja studije, opis zahvata i okoliša, opis i vrednovanje utjecaja, predlaganja mjera
ublažavanja i programa monitoringa), postupci ocjene Studijske dokumentacije i
vrednovanja prihvatljivosti zahvata svaka država uredila je shodno svome pravnom
sustavu i ste enim iskustvima. Od detaljno ure enog upravnog postupka u kojemu
sudjeluju nositelj zahvata, nadležna tijela, izra iva i studijske dokumentacije i javnosti,
a koji završava upravnim aktom o prihva anju ili ne prihva anju namjeravanog zahvata,
do gotovo neobvezatnog suradni kog odnosa nositelja zahvata i njegovog projektanta sa
stru njacima zaštite okoliša i službenicima nadležnih tijela. Na prostoru Europske unije
kao i zemljama kandidatima obvezatnom primjenom Direktive postignuto je zna ajno
ujedna avanje postupka, ali naravno da odre ene razlike i dalje postoje, pogotovo u
na inu ocjene zahvata. U Republiku Hrvatsku, kao obvezatan, uvodi se postupak
procjene utjecaja na okoliš 1984. godine Pravilnikom o izradi studije o utjecaju na
okolinu; pod zakonskog propisa tadašnjeg Zakona o prostornom planiranju i ure ivanju
prostora. U sklopu uskla ivanja zakonodavstva o zaštiti okoliša sa zakonodavstvom EU
krajem 2007. donesen je novi Zakon o zaštiti okoliša (nedavno i tre i), a sredinom 2008.
i dvije nove uredbe kojima je ure eno podru je procjene utjecaja na okoliš i
sudjelovanja javnosti.
Za razliku od nadležnih tijela Europske unije, nadležna tijela u Hrvatskoj do sada nisu
analizirala u inak njihove primjene u praksi s ciljem daljnjeg unapre ivanja. Iz
razli itih, esto i potpuno suprotstavljenih perspektiva, oba ova podru ja kritiziraju
pojedini sudionici PUO.
Od prvih po etaka do danas izra eno je preko 2 000 Studija i provedeno isto toliko
postupaka. Što o kvaliteti tog za zaštitu okoliša temeljnog instrumenta misle dionici
pokazuje istraživanje koje je Hauska & Partner u okviru partnerske suradnje s
Hrvatskom udrugom stru njaka za zaštitu prirode i okoliša organizirala u razdoblju od
24.5. do 1.7.2013. s ciljem istraživanja stavova relevantnih sudionika u pojedinim
pitanjima PUO i sudjelovanja javnosti. Dobiven je prvi cjeloviti uvid u kojoj mjeri PUO
u Hrvatskoj doprinosi donošenju kvalitetnijih odluka a što je, kako navodi Barry Sadler
(2006), pravi 'lakmus test' za sagledavanje u inkovitosti i uloge PUO na donošenje
kvalitetnijih odluka.
Primjetno je i razli ito razumijevanje svrhe PUO me u razli itim skupinama, ima li
ishod postupka PUO isklju ivo ulogu savjeta za donositelja odluka, ili pak može
poslužiti i kao sredstvo okolišnog 'veta' za pojedine projekte, odnosno mjeri li se
uspješnost sudjelovanja time što je naprosto omogu eno ve e sudjelovanje javnosti ili
time što je rezultiralo nedvojbeno boljim odlukama. Ova dilema prisutna je i u
trenažnim materijalima UNEP 2002.
Istraživanje je tako er potvrdilo visoku razinu kompleksnosti PUO, posebno društvene,
jer su stavovi sudionika o mnogim pitanjima opre ni, što posredno upu uje i na
zna ajne razlike u vrijednostima i/ili dijagnozi pojedinih problema u praksi. Rješenje
stoga nije u pronalaženju pojedina nih brzinskih rješenja za pojedine nedostatke, a bez
sagledavanja me usobnih poveznica i mogu ih nenamjeravanih posljedica takvih
rješenja. Rješenje je u organiziranju procesa koji e omogu iti dublje sagledavanje
razli itih perspektiva, motiva i šireg konteksta donošenja odluka i usmjeriti se na
pronalaženje onih rješenja koja e unaprijediti djelotvornost PUO u cjelini, a ne neke
njegove pojedine nedostatke.
Strateška procjena na okoliš plana i programa (SPUO)
Negdje prethodno, negdje usporedno, a negdje iz Procjene utjecaja na okoliš
pojedina nog zahvata razvija se i postupak Strateške procjene utjecaja na okoliš politika
(strategija), plana, programa, pravnih propisa. Zamišljen je kao elasti ni i mekani oblik
suradnje pri izradi i donošenju tih dokumenata, njihovih izra iva a, stru njaka zaštite
okoliša i drugih sektora te javnosti.
Tako er, prisutna u velikom broju zemalja svijeta ova procjena razvija se kao temeljni
instrument održivog razvitka. Autori navode uglavnom dva pristupa:
Strateška procjena provodi se u tijelima nadležnim za zaštitu okoliša gdje se u
suradnji s drugim sektorima razmatraju pitanja zaštite okoliša, te gospodarska i
društvena pitanja,
Strateška procjena svakog od tri pitanja održivog razvitka provodi se u suradnji s
tijelima nadležnim za pojedini sektor, a koordinacija i sinteza odvija se u
nezavisnoj instituciji ili tijelu.
U države Europske unije uvodi se 2001. godine SPUO Direktiva (SEA Directive
2001/42/EC) i tu direktivu prenose u svoj pravni sustav sve države EU i sve države
pristupnice EU. U paneuropskom prostoru UNECE uvodi se kroz Protokol o strateškoj
procjeni Espoo konvencije u Kijevu 2003. godine.
Spomenimo na ovome mjestu i Sofijsku inicijativu o EIA (1995-2003) koju je vodila
Republika Hrvatska uz logisti ku potporu REC-a i esto uz suradnju s WHO. Kroz
Sofijsku inicijativu razmjenjivala su se iskustava izme u država isto ne i jugoisto ne
Europe. Sofijska inicijativa posebnu pažnju posve ivala je SPUO i time pridonijela
razumijevanju tog instrumenta i dala snažnu podršku inicijativama za pravno ure enje
postupka SPUO.
Republika Hrvatska SPUO uvodi pri transpoziciji Acquisa u hrvatski pravni sustav
Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša te podzakonskim propisima. Prenosi se i Direktiva o
staništima (Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC) te se ratificira i Aarhuška konvencija.
Ratificiran je tako er Protokol o SPUO Espoo konvencije. Strateška procjena ure ena je
kao objedinjeni postupak s postupkom prema Direktivi o staništima.
Uveden je u odnosu na druge države relativno kasno i do sada je provedeno, ili je u
postupku, svega 10-tak strateških procjena. Iskustva pokazuju da nije postignuta
osnovna svrha postupka, a to je tijekom izrade plana i promišljanja varijanti, suradnja
izra iva a plana sa stru njacima zaštite okoliša i s javnosti. Kako se radi isklju ivo o
dokumentima koje izra uju tijela državne uprave, regionalne i lokalne samouprave
odabir izra iva a Strateških studija obavlja se putem javne nabave. Kad se zbroje sve
aktivnosti od odluke do kraja postupka dobiva se preko 400 dana trajanja postupka.
Me utim niti to ne bi trebao biti razlog o ito, blago re eno, nevoljkog prihva anja
obveze njegove provedbe. Na ovome mjestu bilježimo neke od pojava na koje svakako
treba obratiti pažnju; nepoznavanje obveza, a pogotovo prednosti provedbe SPUO pri
izradi prijedloga odgovaraju ih dokumenata, izbjegavanja provedbe postupka,
nedostatna komunikacija izme u sudionika, nedostatna edukacija sudionika, kasno i
nedovoljno uklju ivanje javnosti u postupak, nedovoljno razvijene podloge plana i
programa koje se koriste u izradi strateških studija, nedovoljno jasan postupak vezano
za utvr ivanje prevladavaju eg javnog interesa i kompenzacijskih uvjeta za
planove/programe...
Niti udruge civilnog društva („zeleni“ ) nisu prepoznale taj postupak kao podru je svog
djelovanja. Radije se fokusiraju na pojedina ne projekte gdje je poznat investitor i gdje
se lakše mobilizira javnost.
Kako se sa Strateškom procjenom tj. izradom Strateške studije kre e u ranoj fazi izrade
dokumenta (plana, programa…), dakle esto tek prvim nacrtom, logi na je stalna
suradnja s izra iva ima dokumenta. Nažalost to je vrlo esto usporedan, a katkad i
postupak koji dokument procjenjuje u visokoj fazi njegove gotovosti.
Do tog zaklju ka dolazi i Stenek i sur. u radu s ove Konferencije. Autori su analizirali
postupak Strateške procjene jedne županije i pratili su mjere i uvjete zaštite prirode i
ciljeva o uvanja prema Direktivi o staništima. U kona nu ina icu plana ugra ene su
samo mjere i uvjeti dani po posebnom propisu, a iz SPUO postupka nije ugra en niti
jedan uvjet/mjera. Samo monitoring i istraživanja!?
Operativni program za okoliš temeljni je programski dokument za povla enje sredstava
EU fondova koja su namijenjena za provedbu kohezijske politike Europske unije u
sektoru okoliša u Republici Hrvatskoj. OP se prvenstveno veže na ciljeve i prioritete
Nacionalnog strateškog referentnog okvira (NSRO) koji predstavlja temeljni referentni
instrument za programiranje EU fondova u podru ju kohezijskih i regionalnih politika.
OP doprinosi postizanju op eg cilja NSRO-a, odnosno „ubrzavanja gospodarskog rasta i
poticanja zapošljavanja kako bi se postigla stvarna konvergencija“. Provedba OP-a e
štoviše doprinijeti trima strateškim ciljevima NSRO-a, te e izravno utjecati na
Tematski prioritet 2 NSRO-a: Unapre enje okolišne infrastrukture i kakvo e vezanih
usluga.
Razvidna su dva problema:
Prvo, postupak izrade SPUO za OP 2014.-2020. zapo eo je, kao i obi no, prekasno što
može dovesti do nekvalitetne SPUO te drugo, ne postoji Operativni program za okoliš
koji treba usvojiti, ve samo krovni OP iz podru ja kompetitivnosti i kohezije, što može
dovesti da gospodarski razvoj zasjeni na ela zaštite okoliša.
Pošaljimo poruku s ove Konferencije svim nadležnim tijelima da je SPUO ne samo
obvezuju i postupak, ve i postupak koji u ranoj fazi izrade planskih i programskih
dokumenta osigurava uravnotežen održivi razvitak. Zbog toga, posebno u izradi SPUO
za OP 2014.-2020. moraju uklju ivati vode i me unarodni i doma i stru njaci i
primjenjivati najbolje tehnike i modeli.
Kontrola kvalitete i monitoring
Prema Direktivi u PUO štete okolišu trebaju se kontrolirati na izvoru tj. u najranijoj fazi
planiranja i odlu ivanja treba se voditi ra una o utjecajima zahvata na okoliš. Tu se
postavlja nekoliko osnovnih pitanja. Koja je uloga PUO ako se tako i tako svi standardi
okoliša moraju zadovoljiti? Da li PUO unapre uje projekt ili samo ispravlja najve e
greške? Što je u stvari „good practice“? Da li ste ikada bili pohvaljeni za dobar posao u
PUO? Da li se studije o utjecaju na okoliš izra uju da bi se dobile kvalitetne
informacije, temeljem kojih e se donositi odluke ili je svrha da se unaprijedi projekt
namjeravanih zahvata? To nije isto! Idealno bi bilo oboje, ali danas je naglasak
uglavnom na procjenu utjecaja i mjere ublažavanja. Pitanja koja slijede; Koliko Studija
o utjecaju na okoliš se zaista bave istraživanjima opcija projektnih rješenja: lokacijama,
materijalima i korištenim resursima... Nisu li mnoge važne odluke vezane uz projektna
rješenja u stvari donesene prije PUO što taj postupak i proces pretvara i birokratsku
provjeru na kraju pri e. Kao bi mogli unaprijediti taj proces? J.Dusik i N.Mikuli na
nedavnom sastanku u Wroclawu, gdje su raspravljani prijedlozi amandmana na
Direktivu o PUO, dali prijedlog da se u PUO razmisli o mogu im dobrim iskustvima
primjene Direktive o objedinjenim uvjetima zaštite okoliša (OUZO). OUZO daje
informacije o utjecajima i nudi najbolje referencirane tehnike kao rješenje. U usporedbi
s PUO, OUZO je više proaktivan. Rasprave o referenciranim tehnikama i tehnologijama
inspiriraju i unapre uju projekt. Te rasprave vrlo su korisne za raspravu s
poduzetnicima i zainteresiranom javnosti.
Name e se stoga pitanje: Da li postoji mogu nost uvo enja obvezatne usporedbe
predloženih rješenja s najboljim referenciranim rješenjima u PUO? Takove reference
mogle bi se lako uspostaviti za niz tipova razvojnih projekata; supermarketi, autoceste,
vjetroparkovi... RDNRT („BREF“) tip alternativa mogao bi biti korišten i u postupku
odre ivanja sadržaja studije.
I sada dolazimo do pitanja koje esto postavljaju udruge civilnog društva traže i
„nezavisnu izradu i ocjenu studije“. Tko je najvjerodostojniji/najkompetentniji za
ocjenu kvalitete studijske dokumentacije i ocjenu prihvatljivosti namjeravanog zahvata?
Nadležna tijela uprave? Nezavisni stru njaci koji nisu radili na izradi SUO? Udruge
civilnog društva ili stru no povjerenstvo?
Treba znati da u ve ini država svijeta ocjena namjeravanog zahvata kroz PUO je
zakonom ure eni postupak uglavnom u nadležnosti tijela nadležnog za okoliš. Postupak
je ure en na na in da nositelj zahvata temeljem SUO procjenjuje utjecaje i uvjerava
državu da namjeravani zahvat ne e imati zna ajne negativne utjecaje na okoliš. Država
to provjerava jednim od gore opisanih na ina. Rješenja u praksi su naravno razli ita. U
Hrvatskoj to je povjerenstvo sastavljeno od predstavnika nadležnih tijela, predstavnika
stru nih i znanstvenih institucija i predstavnika lokalne i regionalne samouprave. U
Italiji npr. to je su od države ugovoreni nezavisni stru njaci koji u timovima
sastavljenim za svaku SUO daju svoje mišljenje. Za vrijeme trajanja ugovora s državom
ne mogu izra ivati SUO ili obavljati neke druge poslove koji bi bili konfliktni s
njihovom zada om.
Pravni sustav u kojemu se danas provodi postupak PUO zahtjeva izbalansirani pristup u
razini zahtjeva prema SUO. Nisu dobre pojave da, pogotovo kod danas novog
instrumenta ocjene prema Direktivi o staništima, autori pojedinih poglavlja, esto
ugledni znanstvenici i nastavnici na Sveu ilištu, koji su izvanredni taksonomi i
poznavatelji neke skupine životinja ili biljaka ili ekologije neke vrste, svode svoj
doprinos na nabrajanje vrsta, bez da su si dali truda da nau e što zna e „ciljevi
uvanja“ i mjere njihove zaštite. S druge strane pojedinci iz redova državnih institucija
postavljaju visoke znanstvene kriterije primjerene izradi vrhunskih znanstvenih radova.
ekivali smo danas da emo na ovome našem skupu, nesumnjivo najzna ajnijem
stru nom i znanstvenom doga anju u regiji na podru ju PUO i ocjene prema Direktivi o
staništima, imati prilike da vidimo i njih i njihove radove.
Pitanje kvalitete i vjerodostojnosti SUO ovisi o nizu initelja, ali svakako su na prvom
mjestu poslovni moral i stru nost ovlaštenika, realna cijena studije i dostupnost
podataka. No izgleda, sude i prema iskustvima Republike Poljske, jedne od
najsposobnijih država za povla enje sredstava iz fondova EU, naju inkovitiji instrument
garancije kvalitete SUO je diskreciona ocjena Europske komisije odnosno istaknutih
financijskih institucija. Ako su oni ocijenili da SUO nema zadovoljavaju u kvalitetu, da
nije bilo Strateške procjene, da javnosti nije bila uklju ena na odgovaraju i na in, da
Direktiva o staništima nije primijenjena na odgovaraju i na in, da nisu obavljene
konzultacije prema Espoo konvenciji... i to bez obzira na provedenu nacionalnu
zakonsku proceduru, uskratili su financiranje projekta. Uvidjevši da je kvaliteta nužna
investitori – nositelji zahvata po eli su tražiti najkvalitetnije izra iva e SUO.
Kad govorimo o podacima, danas preko 20 godina kako je Vlada Republike Hrvatske
prihvatila prvi prijedlog uspostave informacijskog sustava, tada za prostor i okoliš,
nikako ne možemo biti zadovoljni javno dostupnim bazama podataka. Tamo podataka
valjanih za izradu SUO uglavnom nema ili nisu ure eni na na in da se mogu koristiti u
tu svrhu ili zahtijevaju veliki angažman visoko obrazovanih državnih službenika
prenatrpanih poslom da ih u nesre enim bazama prona u. Nadalje negdje se je država
obvezala kroz pravne propise da e osigurati podatke (kao npr. o Ekološkoj mreži
odnosno budu oj NATURI 2000), a tih podataka nema ili su zastarjeli i nevjerodostojni.
I sada dolazi do situacije da oni koji bi trebali dobiti podatke temeljem kojih e obavljati
procjene svojih zahvata, moraju obavljati detaljna, a esto i proširena istraživanja, a oni
koji su trebali osigurati podatke ocjenjuju kvalitetu tih istraživanja.
Nažalost taj bogati fond podataka iz SUO iz raznih razloga uglavnom se ne unosi u
javno dostupne baze podataka iako su pribavljeni od, po državi, akreditiranih
ovlaštenika. To esto dovodi do toga da se istraživanje istih podru ja više puta pla a
istim ljudima, a za potrebe razli itih investicija.
Monitoring je instrument ne samo kontrole predvi anja i procjena izvršenih pri izradi
SUO ve postaje aktivni instrument korekcije i donošenja novih odgovaraju ih mjera
zaštite okoliša i prirode. Nadalje dobiveni rezultati bi trebali doprinijeti oboga ivanju
baza podataka. Kvalitetne javno dostupne baze podataka kako o okolišu tako i SUO
nužan su preduvjet za kvalitetne procjene pogotovo procjene sinergije s postoje im ili
planiranim zahvatima kako u Strateškoj procjeni tako i u obuhvatu namjeravanog
zahvata. I ovdje moramo ukazati na injenicu da je Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša iz 2007.
godine ure eno da se podaci dobiveni monitoringom propisanim kroz postupak PUO
dostavljaju Agenciji za zaštitu okoliša. Do danas, prema našem saznanju, niti jedan
takav podatak nije niti dostavljen niti unesen u odgovaraju e baze AZO.
Ocjena prihvatljivosti za Ekološku mrežu
Tu za Hrvatsku ne bi trebali biti neki novi izazovi. Trebamo iskoristiti to što smo, za
razliku od drugih EU zemalja, imali OPEM postupak gotovo 6 godina prije ulaska i
„vježbali se“, odnosno trebamo iskoristiti injenicu što ve 6 godina provodimo lanak
6 Direktive o staništima, samo na nacionalnoj ekološkoj mreži. Postupak se zbog Nature
2000 ne e korijenski mijenjati. Ali su se kroz godine nakupili problemi koje treba
prepoznati i na i rješenja, odnosno prou iti i primijeniti rješenja drugih, nama bliskih
država. S nacionalnom ekološkom mrežom smo nau ili puno toga. Idemo sada s
Naturom bit pametniji.
Ono što nas eka, a što moramo napraviti za Naturu jest zonacija i to ne ona u smislu
upravljanja, ve ona o rasprostranjenosti vrsta unutar Natura 2000 podru ja. Naime,
naša Natura 2000 podru ja su jako velika, neka vrlo heterogena i esto imaju hrpu
ciljnih vrsta i staništa. Te vrste i staništa naj eš e nisu prisutne na cijeloj površini
podru ja, ve samo u odre enim dijelovima pa ovakva zonacija (koju npr. ima Slovenija
i Danska) omogu uje bržu procjenu koja se koncentrira na ciljne vrste prisutne na
samom podru ju zahvata.
Danas možemo ocijeniti da postoji dio mjera ublažavanja koje predlažemo i
propisujemo, a da iskreno nismo sigurni u njihovu u inkovitost. Zbog toga se moramo
usmjeriti na pra enje u inkovitosti mjera ublažavanja koje se propisuju i u skladu s
rezultatima ih prilago avati. Pri tome programi pra enja moraju se usmjeriti na onu
ciljnu vrstu na koju zahvat ima ili može imati zna ajan utjecaj.
Kompenzacijske mjere su sigurno najosjetljivije pitanje postupka OPEM. I na njih smo
najmanje spremni. Nije tajna da se te mjere u zemljama EU nastoje nadomjestiti
mjerama ublažavanja. Mislim da emo i mi morati tome pribjegavati jer je
kompenzacija nešto što svi želimo izbje i. Ako i na emo zamjensko podru je na kojem
bi npr. umjetno stvarali neko stanište javlja se niz otvorenih pitanja; u ijem je
vlasništvu zemljište, što je tu predvi eno prostorno-planskom dokumentacijom, mora li
se mijenjati prostorni plan, mora li se nekoga obeštetiti za taj prostor… A da bi uop e
do nje došli, moramo sukladno Direktivi i tuma enjima Europskog suda pravde - ECJ-a,
biti sigurni da nema alternativa za postizanje cilja zahvata, a koje bi bile manje štetne od
samog zahvata. Da li je zaista na nositelju zahvata ili ovlašteniku da dokazuje
nepostojanje alternativnih rješenja ili npr. da je alternativa za novu autocestu pove anje
kapaciteta obližnjeg aerodroma?
Procjena utjecaja zahvata na Ekološku mrežu bremenita je nedostatkom znanja,
iskustva, pa i razumijevanja postupka kod svih dionika. Ovlaštenici (izra iva i SUO)
traže i mole da se organiziraju radionice na kojima bi se raspravila problemati na
pitanja i pokušala zajedno na i rješenja. Uz sve razumijevanje za nedostatak ljudskih
resursa držimo da bi edukacija dionika i sebe samih morala bi biti jedna od glavnih
obveza i aktivnosti onih u ijoj je postupak nadležnosti. Rokovi su novim zakonima
skra eni, država se kune u investicije i ubrzavanje postupaka. Nije dovoljno rješavati
samo administrativne prepreke. Jednako ako ne i ve a prepreka je nedostatak znanja i
nerazumijevanje postupaka, kao i mogu ih šteta koje iz toga proizlaze.
I na kraju valja re i da to što govorimo o problemima govorimo zato da potaknemo
raspravu i razmjenu iskustava svih danas prisutnih sudionika. Zbog toga smo sigurni da
emo s ove Konferencije oti i zadovoljni, oboga eni s novim spoznajama i
mogu nostima.
Environmental assessment at present
Professor Nenad Mikul , PhD, Scientific Committee Chair
Although in this introductory speech I will talk mainly about our experiences in the
Republic of Croatia, I believe that we have a lot in common and that this experience is
valuable for our neighbouring countries that have yet to walk the challenging accession
path on their way to the European Union.
So, let us begin with the
Impact assessment of individual interventions (projects) - EIA
The first recorded examples date from the early 1970s in the USA, Canada, Australia
and New Zealand, in the 1980s it spread through Europe and in 1985 the EIA Directive
85/337/EEC was adopted; since the 1990s the impact assessment has become a global
phenomenon and today it is applied in most world countries. While methodological
units of the procedure do not differ significantly from state to state (screening, scoping,
description of the project and the environment, description and evaluation of impacts,
proposing mitigation measures and monitoring programme), the assessment of the
Study documentation and evaluation of impact of the project are regulated by each
country in accordance with its legal system and experience; from a thorough
administrative procedure which includes the developer, competent authorities,
practitioners and the public, which is concluded with an administrative act either
accepting or rejecting the planned project, to almost optional cooperative relationship of
the developer and his project designer with environmental experts and competent
authorities’ staff. Mandatory application of the Directive in the territory of the EU and
candidate countries resulted in significant unification of the procedure, although certain
differences persist, especially in the assessment of the project. In 1984, the Republic of
Croatia introduced the environmental impact assessment as mandatory in the Ordinance
on preparation of the environmental impact study; a subordinate regulation under the
then Physical Planning and Zoning Act. In the framework of harmonisation of
environmental protection legislation with EU legislation, in late 2007 the new
Environmental Protection Act was adopted (and the third one just recently), while in
mid-2008 two new regulations were adopted governing the field of environmental
impact assessment and public involvement.
Unlike the competent EU authorities, the competent authorities in Croatia have yet to
analyse the effect of their application in practice with a view to further improvement.
On account of different, often completely opposite perspectives, both these areas are
criticised by certain participants in the EIA process.
From the start to the present day, more than 2,000 studies have been prepared and as
many procedures carried out. What the stakeholders think of the quality of this
fundamental environmental instrument is shown in research conducted by Hauska &
Partner within the partner cooperation scheme with the Croatian Association of
Professionals in Nature and Environmental Protection in the period from 24th May to 1st
July 2013, aimed at examining the attitudes of the relevant participants regarding certain
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) considerations and public involvement. The
first comprehensive insight was obtained regarding the extent to which the EIA
procedure in Croatia contributes to quality decision-making which is, citing Barry
Sadler (2006), a proper ‘litmus test’ for the performance and impact of EIA on making
higher quality decisions.
Different perception of the purpose of EIA is noticed among different groups, and
whether the outcome of the EIA process is only advisory to the decision maker, whether
it could serve as an environmental ‘veto’ on certain projects, i.e. is the success of
participation measured by simply allowing a higher degree of public involvement or by
resulting in an undoubtedly better decision. This dilemma is also present in the UNEP
2002 training material.
The research also confirmed that the EIA procedure is highly complex, especially in
social terms, as the attitudes of participants on many issues are conflicting, which
indirectly indicates significant differences in values and/or identification of certain
problems in practice. Thus, the solution is not in finding individual rapid solutions to
certain deficiencies without considering the links and potential consequences of such
solutions. The answer is to organise the process that will allow an in-depth
consideration of different perspectives, motives and a wider context of decision-making,
and focus on finding such solutions that will improve the efficiency of the overall IEA,
not only some of its shortcomings.
Strategic Environmental Assessment of plans and programmes (SEA)
The procedure of Strategic Environmental Assessment of policies (strategies), plans,
programmes and legislation was developed in some places prior to, in some concurrent
with and in others it resulted from the Environmental Impact Assessment of individual
projects. Envisaged as a flexible form of cooperation between the persons preparing the
documents, environmental experts and other sectors and the public, for the purpose of
preparing and adoption of the above documents.
This type of assessment, employed in a large number of countries worldwide, is
evolving as the fundamental instrument of sustainable development. The authors mainly
list two approaches:
Strategic assessment is carried out by the authorities responsible for
environmental protection and, in cooperation with other sectors, environmental
considerations are examined, as well as economic and social issues,
Strategic assessment of each of the three sustainable development issues is
conducted in cooperation with the authorities responsible for the respective
sector, while coordination and integration is carried out by an independent
institution or body.
In 2001, the EU passed the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), which was transposed into the
legal systems of all EU Member States and acceding countries. It was introduced in the
pan-European area UNECE by means of the Protocol on Strategic Environmental
Assessment to the Espoo Convention in Kiev in 2003.
Let us also mention the Sofia EIA Initiative (1995-2003), which was headed by the
Republic of Croatia with the organisational assistance from REC, often in cooperation
with WHO. The Sofia Initiative helped to exchange experiences among Eastern and
South-eastern European countries. The Sofia Initiative paid special attention to the SEA
process thus contributing to a better understanding of this instrument and providing
strong support to the initiatives for legal regulation of the SEA procedure.
The Republic of Croatia introduced the SEA in the process of transposition of the
acquis communautaire in the Croatian legal system with the Environmental Protection
Act and subordinate legislation. The Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) was also
transposed and the Aarhus Convention ratified. In addition, the SEA Protocol to the
Espoo Convention was ratified. The Strategic Environmental Assessment is regulated as
an integrated process following the procedure under the Habitats Directive.
In comparison to other states, it was introduced relatively late and so far only around 10
strategic environmental assessments have been completed or are under way. Experience
shows that the main purpose of the procedure has not been achieved, which is the
cooperation of the authors of the plan with environmental experts and the public during
the preparation of the plan and while examining all possibilities. As these are
specifically the documents prepared by the state administration bodies and local and
regional self-government bodies, the selection of authors preparing Strategic Studies is
conducted in a public procurement procedure. Once all activities are summed up, from
the decision to the end of the procedure, the resulting duration is more than 400 days.
However, not even this should not be the reason for the obvious – to put it mildly –
reluctance to accept the obligation of its implementation, so here are some noteworthy
facts; not being familiar with the obligations and particularly the advantages of the SEA
implementation in preparing proposals for relevant documents, avoiding the procedure,
insufficient communication between the participants, insufficient education of the
participants, late and deficient public involvement in the procedure, inadequately
developed plan and programme background documents to be used in drawing up
strategic studies, unclear procedure in relation to establishing the overriding public
interest and compensation measures for the plans/programmes...
Neither have civil society associations (“the Greens”) recognised this procedure as a
field of their activity. Instead, they focus on individual projects where the investor is
known and the public is more easily mobilised.
Since the Strategic Environmental Assessment, i.e. drafting of the Strategic study, starts
in the early stage of preparation of the documents (plan, programme…), meaning often
having only the initial draft, it would be logical to have continuous cooperation with the
authors of the document. Unfortunately, it is often a parallel procedure, sometimes
assessing the document when it is almost completed.
This conclusion is reached by Stenek et al. in the course of this Conference. The authors
analysed the SEA procedure in one county, they monitored environmental measures and
conditions and environmental protection objectives under the Habitats Directive. The
final version of the plan incorporates only the measures and conditions under the special
regulation, and not a single condition/measure under the SEA procedure. Only
monitoring and research!?
The Environmental Operational Programme is the fundamental programming document
for withdrawing the resources from EU funds earmarked for the implementation of the
EU cohesion policy in the environmental sector in Croatia. The OP primarily relies on
the objectives and priorities of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF),
which is the basic reference tool for EU funds programming in the area of the Cohesion
and regional policies. The OP contributes to achieving the general objective of the
NSRF, i.e. “acceleration of economic growth and fostering employment to support
actual convergence”. Moreover, the implementation of the OP will contribute to the
three strategic objectives of the NSRF, and it will directly influence the NSRF Priority
2: Improving the environmental infrastructure and quality of related services.
Two problems are quite obvious:
First, the SEA preparation procedure for the OP 2014 – 2020 started too late, as usual,
which can result in low quality SEA.
Second, there is no Environmental Operational Programme to be adopted but only the
umbrella OP in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion, which can lead to economic
development overshadowing environmental protection principles.
Let us send a message from this Conference to all competent authorities that the SEA is
not only a binding process, but also the process which, in the early phase of preparation
of plans and programmes, provides for balanced sustainable development. On account
of this, and in particular for preparing the SEA for the 2014-2020 Operating
Programme, the leading international and national experts must be included and the best
techniques and models applied.
Quality control and monitoring
Under the EIA Directive adverse effects on the environment have to be controlled at
source, i.e. the impact of a project on the environment should be considered at the
earliest stage of planning and decision-making. Several important questions should be
asked here. What is the role of EIA if all environmental standards have to be met
anyway? Does the EIA improve the project or simply rectifies the biggest mistakes?
What is actually “good practice”? Have you ever been praised for a job well done in the
EIA? Are environmental impact studies prepared in order to get quality information as
the basis for making decisions, or is their purpose to improve the planned project?
These two are not one and the same! Both would be ideal, but nowadays the focus is
mainly on impact assessment and mitigation measures. So, the following questions are
raised: How many environmental impact studies are really concerned with analysing
design solution options: locations, materials and used resources... Aren’t many
important decisions related to project solutions actually adopted before the EIA, which
turns this process into a bureaucratic verification at the end of the road? How could this
process be improved? In a recent meeting held in Wroclaw discussing the proposals of
amendments to the EIA Directive, J. Dusik and N. Mikuli suggested that the EIA
should consider favourable experiences of applying the IPPC Directive. The IPPC
provides information about the impacts and offers the best-referenced techniques as
solution. In comparison to the EIA, the IPPC is more proactive. The discussions about
the referred techniques and technologies are inspiring and they enhance the project.
These discussions are very useful for debating with the businesses and interested public.
Subsequently, the question arises: Is there a possibility to introduce mandatory
comparison of proposed solutions with the best-referenced solution in the EIA? Such
references could easily be established for a number of different types of development
projects; supermarkets, highways, windfarms... The BREF-type alternative could also
be used in the process of scoping.
And here we come to the question often put forward by the civil society organisations
calling for an “independent preparation and assessment of the study”. Who is the most
trustworthy/most competent to assess the quality of the study document and evaluate the
acceptability of the planned project?
The competent administrative bodies?
Independent experts who did not participate in the preparation of the EIA? Civil society
organisations or an expert committee?
We have to be aware that in the majority of countries worldwide the assessment of the
planned project by means of an EIA is the process regulated under the law and is mainly
in the scope of the environmental authority. The procedure is regulated so that based on
the EIA study the developer estimates the impacts and tries to convince the state that the
planned project will not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. The state
verifies this using one of the above methods. In practice, the solutions are varied. In
Croatia, this is a committee consisting of the representatives of competent bodies,
representatives of professional and scientific institutions and local and regional selfgovernment representatives. In Italy, for example, these are independent experts
commissioned by the state and nominated into teams formed for each EIA study to give
their opinion. During the contract with the state they cannot prepare EIA studies or
perform any other tasks that could be in conflict with their assignment.
The legal system under which the EIA is conducted calls for a balanced approach at the
level of requirements for the EIA studies. It is not really proper that, especially with the
currently new assessment instrument under the Habitats Directive, the authors of certain
chapters, quite often renowned scientists and university lecturers, who are exceptional
taxonomists and an authority on a certain type of fauna or flora or ecology, reduce their
contribution to itemising the species without making any effort to learn what
“qualification features” and measures to protect them really mean. On the other hand,
some people in the state administration institutions set such high scientific criteria
appropriate for preparing superior scientific papers. Hence, it was our expectation that
here today, at this Conference, which is undoubtedly the most important professional
and scientific event in the region concerning the EIA procedure and evaluation pursuant
to the Habitats Directive, we would have the opportunity to see their work as well.
The issue of quality and authenticity of the EIA studies depends on a number of factors,
but in the first place on the business morals and expertise of the developer, the realistic
price of the study and availability of data. It seems, however, judging by experience of
the Republic of Poland, one of the most successful countries in withdrawing the
resources from EU funds, that the most effective guarantee of the quality of the EIA
study is the discretionary evaluation of the European Commission and prominent
financial institutions. If they judge that the quality of the EIA study is not acceptable,
that there was no strategic assessment, that the public was not adequately included, that
the Habitats Directive was not appropriately applied, that consultations were not
conducted pursuant to the Espoo Convention…. regardless of compliance with the
national legal procedure, they deny financing to the project. Seeing that quality was
indispensable the investors – developers started looking for the highest quality authors
to prepare the EIA studies.
When we speak about the data today, more than 20 years after the Government of the
Republic of Croatia approved the first proposal to set up the IT system for certain
locations and the environment, we cannot be satisfied with the publicly available
databases. In general, these databases do not contain valid data for preparing the EIA
studies, nor are organised in the manner to be used for this purpose, or they require a
high level of involvement on the part of highly qualified and overburdened civil
servants to find them in disorganised databases. Moreover, in some cases the state
pledged in legal acts that it shall provide the data (for example, on the Ecological
Network, i.e. the future NATURA 2000), but these data are not available or are obsolete
and not authentic. And then we come across the situation where those who should
obtain the data as the basis for the assessment of their project, they have to carry out
detailed and often extended analysis, while those who should provide the data evaluate
the quality of such research.
Unfortunately, the ample data from the EIA studies are, for various reasons, mostly not
entered into publicly available databases, although they are obtained from authorised
persons accredited by the state. This often leads to having the analysis of one and the
same location paid several times over to the same people for the purposes of different
investments.
Monitoring is an instrument not only for controlling predictions and assessments in the
process of the EIA, but it becomes an active instrument for correcting and adopting the
relevant environmental and nature protection measures. Moreover, the results obtained
should contribute to improving the databases. Quality publicly available databases on
the environment and the EIA studies are the prerequisite for quality assessment,
especially of compliance with the existing or planned projects in the Strategic
Environmental Assessment and the scope of the planned project. It should be underlined
at this point that the 2007 Environmental Protection Act regulates that the data obtained
through monitoring laid down in the EIA procedure are submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). So far, at least to our knowledge, no such data were either
submitted or entered in the relevant EPA databases.
Appropriate assessment for the Ecological Network
No new challenges for Croatia here. We should make use the fact that, unlike other EU
countries, we had the Appropriate Assessment procedure in place for almost 6 years
before the accession and we had “practice”; this means that we should make use of the
fact that for 6 years we had been implementing Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, only
on the National Ecological Network. The procedure will not be fundamentally changed
on account of Natura 2000. However, over the years problems have accumulated so
they have to be identified and solutions found, i.e. they should be examined and
solutions employed by the countries in our vicinity applied. We have learned a lot
through the National Ecological Network; let us be smarter with Natura.
What we have to face – and what we have to implement under Natura – is zoning,
although not in the sense of management but in the sense of distribution of species
within the Natura 2000 area. Croatia Natura 2000 areas are very large; some are very
heterogeneous and often contain a number of target species and habitats. These species
and habitats are often not distributed across the entire area but only in some of its parts,
so this type of zoning (as applied Slovenia and Denmark), provides for faster
assessment concentrated on the target species present on the very location of the project.
Nowadays we can assert that some mitigation measures are proposed and laid down
without being entirely confident of their effectiveness. Due to this we have to focus on
monitoring the set mitigation measures and adjust them according to the results. At the
same time, the monitoring programmes have to be focused on the target species which
could suffer the most significant impacts from the project.
The compensatory measures are surely the most sensitive issue of the Ecological
Network Impact Assessment (ENIA) procedure. And we are least prepared for them. It
is no secret that EU countries made an attempt to replace these measures with mitigation
measures. I believe that we will also have to resort to this because compensating is
something we all want to avoid. Even if we find a substitute area were we could, for
example, artificially create a habitat, a series of open issues arise; ownership of the land,
what do physical planning documents envisage at the location, does the spatial plan
have to be changed, does someone have to be indemnified for this land… And in order
to have it in the first place, in compliance with the Directive and interpretation of the
European Court of Justice – the ECJ – we have to be sure that there is no alternative to
achieving the project target that would be less harmful than the project itself. Is it really
the obligation of the developer or authorised person to prove the nonexistence of the
alternative solution or, for example, that the alterative for the new highway is to
increase the capacity of the nearby airport?
Ecological Network Impact Assessment of the project is replete with the lack of
knowledge and experience, and even understanding of the procedures by all
stakeholders. Practitioners (authors of the studies) require and plead to have workshops
organised where problematic issues would be discussed and solutions found through
joint effort. Although we have understanding for the lack of human resources, we
believe that training of stakeholders and ourselves should be one of the main obligations
and activities of those who are responsible for the procedure. The new acts reduced the
deadlines and the state is promising new investments and speeding up the procedure. It
is not sufficient to resolve only administrative barriers. Equally, if not an even larger
obstacle is the lack of knowledge and incomprehension of procedures and potential
damage that could result from them.
And finally, it has to be emphasised that the fact we are considering the problems is
aimed at encouraging the debate and exchange of experiences between all participants.
Because of this we are sure that we will leave this Conference satisfied, with new
knowledge and aware of the possibilities we have at our disposal.
SEKCIJA 2 / SECTION 2
PROCJENA UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ /
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA): meaning and
framework
Nebojša Pokimica1, An elka Mihajlov2
1
Anahem laboratory, Mocartova 10, Belgrade, Serbia ([email protected])
2Faculty of Technical Sciences – University of Novi Sad / Environmental Ambassadors
for Sustainable Development, Novi Sad/Beograd, Serbia
Abstract
This paper is thinking exercise related to „resource overlaps“ between ESIA
(Environmental and Social Impact Assessment; or sometimes called SEIA) and EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment). Rationale behind this research is to answer the
question: is it possible to use the same Study/Assessment to be prepared by/for Banks
during the process of validation of bankable projects (ESIA), and to be approved by
competent authorities in country (EIA)? Paper is contributing to EU accession ( latest
EC Progress Report SWD(2012) 333 FINAL for Serbia noted that “ Although the
alignment with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive is fully achieved, the
implementation needs to be improved…”).
ESIAs strong pillar of environmentally sensitive projects is social impact (sometimes
linked with resettlements) available for review by the (interested) public. The Banks
(like EBRD) usually perform ESIA as the condition in the process of considering to
provide finance/ loan.
In Serbia, it is not national procedure for ESIA; laws in Serbia do not recognized this
term. However, legally prescribed scope of EIA (Law on EIA, 2004) includes social
and climate change aspects to be addressed. This (the way how address social aspects)
could be link, if develop and use properly (not only formally), to use already prepared
ESIA Study prepared by/for Bank in national procedure for EIA approvement (at least
as the base Study to be just adapted to national legislation requests form). By this,
resources will be used more effecitevelly, and it will be one consultation process with
public (meaning that time for approvement will be more effective). Case study practice
is justified this approach.
On the other hand, Banks should consider in more details national EIA legislation, in
particular related to prescribed scope of EIA.
Key words: efficient use of resources , Environmental and Social Impact Assessment,
Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA scope, ESIA scope, approval procedure
Uvod
Procena uticaja i Strateška procena uticaja spadaju u dijagnosti ke analiti ke
instrumente u oblasti životne sredine .
Procena uticaja na životnu sredinu (EIA) predstavlja proceduru kojom se obezbe uje
da se problematika zaštite životne sredine uklju i u proces donošenja odluka o
ekonomskim aktivnostima. Dobra EIA je integrisana u proces razvoja projekta i ne
predstavlja prepreku razvoju. Procena uticaja na životnu sredinu je preventivna mera
zaštite životne sredine zasnovana na izradi studija i sprovo enju konsultacija uz u eš e
javnosti i analizi alternativnih mera, sa ciljem da se prikupe podaci i predvide štetni
uticaji odre enih projekata na život i zdravlje ljudi, floru i faunu, zemljište, vodu,
vazduh, klimu i pejzaž, materijalna i kulturna dobra i uzajamno delovanje ovih inilaca,
kao i utvrde i predlože mere kojima se štetni uticaji mogu spre iti, smanjiti ili otkloniti
imaju i u vidu izvodljivost tih projekata (u daljem tekstu: procena uticaja). Procena
uticaja je procedura koja obezbe uje da se implikacije na životnu sredinu odre enih
odluka (npr. izgradnja fabrike, formiranje turisti kog naselja, izgradnja vodovovda,
izrada plana upravljanja otpadom) uzimaju u obzir pre nego što su odluke o tome
donete.
Procena uticaja na životnu sredinu
Analiza uticaja na životnu sredinu predstavlja instrument kojim se razmatraju zna ajni
uticaji predloženog razvoja, projekta na životnu sredinu. Klju ne faze procesa
uklju uju identifikaciju predloga, odlu ivanje o potrebi, odre ivanje obima i sadržaja
studije, procenu uticaja, utvr ivanje mera za ublažavanje negativnih uticaja na životnu
sredinu, postupak davanja saglasnosti studiju, postupak donošenja odluke i pra enje
posledica donete odluke.
Studija o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu je dokument kojim se analizira i ocenjuje
kvalitet inilaca životne sredine i njihova osetljivost na odre enom prostoru i
me usobni uticaji postoje ih i planiranih aktivnosti, predvi aju neposredni i posredni
štetni uticaji projekta na inioce životne sredine, uklju uju i i dinamiku promena u
odnosu na ustanovljeno stanje, kao i mere i uslovi za spre avanje, smanjenje i
otklanjanje štetnih uticaja na životnu sredinu i zdravlje ljudi.
Proces procene uticaja uklju uje analizu mogu ih efekata na životnu sredinu, evidentira
te efekte kroz izveštaj koji se prezentira javnosti, vodi konsultativni proces o izveštaju,
uzima u obzir komentare koji su rezultat procesa javne rasprave i donosi završnu
odluku, uzimaju i u obzir rezultate prikazane kroz izveštaj i kroz konsultativni proces.
Procedura tako e zahteva informisanje javnosti o sadržaju i uslovima donete odluke o
proceni uticaja.
Procedura sprovo enja procene uticaja je iterativna i sadrži mnoge povratne petlje koje
obezbe uju redefinisanje predloga, ukoliko je potrebno. I pored toga što procedura EIA
sadrži prihva ene korake, ona ne predstavlja linearnu šemu.
Slika 1. Šema sprovo enja procene uticaja
Za postupak ocene Studije o proceni uticaja postoje brojni instrumenti, ali se uglavnom
u svim državama koje sprovode postupak EIA koriste razli ite forme upitnika. U
zemljama lanicama EU je prihva ena forma upitnika predstavljena u Aneksu 4
Direktive 97/11/EC, a prema zahtevima lana 4 pomenute Direktive. Upitnikom se
utvr uje metod za postupak ocene Studije u skladu za zahtevima Direktive i sa ciljem
ustanovljavanja dobre prakse za postupak EIA. Adekvatnost informacija podrazumeva
da su informacije u studiji kompletne i dovoljne, te da se na osnovu njih može doneti
odluka. Svrha upitnika je da pomogne ocenjiva ima da odlu e da li predstavljene
informacije zadovoljavaju. Republika Srbije je, u skladu sa Direktivama 85/337/EEC i
97/11/EC i potrebom za usaglašavanjem doma eg zakonodavstva sa legislativom
zemalja lanica Evropske Unije, 2004. godine usvojila Zakon o proceni uticaja na
životnu sredinu (2004). Srbija je 2007. godine ratifikovala Konvenciju o proceni uticaja
na životnu sredinu u prekograni nom kontestu (E/ECE/1250). Od usvajanja ove
Konvencije, analiza uticaja postaje neizbežni instrument me unarodne politike koji prati
ekonomski razvoj i zaštitu životne sredine, jer definiše obaveze i postupke zemalja
potpisnica
Ekološka i socijalna procena uticaja
ESIA („Ekološka“ i socijalna procena uticaja ili „Procena uticaja na životnu sredinu i
socijalna pitanja“ ili „Procena uticaja na životnu sredinu i društvo“, esto se skra uje
kao „Socijalna studija uticaja“ – engl. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment;
ponekad se zove SEIA –Social and Environmental Impact Assessment) je zahtevan
mehanizam kod projekata koji mogu imati uticaja na životnu sredinu i imaju zna ajan
društveni uticaj, i kao takvi trebaju biti podložni reviziji od strane zainteresovne
javnosti. Banke (EBRD, EIB, WORLD BANK) naj eš e koriste ESIA kao uslov
prilikom odlu ivanja o dodeli finansiskih kredita ili pozajmica. Banke o ekuju da
prilikom zahteva za kredit za realizaciju infrastrukturnih projekata, takav zahtev
obavezno prati i socijalna procena uticaja. Metodološki postoje tri koraka prilikom
izrade socijalnih studija uticaja. Prvi koji je vezan za definisanje socijalne vrednosti
projekta i koji treba da objasni na koji na in e predvi ene aktivnosti dovesti do željenih
rezultata. Drugi korak je identifikacija tri merljiva socijalna indikatora uticaja koji e
biti u najve oj korelaciji sa željenim društvenim ishodima. Na i adekvatan na in za
prora un tih indikatora i njihovo pra anje u toku realizaciji projekata, Tre i korak za
pra enje tih indikatora kroz realizaciju projekta.
Studije koje su sprovedene od strane Evropske Komisije, pokazuju da su socijalne
procene uticaja još uvek u povoju u ve ini zemalja lanica. Svi drugi aspekti,
ekonomski, finansiski, uticaji na životnu sredinu domiraju u odnosu na socio
komponente. Primeri investicija koje sadrže dubinske analize društvenih uticaja su retki,
i ako postoje vezane su na politike sa konkretnim društvenim ciljevima. Razlozi za to su
višestruki; Socijalne procene uticaja je teško integrisati sa ve ranije uspostavljenim
politi kim procesima; društvene uticaje je nekad teško proceniti i što je naj eš i slu aj
kod procene uticaja, domiraju ekonomski sadržaji.
Ono što je vrlo važno sagledati kod socijalnih uticaja, sem ublažavanja negativnih
uticaja, je i prilika da se maksimalno iskoriste pozitivni efekti realizacije projekata.
Oblasti koristi mogu da uklju uju privremene i stalne poslove u okviru Projekta,
mogu nosti podugovoranja za lokalne firme, za izvo enje radova i isporuku dobara.
Ako projekat iziskuje selidbu ljudi, kroz proces premeštanja se mogu posti i bollji
uslovi za stanovanje. Svaki projekat ima razvojnu šansu, i svaki segment projekta treba
biti pažljivo razmotren kroz konsulatacije sa zajednicom. Svaka socijalna procena mora
da sadrži, poseban osvrt na ugrožene kategorije u zoni uticaja. Uobi ajeno oni su
isklju eni iz razvojnih dobitaka, tako da prilikom ovih analiza se mora obavezno
osigurati da i te kategorije, osete prednosti realizacije projekta.
Naj eš e ESIA studija sadrži precizno do detalja opis predloženog projekta u
geografskom, društveno ekonomskom i kontekstu zaštite životne sredine. U uvodnim
poglavljima studija sadrži informacije da li je projekat deo šireg programa razvoja, kao
i planiranja koriš enja zemljišta. Tako e u uvodnim delovima projekta se obi no
razmatraju i alternative projekta. Postoje e stanje obi no u sadrži podatke o:klimatskim
uslovima, geomorfologiji i geologiji, koriš enju zemljišta i vodenim resursima,
biološkim i ekološkim resursima, flori i fauni na podru ju, uklju uju i zašti ene i
ugrožene vrste, pritisci na životnu sredinu, kvalitet vazduh, buke i vibracije.
Kod socijalnih pitanja naj eš e se razmatraju demografija (stanovništvo, trendovi,
starost, pol, migracije), socijalni sastav, sukobi i socijalne tenzije, vlasništvo na
zemljom, privredne aktivnosti, obrazovanje, zdravstveni profil stanovništva, ranjive
grupe, kulturno nasle e, zaposlenost.
Nakon definisanja trenutnog stanja kre e se sa idetifikacijom potencijalnih uticaja
predloženog projekta na životnu sredinu i društvena kretanja. Kod životne sredine se
identifikuju pozitivni i negativni uticaji na životnu sredinu u smislu veli ine, zna aja,
revirzibilnosti, obima i trajanja. Gde god je mogu e trebaju biti zastupljeni kvantitativni
podaci. Trebaju se identifikovati mogu nosti za unapre enje životne sredine i
identifikovati klju ne neizvesnosti i nedostatak podataka.
Javno zdravstvo i socijalno ekonomski uticaji se pojavljaju u u razli itim vremenskim
periodima implementacije projekata i mogu biti me usobno povezani, kao i sa
uticajama na životnu sredinu, tako da ovakva procena uticaja predstavlja integrisanu
procenu uticaja.
Kao veliki problem prilikom realizacije ESIA studija, se pokazalo da u ve ini zemalja u
regionu ne postoji zakonski osnov za davanje saglasnosti na ovakve vrste studija, i što
prilikom predavanja takvih studija od strane banaka, nadležni organ, što je slu aj u
Srbiji, je u problemu, kako takvu studiju da posmatra i na koji na in i koju vrstu
saglasnosti može dati.
Komparativna analiza ESIA i EIA
Koriste i metodologiju komparativne analize toka procesa ESIA i EIA (Sl.2),
ostavljamo otvoreno pitanje da li je i kako mogu e uštedeti resurse (finansijeske i
vremenske), na na in da ESIA posluži kao EIA u nacionalnom zakonodavstvu.
Slika 2. Dva paralelna procesa izrade i odobravanja ESIA i EIA
Uzevši u obzir socijalne komponente EIA, faza „utvr ivanje obima (i sadržaja)“ (videti
Sl.1) ima potencijal da se formuliše tako da se socijalna pitanja (koja se razmatraju u
ESIA) uklju e u EIA, i ova dva dokumenta zna ajno približe. U Srbiji Pravilnik o
sadržini procene uticaja na životnu sredinu (2005), definiše izme u ostalog da opis
mogu ih zna ajnih uticaja projekta na životnu sredinu obuhvata kvalitativni i
kvantitativni prikaz mogu ih promena u životnoj sredini za vreme izvo enja projekta,
redovnog rada i za slu aj udesa, kao i procenu da li su promene privremenog ili trajnog
karaktera, a naro ito u pogledu: 1) kvaliteta vazduha, voda, zemljišta, nivoa buke,
intenziteta vibracija, toplote i zra enja; 2) zdravlja stanovništva; 3) meteoroloških
parametara i klimatskih karakteristika; 4) ekosistema; 5) naseljenosti, koncentracije i
migracije stanovništva; 6) namene i koriš enja površina (izgra ene i neizgra ene
površine, upotreba poljoprivrednog, šumskog i vodnog zemljišta i sl.); 7) komunalne
infrastrukture; 8) prirodnih dobara posebnih vrednosti i nepokretnih kulturnih dobara i
njihove okoline i sl.; 9) pejzažnim karakteristikama podru ja i sl.; 6) opis mogu ih
zna ajnih uticaja projekta na životnu sredinu; 7) procenu uticaja na životnu sredinu u
slu aju udesa; 8) opis mera predvi enih u cilju spre avanja, smanjenja i, gde je to
mogu e, otklanjanja svakog zna ajnijeg štetnog uticaja na životnu sredinu; 9) program
pra enja uticaja na životnu sredinu; 10) netehni ki kra i prikaz podataka navedenih u
ta . 2) do 9); 11) podaci o tehni kim nedostacima ili nepostojanju odgovaraju ih
stru nih znanja i veština ili nemogu nosti da se pribave odgovaraju i podaci. Kako je
zakonodavstvo u Srbiji usaglašeno u ovoj oblasti sa zakonodavstvom EU, onda
dolazimo da zaklju ka, da uopšteno gledano, postoji dovoljno osnova, da se u
nacionalnom zakonodavstvu dotatno precizira sadržaj studije o proceni uticaja tako, da
ukoliko je ESIA ve ura ena i odobrena od strane finansijske institucije,bez zna ajnih
izmena bude i predmet davanja saglasnosti od nacionalnog organa koji daje saglasnost
na EIA.
Zaklju ak
Na in rešavanja socijalnih aspekta, može da bude veza, ako se pravilno razvija i koristi
(ne samo formalno), i da se ve pripremljeni ESIA studije za korisnike (naje e
banke), koriste za unapre enje EIA studija (u delu osnovne studije i prilago avanja
ovakve studije doma em zakonodavstvu. Shodno tome sredstva e se koristiti
efikasnije, i u okviru procesa, postoja e samo jedan proces konsultacija sa javnoš u.
Razrada studija slu aja u narednom periodu, treba da predlog konkretnog rešenja.
Posebno, po vremenskoj koordinati bi se smanjio rok dobijanja saglasnosti na EIA,
obzirom da ne bi morali da se dva puta organizuju procesi davanja zainteresovanoj
javnosti mogu nosti da u estvuje u odlu ivanju. Podvla imo da u ostvarivanju
procedure u eš a javnosti u odlu ivanju preporu ujemo primenu standarda ISO
14063:2006: Upravljanje zaštitom životne sredine – Komunikacija u oblasti zaštite
životne sredine – Smernice i primeri.
Literatura
[1] Mihajlov A. (2010) Osnove analiti kih instrumenata u oblasti životne sredine,
Monografija, Univerzitet Edukons
[2] Holder, J., (2004), Environmental Assessment: The Regulation of Decision
Making, Oxford University Press, New York; For a comparative discussion of
the elements of various domestic EIA systems, see Christopher Wood
Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review (2 ed, Prentice Hall,
Harlow, 2002).
[3] Daniel, S., Tsoulfas, G., Pappis, C., & Rachaniotis, N. (2004) Aggregating and
evaluating the results of different Environmental Impact Assessment methods
Ecological indicators 4:125-138
[4] Wilson, L., (1998), A Practical Method for Environmental Impact Assessment
Audits Environ Impact Assess Rev 18: 59-71
[5] Peche, R., & Rodriguez, E., (2009) Environmental impact Assessment
procedure: A new approach based on Fuzzy logic Environmental Impact
Assessment review 29:275-283
Povijesni pregled i aktualni problemi procjene utjecaja na okoliš u
Republici Hrvatskoj
Niko Malbaša1, Vladimir Jelavi
1
1
Ekonerg, Koranska 5, Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Sažetak
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš i op enito Zaštita okoliša ima u Hrvatskoj dugu tradiciju.
Prvi sistematski dokument napravljen je još 1969., dakle ak prije stupanja na snagu
poznatog ameri kog zakona NEPA (1.1.1970.) koji u svjetskim relacijama ozna ava
prekretnicu prema sustavnom i organiziranom bavljenju zaštitom okoliša.
U 70-tim godinama koje su karakteristi ne po izgradnji brojnih energetskih i
industrijskih objekata stvorena je kvalitetna podloga za institucionalizaciju SUO u
Zakonu o prostornom planiranju i ure enju prostora (1980.) i u Pravilniku o izradi SUO
(1984.).
U lanku se ukratko prikazuje povijesni razvoj problematike zaštite okoliša u svijetu i u
Hrvatskoj te položaj SUO i sli nih dokumenata u raznim razdobljima sve do današnjih
dana. Razmatraju se i problemi povezani s procjenom utjecaja na okoliš koji su se
pojavljivali te osobito oni koji su danas aktualni.
Klju ne rije i: Studija o utjecaju na okoliš, Razvoj procjene utjecaja na okoliš
Op enito o razvoju procjene utjecaja na okoliš
Mada se tragovi brige za okoliš mogu na i u daljoj prošlosti upravo je nevjerojatno da
su prve sistematske akcije u vezi s procjenom utjecaja na okoliš krenule tek prije
nepunih 50 godina.
Glavna je prekretnica napravljena stupanjem na snagu zakona NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Act) u SAD-u 1.1.1970. god. koji je propisao za sve ve e
gospodarske inicijative izradu studije o utjecaju na okoliš u kojoj bi se obradile mogu e
alternative te odredili potrebni uvjeti za projektiranje. Instaliran je i proces javne
rasprave kao nužan element komunikacije izme u javnosti i investitora posredstvom
nominirane nadležne državne agencije. Iako se koncept znatno birokratizirao i zbog toga
doživio brojne kritike, naglo se proširio po svijetu i odigrao izuzetno povoljan utjecaj u
mnogim zemljama.
U ranim 70-tim su još dva doga aja izazvala op u pažnju. To su konferencija UN-a o
okolišu u Stockholmu (1972.) koja je u prvi plan istaknula ukupne probleme zaštite
okoliša te publikacija "Granice rasta" (The limits to growth, 1972.) u kojoj je na prili no
dramati an na in naglašena ograni enost resursa na Zemlji i potreba razmatranja
strategije tzv. nultog rasta kao odgovora na nadolaze e probleme. Nulti rast - za koga?
bio je odgovor - pitanje nerazvijenog svijeta koji se upravo spremao za intenzivni razvoj
i stizanje najbogatijih. Odgovor je bio u naglom skoku cijena nafte, tzv. naftnoj krizi, iz
1973. i 1979. koje su uzdrmale svjetsko gospodarstvo ali i potaknule korisne inicijative
prema racionalnijoj i djelotvornijoj upotrebi energije i drugih resursa. Iz toga doba
datiraju i bitne tehnološke promjene u najrazvijenijim zemljama ali i nagli razvoj i
zna ajna društvena snaga brojnih ekoloških pokreta. One iš enje okoliše se nastoji
regulirati djelovanjem na izvoru emisije u okoliš (source oriented measures, end-of-pipe
treatment) što zamjenjuje dotadašnju filozofiju "razrijedi i rasprši" koja je bila
usmjerena uglavnom na smanjenje efekata u okolici (effect oriented measures). To je
dovelo do naglog porasta koli ine otpada koji se do tada raspršivao, a sada se
koncentrirao na jednom mjestu. Shva eno je, osim toga, da neke otpadne tvari koje se
mogu svesti pod pojam "opasni otpad" mogu proizvesti još gore efekte ako se
neadekvatno deponiraju nego ako se adekvatno rasprše. Doga aji s otpadom iz Sevesa
te slu aj u Love kanalu pored Nijagare doveli su problem otpada gotovo na prvo mjesto
zanimanja. Raste naglo broj spaljivaonica i odlagališta otpada što ubrzo stvara nove
probleme u zaštiti zraka i podzemnih voda poti i tako nova, kompliciranija i skuplja
tehnološka rješenja.
Krajem 70-tih, a osobito nakon nezgode u nuklearnoj elektrani Three Mile Island u
SAD-u (1979.) ekološki pokreti su u znatnoj mjeri reducirani na antinuklearne budu i
da je oporba nuklearnim objektima davala mogu nost za jednostavnu medijsku i
politi ku eksploataciju. Antinuklearna faza je ustvari bila "slijepa ulica" ekoloških
pokreta, istovremeno kulminacija njihova utjecaja na javnost ali i njihov kraj u
klasi nom smislu. Konferencijom u Montrealu (1986.) te u Rio De Janeiru (1992.)
globalni problemi dolaze u prvi plan, a njima lokalno usmjereni, u osnovi populisti ki
ekološki pokreti nisu dorasli. Misliti globalno više nije dovoljno, potrebno je djelovati
globalno, a za to je nužna promišljena globalna strategija koju je teško stvoriti. Bogati
svijet je u recesiji, novca za dugoro na, sistematska, fundamentalna istraživanja je sve
manje (a nikada ga i nije bilo dovoljno) pa se projekcije o budu nosti baziraju, kao
uglavnom i do sada, na malom broju uglavnom lokalnih informacija i na sofisticiranim
modelima napravljenim na spekulativnoj osnovi.
Suprotno glamuroznom sastanku u Riju i nekim sli nim okupljanjima iji su u inci
znatno manji od njihove spektakularnosti, jedan gotovo u tišini pripremljen referat, zbog
svoje pragmati nosti i realnosti ali istovremeno i zbog jednostavnosti i lucidnosti
zaslužuje da bude okarakteriziran kao poseban, dapa e glavni doga aj te kao svojevrsna
sinteza napora prema strategijskim rješenjima u domeni zaštite okoliša i budu nosti
ovjeka na Zemlji. Rije je o izvješ u Svjetske komisije o okolišu i razvoju na temu
"Naša zajedni ka budu nost" (Our common future) iz 1987. god. koje se obi no po
voditeljici skupa naziva Brundtland izvješ e. Kut gledanja je tipi no zapadni - u tome
nema dvojbe, ali je to i prednost. Zapadna civilizacijska mjerila su jama no i dovela do
niza ekoloških problema ali istovremeno taj isti Zapad jedini ima objektivne snage da te
probleme i riješi.
Brundtland izvješ e je kompilacija rada nekoliko stotina glavnih autora pa i nije sasvim
sistemati an materijal ali se mogu prepoznati glavne preporuke o kojima je postignut
visok stupanj suglasnosti:
1) Nije mogu e odvojiti ekonomski razvoj od problema vezanih za okoliš. Ekonomski
napredak se ne smije realizirati na ra un šteta u okolišu, ali se ni problemi okoliša
dugoro no ne mogu rješavati bez stabilnog ekonomskog razvoja.
2) Kvalitetno upravljanje okolišem mogu e je bez posebnih odricanja u domeni razvoja
i standarda življenja.
3) Iz navedenog slijedi i osnova koncepcije tzv. održivog razvoja (sustainable
development). To je takav razvoj koji udovoljava potrebama sadašnjih generacija ne
ugrožavaju i mogu nost budu ih generacija da realiziraju svoje potrebe.
Brundtland izvješ e ne predstavlja posebnu revoluciju u poimanju problema kojim se
bavi, ali je pružilo dobre mogu nosti za osmišljavanje upravljanja okolišem s pomo u
sustava operativnih postupaka za realizaciju koncepcije održivog razvoja. U kona noj
realizaciji ono pruža i mogu nost za postupno uklju enje i tzv. ekocentri nih na ela i
drugih nužnih modifikacija vezanih za postindustrijski razvoj.
Upravljanje okolišem kao glavna pretpostavka koncepcije održivog razvoja svodi se u
krajnjoj konsekvenci na problem upravljanja rizikom pri emu su glavni parametri za
ocjenu rizika zdravlje i život ljudi te kvaliteta okoliša.
U kompleksnom svijetu ništa se ne može promatrati izolirano jer je sve sa svim u
neposrednoj ili posrednoj vezi. Nijedna vrsta ni pojedinac ne žive u idealnim uvjetima.
Povremeno se, nakratko, slijedom slu ajnih okolnosti ali sve više i kao posljedica djelatnosti ovjeka, stvore gotovo idealni uvjeti za pojedinu populaciju pa ako se radi o
vrstama s kratkim reprodukcijskim ciklusom dolazi do prave populacijske eksplozije u
vrlo kratkom vremenu (npr. naglo bujanje algi, nekih insekata i glodavaca). Nužno je
uo iti da dolasku neke populacije u izrazito povoljne uvjete prethode uvijek izrazito
nepovoljni uvjeti za razvoj nekih drugih populacija. Radikalna promjena u prirodnoj
ravnoteži do koje dolazi u takvim slu ajevima može dovesti do bitnih promjena u
strukturi ekosustava ako se radi o sistematskom kontinuiranom poreme aju s visokim
energetskim potencijalom. Mnoge takve poreme aje generira ovjek svojom aktivnoš u.
Problemi zaštite okoliša, a time izravno i posredno i ljudskog zdravlja i života ne mogu
se rješavati bez temeljnog konsenzusa o nekim suštinskim pitanjima. Nažalost, malo je
postignuto unato izvjesnim naporima. Ogromna ratna razaranja s milijunima žrtava,
glad i nemaština u jednom dijelu nasuprot nerazumnom uništavanju prirodnih i
novostvorenih vrijednosti u drugom dijelu svijeta glavne su iako ne i jedine zapreke u
koncipiranju rješenja za suštinske probleme.
Ako se ipak prevladaju problemi na suštinskom planu, ostaje kao glavni problem niz
takti kih aktivnosti u svakodnevnom životu. Te su aktivnosti ograni enog dometa, ali
pragmati ne; one ništa bitno ne rješavaju ali puno pomažu. "Misli globalno, djeluj
lokalno" poznata je maksima koja je svojevremeno mobilizirala brojne ekološke pokrete
i skupine pa i najširu javnost na problemima zaštite okoliša. Mobilizacija javnosti je
ubrzala mnoge pozitivne procese ali je proizvela i niz negativnosti (štetnu politizaciju na
problemima zaštite okoliša, ignoriranje stru nih mišljenja u odnosu na percepciju rizika
od strane javnosti i sl.). Op i je rezultat ipak pozitivan, jer se u posljednjih nekoliko
decenija u sagledavanju problema i u konkretnim aktivnostima napravilo izuzetno
mnogo. Može se ak govoriti i o bitnoj prekretnici u razmišljanju o klju nim
problemima što bi u doglednoj budu nosti moglo rezultirati i pozitivnim pomacima na
strategijskom planu.
Upravljanje zaštitom okoliša uvijek se svodi na problem izbora izme u više scenarija, a
u suštini tog procesa je uvijek ekonomska analiza koja treba da riješi problem
optimalnog usmjeravanja ograni enih sredstava. To je ona nužna veza izme u
ekonomskog razvoja i rješavanja problema okoliša. Naime, problem ograni enih
sredstava se uvijek javlja jer kad ga ne bi bilo mogle bi se riješiti sve inicijative, a to bi
zna ilo postojanje idealne situacije koja proturije i svim zakonima prirode. Idealno je
stanje u realnom svijetu ustvari stanje dinami ke ravnoteže (neravnoteže) koje u sebi
kao glavnu pretpostavku ima mogu nost izbora.
Ako je dakle u suštini koncepcije upravljanja okolišem problem ekonomske analize i
ograni enih sredstava s jedne strane te mogu nost (nužnost) izbora s druge strane,
nužno je uo iti da problem upravljanja rizikom nije akademsko nego sasvim prakti no
(realno) pitanje te da mora biti osnova za sve organizacijske, stru ne i zakonodavne
funkcije države i svake druge zajednice u ovoj domeni. Koncept omogu uje da prije
kona nog izbora budu analizirane, vrednovane i uspore ene sve varijante pri emu rizik
predstavlja mjeru za kvalitetu pojedine varijante pa je time postignuta mogu nost da se
razni problemi vezani za okoliš mjere na jedinstven na in.
U takvom sveobuhvatnom postupku Procjena utjecaja na okoliš, te njen glavni
dokument Studija o utjecaju na okoliš imaju odlu uju u ulogu. To je postupak koji u
svojoj biti uklju uje sve bitne dionike u razvoju nekog gospodarskog projekta u jednom
demokratskom sustavu: investitora, konzultanta (stru nu pomo ), državnu upravu i
javnost. Svi oni u tom postupku imaju svoje mjesto i odgovornosti. U suštini procjene
utjecaja na okoliš nalaze se svi elementi nužni za postizanje globalnog cilja, a to je
održivi razvoj u svim ljudskim aktivnostima kako na lokalnoj tako i na regionalnoj,
kontinentalnoj i globalnoj razini.
Razvoj i primjena koncepta rizika suo eni su s nizom problema koji e se ukratko
elaborirati u nastavku ovoga teksta. To nas ne smije obeshrabriti jer alternativa gotovo
da ne postoji. Ako se kona na sredstva (mogu nosti, energija, novac) potroše na
probleme nižeg prioriteta to mora biti na ra un rješavanja problema s višim prioritetom i
posljedica e biti da e ukupni rizik ostati viši nego je to mogu e posti i. Ako se izbor
prioriteta obavi dosljedno na bazi koncepta upravljanja rizikom, ukupni e rizik za
ljudsko zdravlje i život te za globalne ekosustave biti smanjen na optimalan na in, a to
je najviše što se u realnim uvjetima može posti i.
Nakon pojave NEPA-e u SAD-u javila se i nužnost da se kao dio studija o utjecaju na
okoliš razmotri i utjecaj mogu ih najtežih nezgoda osobito na nuklearnim elektranama.
Broj nuklearnih elektrana s po etka 70-tih bio je u SAD-u ve znatan pa su se javili i
prvi glasovi zabrinutosti zbog mogu e velike nezgode. Iako se vjerovalo da je
pojedina na nezgoda najtežeg oblika i s njom povezano ispuštanje radioaktivnosti
doga aj izuzetno male vjerojatnosti, s pove anim brojem objekata opasnost je rasla i
smatralo se da može prije i tolerantne granice. Stoga je 1972. god. inicirana izrada
studije koja je na osnovi ve prikupljenog znatnog iskustva u radu nuklearnih elektrana
pokušala sistematskom analizom odrediti mjeru opasnosti tj. rizik mogu ih nezgoda na
pojedinoj nuklearnoj elektrani.
Kasnije, krajem 70-tih i po etkom 80-tih godina pažnja se po ela poklanjati i velikim
industrijskim nezgodama, pa se iskustvo u analizi rizika te stvorene metode iz
nuklearnog podru ja prenose postupno i na konvencionalne gospodarske objekte. U toj
domeni problematika postaje znatno kompleksnija. Umjesto jednog parametra radioaktivnosti javljaju se kao uzro nik rizika mnoge tvari i spojevi s bitno razli itim
mogu im posljedicama. K tome, ve ina tih tvari nije dovoljno prou ena pa su podaci o
odnosu izme u doze i posljedica po zdravlje i život ljudi te okoliš još i danas za mnoge
od njih velika nepoznanica.
Isprva je samo akutna otrovnost bila predmet analize, ali postupno su utvr eni i mnogo
opasniji efekti vezani esto i uz male doze u duljem periodu: kroni na otrovnost,
mutagenost, kancerogenost i teratogenost. Dok su manje doze zra enja ocijenjene kao
gotovo neopasne za biološki svijet mnogi kemijski spojevi predstavljaju zna ajnu
opasnost i u toj domeni.
Osim toga pokazalo se da rizik od svakodnevnih, kontinuiranih, rutinskih emisija može
biti usporediv pa ak i znatno ve i od rizika vezanih za mogu e nezgode.
Razvoj koncepta procjene utjecaja na okoliš u EU
Koncept procjene utjecaja na okoliš brzo se iz SAD-a proširio po svijetu pa i po
pojedinim europskim državama. Prvi dokument u EU regulativi kojim se propisuje i
regulira procjena utjecaja odre enih javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš datira iz 1985.
(Council Directive 85/337/EEC). Dokument je dopunjen 1997. (97/11/EC), 2003.
(2003/35/EC) i 2009. (2009/31/EC).
Me utim, ve nakon prvih iskustava postalo je evidentno da koncept procjene utjecaja
na okoliš primijenjen samo na pojedini projekt, kolikogod bio nužan, ima i bitne
nedostatke. Naime, pokazalo se da je koncept procjene utjecaja na okoliš potrebno
primijeniti i u fazama izrade temeljnih, strateških, planskih dokumenata te osobito
tijekom izrade prostorno-planske dokumentacije posebno u vezi s izborom lokacija
velikih energetskih, industrijskih i infrastrukturnih projekata. Nadalje, osobito u
vode im europskim, uglavnom gusto naseljenim zemljama s razmjerno velikom
gusto om energetskih i industrijskih objekata, promatranje samo jednoga projekta, a
zanemarivanje kumulativnih efekata ostalih koji se nalaze u relativnoj blizini nije
davalo odgovaraju i rezultat. Pojavio se i problem prekograni nih utjecaja, npr. vrlo
rano se spoznalo da glavni utjecaj emisije SO2 i nekih drugih plinova nije samo na
lokalnom podru ju nego se može protezati stotinama i tisu ama kilometara od izvora
emisije. Zakiseljavanje nordijskih jezera i njihova nagla biološka degradacija te ubrzano
propadanje šuma na nekim podru jima bili su posljedica uzroka koji su se nalazili
stotinama kilometara daleko. Gomilanje nekih plinova u atmosferi te s tim povezane
mogu e promjene energetske bilance Zemlje posljedica su emisija CO2, CH4 i nekih
drugih plinova na cijelom podru ju Zemlje. Sli no je i s degradacijom zaštitnog
ozonskog sloja u stratosferi.
Dakle, zbog kompleksnosti pojedinih utjecaja te mnogih sinergisti kih u inaka nije
dovoljno analizirati pojedini objekt ili samo pojedini medij nego je nužna simultana
analiza mnogo širega podru ja i svih medija (zrak, voda, tlo, biološke zajednice itd.). U
tom smislu je zna ajna pojava Strateške procjene utjecaja na okoliš koja se ne odnosi na
konkretni projekt nego na mnogo širi sustav, u kona nosti na bitne planove i programe
koji u sebi sadrže i uskla uju mnoge pojedina ne projekte.
Sam koncept je generiran u SAD-u 1981, (Area-wide Impact Assessment Guidebook), a
u Europi se razvio kroz Konvenciju o prekograni nom utjecaju na okoliš (Espoo
Convention) te kona no u direktivi 2001/42/EC. Glavni cilj te EU smjernice, koja se
popularno zove SEA direktiva, je uklju enje, na osnovi temeljne koncepcije održivog
razvoja, procjene utjecaja na okoliš u postupke pripreme i usvajanja planova i programa
koji bi mogli imati zna ajan utjecaj na okoliš.
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš, bilo da se radi o pojedina nim projektima ili o strateškoj
procjeni, u zapadnim zemljama uvijek je uklju ivala i socijalnu komponentu i javnost
(kroz mehanizme javne rasprave, javnog uvida i sl.). Komunikacija s javnoš u kao
institucionalna i obvezuju a aktivnost od samoga po etka je bila jedna od osnovnih
zna ajki svakog postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš. U tom smislu je posebno zna ajan
dokument “Konvencija o pristupu informacijama, sudjelovanju javnosti u odlu ivanju i
pristupu pravosu u u pitanjima okoliša” usvojen na IV. ministarskoj konferenciji
“Okoliš za Europu” održanoj u lipnju 1998. u Aarhusu u Danskoj. Aarhuška
konvencija1 promovira aktivno sudjelovanje u procjenama utjecaja na okoliš i u
donošenju odluka o okolišu svih dijelova društva te demokratsku suradnju tijela javnih
vlasti, predstavnika civilnog društva i zainteresiranih pojedinaca.
Provo enje procjene utjecaja na okoliš pri licenciranju pojedinih projekata dovelo je s
vremenom i do vrlo zna ajnog napretka u razvoju odgovaraju ih tehnoloških i tehni kih
poboljšanja struktura, sustava i komponenata važnih u zaštiti okoliša tako da su danas
vrijednosti emisija štetnih tvari i njihovi štetni utjecaji u energetici, prometu,
poljoprivredi i industriji nekoliko puta ili ak nekoliko desetaka puta niži nego što su
bili prije 30-40 godina. U tom smislu je indikativna tzv. direktiva o industrijskim
emisijama (IED, 2010/75/EU) koja je objedinila nekoliko srodnih smjernica nastalih u
razdoblju 1996-2008 od kojih je najpoznatija bila tzv. IPPC direktiva (96/61/EC i
2008/1/EC). Glavnu podlogu za primjenu IED-a predstavlja niz referentnih dokumenata
(BREF) koji analiziraju i prezentiraju najbolje raspoložive tehnike u smanjenju emisija
glavnih postrojenja s potencijalnim utjecajem na okoliš. S tim u vezi razvio se i koncept
tzv. okolišne dozvole kojom se utvr uju mogu a tehnološka rješenja ne samo za nove
objekte nego i za rekonstrukciju i dogradnju postoje ih objekata.
Na taj na in postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš postaje i promotor razvoja novih
rješenja uskla enih s koncepcijom održivog razvoja kao s osnovnom pretpostavkom.
1
Republika Hrvatska usvojila je Konvenciju odmah nakon donošenja, 1998, a
ratificirala ju je 2006.
Razvoj koncepta procjene utjecaja na okoliš u Hrvatskoj
U Hrvatskoj se briga o zaštiti okoliša pojavila vrlo rano, skoro u isto vrijeme kad i u
najrazvijenijim zemljama. Glavni razlog tome je vrlo intenzivna izgradnja niza
energetskih i industrijskih objekata u 70-tim godinama prošlog stolje a po suvremenim
svjetskim standardima pa i u pogledu zaštite okoliša. Dva su velika i reprezentativna
objekta bila pod izravnim utjecajem iz SAD-a (NE Krško i DINA na Krku), zaštita
zraka se tradicionalno ravnala po vrlo strogim njema kim propisima (TA Luft), a imali
smo i vlastite kvalitetne prodore u zaštiti prirode i voda, u kogeneracijskim energetskim
objektima sa spojnom proizvodnjom elektri ne energije i topline itd.
U regulativi koja se odnosi na zaštitu okoliša, koja je i u to doba uglavnom bila
generirana u Hrvatskoj, imali smo ve u 1972. Rezoluciju o zaštiti ovjekove sredine
(NN 27/72), Zakon o vodama (NN 53/74) s propisima o kategorizaciji i klasifikaciji
voda (NN 15/81), Zakon o zaštiti prirode (NN 54/76, “Djelatnost zaštite prirode od
posebnog je društvenog interesa”). Još ranije, doneseni su dokumentu u vezi sa zaštitom
zraka – Osnovni zakon o zaštiti zraka od zaga ivanja iz 1965. s preporukama i mjerama
za provo enje (NN 41/69). Niz, još i ranije donesenih zakonskih dokumenata odnosio se
na proglašenje nacionalnih parkova – Plitvi ka jezera i Paklenica (NN 84/49, 34/65),
Risnjak (NN 43/53), dio otoka Mljeta (NN 49/60), Kornati (NN 31/80) te drugih
objekata zaštite prirode – Kopa ki rit, Velebit, Biokovo, Lokrum, šuma Dundo na Rabu
itd.
Na temelju tih po etnih aktivnosti i kao rezultat prikupljenih iskustava kona no je, u
Zakonu o prostornom planiranju i ure enju prostora (NN 54/80), propisana izrada
Studije o utjecaju na okoliš:
…“svako gra enje kao i obavljanje drugih radova na površini odnosno iznad ili ispod
površine zemlje, vode ili mora kojim se mijenja stanje u prostoru mora biti u skladu s
uvjetima ure enja prostora”.
“ Za objekte ijim bi se gra enjem, upotrebom ili tehnologijom rada mogle narušiti
vrijednosti ovjekove okoline ili koji bi nepovoljno djelovali na razvoj drugih
djelatnosti, odnosno na zdravlje ljudi kao i na objekte odre ene posebnim propisima,
uvjeti ure enja prostora utvr uju se, u skladu s posebnim uvjetima zaštite okoline,
nakon što je Investitor pribavio studiju o utjecaju tog gra enja, upotrebe objekata ili
tehnologije radana postoje e stanje ovjekove okoline utvr ene prostornim planom”.
Nekoliko godina kasnije donesen je i Pravilnik o izradi Studije o utjecaju na okoliš (NN
31/84) kao detaljan provedbeni dokument koji je uklju io i stru nu ocjenu SUO,
sudjelovanje javnosti te na in donošenja ocjene o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš koja sadrži
uvjete i na ine zaštite okoliša te pra enje i monitoring tijekom rada.
U posljednjih skoro 30 godina postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš te položaj SUO u
pripremi investicijskih objekata mijenjao se i dopunjavao u raznim smjerovima. Glavne
promjene dogodile su se sredinom 90-tih, osnivanjem najprije Državne uprave za zaštitu
okoliša, a kasnije i Ministarstva za zaštitu okoliša kada su novelirani mnogi zakoni i
prate i dokumenti iz podru ja zaštite okoliša, te u posljednje vrijeme tijekom
uskla ivanja s regulativom EU u procesu pristupanja Republike Hrvatske Europskoj
Uniji.
Tijekom posljednjih petnaestak godina realiziralo se godišnje 50-80 SUO i stekla su se
vrlo vrijedna iskustva. Oko 50 tvrtki ima ovlaštenja za izradu SUO i sli nih dokumenata
zaštite okoliša.
Glavni izazovi u upravljanju zaštitom okoliša
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš za sve važnije gospodarske inicijative postala je u Republici
Hrvatskoj nezaobilazan postupak koji nema valjanu alternative. Pa ipak, baš zbog toga,
potrebno je imati u vidu stvarne i potencijalne izazove s kojima se postupak procjene
utjecaja na okoliš susre e u praksi. Dio tih problema se javlja, u manjoj ili ve oj mjeri, u
skoro svim zemljama, a dio je specifi an za situaciju u Republici Hrvatskoj.
Neki op i izazovi u provo enju procjene utjecaja na okoliš odnosno u upravljanju
zaštitom okoliša
Velike kvantitativne razlike izme u pojedinih utjecaja na okoliš
Pojedini utjecaji na okoliš mogu se razlikovati prema opsegu (dosegu) na lokalne,
regionalne, kontinentalne i globalne; prema karakteru mogu biti svakodnevni (rutinski),
povremeni (epizodni, akcidentalni) ili sasvim rijetki, prakti no neo ekivani; po trajanju
nepoželjnih posljedica mogu biti kratkotrajni (privremeni), dugotrajni ili vremenski
neograni eni, po mogu nosti asanacije posljedica mogu biti povratni ili nepovratni,
nadoknadivi i nenadoknadivi; kona no po vrsti mogu se podijeliti na zdravstvene (koji
se prioritetno ti u zdravlja ljudi) i ekološke (okolinske) koji se prvenstveno odnose na
okoliš. Mogle bi se prona i još neke mogu nosti klasifikacije. Pri uspore ivanju
pojedinih utjecaja na okoliš odnosno pri odre ivanju s njima povezanih rizika nužno je
uzeti u obzir navedene kvantitativne razlike. Budu i da se upravljanje okolišem, kao što
je ve re eno, svodi na ekonomsku analizu nije nebitan ni subjekt zainteresiran za
analizu. Razli iti rezultati e se dobiti ako se promatra jedna industrijska zona, regija,
cijela država ili kontinent. Tako npr. Problem emisije stakleni kog plina CO2 nije uop e
važan na lokalnoj razini ali na razini globalne analize može biti od najve eg utjecaja na
rezultate.
To je potpuno shvatljivo ako se podsjetimo da upravljanje rizikom (u ovom slu aju
zaštitom okoliša) zna i ustvari upravljanje sredstvima raspoloživim za smanjenje rizika
alociranim na razini pojedine zajednice. Ako se optimira trošenje lokalnih sredstava
(npr. prora unskih sredstava jednoga grada) logi no je da e rezultat biti razli it od
onoga koji je posljedica optimiranja npr. zajedni kog fonda na razini više država.
Primjeri lokalnog utjecaja su buka, neugodni mirisi, lokalno one iš enje zraka i vode,
otpad, opasnosti od industrijskih objekata. Na regionalnoj razini nastaju problemi vezani
za opasni otpad, eutrofikaciju, eroziju, zaga enje sulfatima i nitratima, degradacija
posebno zašti enih podru ja. Na kontinentalnoj razini su prisutni problemi izvora slatke
vode, smanjivanje tropskih šuma, kisele kiše (zakiseljavanje tla i voda), širenje pustinja
itd. Globalni utjecaji na okoliš uglavnom su vezani za klimatske promjene osobito zbog
intenziviranja tzv. efekta staklenika te na smanjenje ozonskog sloja u stratosferi. Uz to
idu i problemi one iš enja oceana te disperzija opasnih tvari s velikom perzistencijom u
biosferi.
Bez obzira na obuhvat analize veza izme u lokalnih i globalnih problema je vrlo
izražena. Lokalna analiza ne može zanemariti analize provedene na višoj skali budu i
da su rezultati tih analiza obi no ugra eni u regulativu, zakonodavstvo pojedine države
ili u važe e me unarodne sporazume. Montrealski sporazum iz 1987. s dopunom iz
1990. npr. regulira promet nekih tvari na globalnoj razini (npr. vodi smanjenju ili
eliminaciji freona, halona, tetraklormetana i trikloretana) pa se u lokalnoj analizi to
mora uzeti u obzir. S druge strane emisije nekih tvari mogu razli ito utjecati na razini
raznih skala obuhvata. Emisija SO2 utje e na lokalnoj razini izravno na osjetljive vrste
drve a te na ljude (iritiranjem dišnih organa i akutno na ljudsko zdravlje) ali isto tako
SO2 na regionalnoj ili ak kontinentalnoj skali vodi pretvorbom u atmosferi do stvaranja
sulfata koji su bitan element kiselih oborina. Ispuštanje metana (prirodnog plina) nema
ve u participaciju u lokalnom riziku ali u atmosferi stimulira stvaranje otrovnog ozona
na regionalnoj razini, a na globalnoj metan je izuzetno aktivan imbenik kao
"stakleni ki plin" te u eliminaciji ozona u stratosferi. Mnoge štetne tvari ispuštene u
okoliš brzo se razgrade, a neke druge dugo perzistiraju u okolišu i ugra uju se u žive
organizme pa tako ine štetu generacijama. Poznat je slu aj pesticida zvanog DDT koji
se ne upotrebljava ve valjda 50 godina, a još se nalazi u izvjesnoj koli ini prakti no u
svakom živom bi u na Zemlji. S druge strane ve ina modernih pesticida brzo se
razgra uju i opasnost od njih je znatno manja.
Velike razlike izme u pojedinih one iš uju ih tvari
Kad se govori o utjecaju na okoliš uvijek se misli na utjecaj ljudskih aktivnosti. Taj se
utjecaj uglavnom realizira emitiranjem štetnih tvari iz industrije, energetike, prometa,
poljoprivrede te kao rezultat egzistencijalnih ljudskih potreba (prehrana, stanovanje,
grijanje i sl.). Emisije se doga aju u zrak ili vode ili budu zadržane u tlu. Pritom su
migracije emitiranih tvari izme u pojedinih medija vrlo este: iz zraka u vode i tlo
taloženjem, iz tla u vode migracijom, ispiranjem, procje ivanjem, iz vode u zrak
ishlapljivanjem, iz vode na tlo plavljenjem itd. Aktivnosti zaštite okoliša na sektorskom
principu esto uop e ne rješavaju problem nego samo preraspodjeljuju one iš enje iz
jednog medija u drugi; odsumporavanje dimnih plinova termoelektrana smanjit e
one iš enja zraka ali može pove ati one iš enje voda ili tla, spaljivanje otpada smanjit
e optere enje tla i voda, a pove at e one iš enje zraka.
Nepovoljan utjecaj na okoliš te pove anje ukupnog rizika može se realizirati i bez
posebnog emitiranja štetnih tvari. Jedna od takvih aktivnosti je kr enje tropskih šuma i
uop e smanjenje šumskih prostora, na lokalnoj i regionalnoj razini to može biti
prekomjerno izlovljavanje ribe ili uništavanje divlja i. Razni radovi na rijekama
(hidroelektrane, natapanje, pove anje plovnosti, zaštita od poplava i sl.) mogu tako er
izuzetno nepovoljno utjecati na okoliš izravnim mijenjanjem ekoloških parametara na
lokalnoj, regionalnoj pa ak i kontinentalnoj razini. Poznato je npr. da je izgradnjom
brane na Nilu došlo do izvjesnih promjena na cijelom mediteranskom podru ju.
U procjeni utjecaja na okoliš estose javljaju emisije više štetnih tvari istovremeno.
Nužno svo enje razli itih utjecaja na “zajedni ki nazivnik” može biti vrlo kompliciran i
zahtjevan zadatak.
Neizvjesnosti u procjeni rizika
Rezultati procjene rizika (risk assessment) su stru na potpora u postupku upravljanja
okolišem. Upravljanje rizikom je širi pojam koji obuhva a u sebi sve politi ke, socijalne
i osobito ekonomske imbenika nužne u donošenju ispravnih odluka.
U postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš obi no se razlikuju etiri koraka: 1) procjena
opasnosti (hazard identification), 2) procjena odnosa izme u doze i posljedica (doseresponse assessment) pri emu se pojam doze mora shvatiti vrlo op enito kao potencijal
tj. mjera poreme aja, npr. doza se može izraziti kao koli ina štetne tvari unesene u
organizam ali i kao udarni val - pri eksploziji ili kao gusto a toplinskog toka pri požaru
itd, 3) procjena izlaganja nepovoljnim efektima (exposure assessment), 4) odre ivanje
rizika (risk characterization).
U svakom od ovih koraka ugra ena je izvjesna neizvjesnost u prosudbi koja se ne može
izbje i. Istraživa ki napori osobito posljednjih desetak godina bitno su smanjili te
neizvjesnosti u mnogim detaljima. Me utim, mnogi problemi još uvijek ostaju.
a) Neizvjesnost u procjeni opasnosti
Opasnost predstavlja fizi ku situaciju s potencijalom za ugrožavanje života i zdravlja
ljudi, okoliša i materijalnih dobara. Rizik je vjerojatnost da se dogodi odre eni
nepoželjni doga aj u odre enom periodu ili u specificiranim uvjetima. Opasnost se
obi no ne realizira s maksimalnim potencijalom. Obi no vrijedi pravilo da je
vjerojatnost realizacije opasnog doga aja tim manja što je realizirani potencijal
opasnosti bliže maksimalnom. To je gotovo to no ako se radi o opasnostima koje se
ravnaju po tzv. prirodnim zakonitostima (npr. opasnost od potresa). U tehni kim
sustavima ne mora biti tako iako se projektnim rješenjima u pravilu tome teži, npr.
vjerojatnost pucanja velike cijevi u jednom tehni kom sustavu redovito je manja od
vjerojatnosti pucanja manje cijevi.
Opasnost se uglavnom može dobro procijeniti ako se radi o klasi nim opasnostima s
akutnim mogu im posljedicama (npr. eksplozija, požar, akutno trovanje i sl.). Mnogo je
teže procijeniti opasnosti od kroni nih efekata uklju uju i kancerogeni, mutageni i
teratogeni potencijal neke tvari te opasnosti za pojedine organe.
Ocjene opasnosti od neke tvari baziraju se obi no na testovima na životinjama. Takvi
testovi su izuzetno korisni jer je mogu e promatrati izoliranu pojedinu tvar ali i
sinergisti ke i antogonisti ke efekte raznih tvari. Glavni problem proizlazi iz
elementarne injenice da se životinjski biološki sustavi razlikuju od ljudskih. Stoga
pokusne životinje mogu biti osjetljive na neku tvar mnogo više nego ovjek i obrnuto.
Aspirin se npr. pokazao kao vrlo snažan teratogen za glodavce dok je za ovjeka
potpuno neopasan. Postoje, nažalost i obrnuti slu ajevi. Talidomid kao sredstvo za
pomo u trudno i pokazao je izuzetno slaba teratogena svojstva na životinjama, a u
primjeni na ljudima je svojevremeno rezultirao pravom katastrofom. U biljnom svijetu
tako er postoje velike razlike me u vrstama. Neke vrste drve a reagiraju nepovoljno
ve na koncentraciju SO2 u zraku od svega 60 µg/m3 dok druge vrste dobro podnose i
deset i više puta ve e koncentracije.
b) Neizvjesnost u procjeni odnosa izme u doze i posljedica
Ova tema predstavlja kvantifikaciju opasnosti i time je klju no podru je u procjeni
rizika. Neizvjenosti u ovoj domeni se izravno reflektiraju na usporedbu izme u raznih
rizika. Saznanja su i ovdje mnogo bolja ako se radi o akutnim efektima tj. o efektima
koji su posljedica velikih doza. Pri malim dozama koje su i naj eš e, a mogu dulje
trajati manje je saznanja. Pokusi na životinjama imaju i u ovoj domeni nekoliko
nedostataka koji su izvor neizvjenosti. To su problem ekstrapolacije i problem praga
neškodljivosti.
Podaci dobiveni u pokusima na životinjama i iz epidemioloških studija obi no se
odnose na doze koje su znatno iznad onih kojima su ljudi izloženi svakodnevno u
životnoj okolini ili na radnom mjestu. Ekstrapolacija na niže doze može biti
problemati na. S tim u vezi je i problem praga neškodljivosti kao one doze ispod koje
nema štetnih efekata.
Problematika radioaktivnog zra enja je najbolje istražena i tu je ve odavno prihva ena
hipoteza o nepostojanju praga neškodljivosti (ALARA princip - svaka doza zra enja je
opasna!) i o linearnoj povezanosti izme u doze i posljedica. Takva se pretpostavka kod
zra enja ini opravdanom jer zna enje napada izravno stanicu pa ve a doza zra enja
zna i istovremeno i ve i broj napadnutih stanica. Budu i da karcinogene i mutagene
tvari tako er primarno djeluju na stanicu prihva eno je i za njih po uzoru na radioaktivnost tako er linearna hipoteza te odsutnost praga neškodljivosti. Problem nastaje kod
tvari koje ne djeluju na stanicu odnosno pretežno na nju nego na pojedinu funkciju organizma ili na pojedini organ. Neurotoksi ni efekti povezani s olovom ili teratogeni efekti
povezani s glikol-eterima spadaju u ovu grupu. Za takve tvari ( esto se ozna avaju i kao
nekarcinogene) pretpostavka o nepostojanju praga neškodljivosti te o linearnoj vezi
izme u doze i posljedica ne bi se smjela prihvatiti2.
Postojanje praga neškodljivosti bitno komplicira procjenu rizika jer je odre ivanje praga
vrlo teško. S druge strane samo postojanje praga neškodljivosti ruši linearnu hipotezu pa
ekstrapolacija s viših na niže doze (na osnovi pokusa sa životinjama) i obrnuto (ako je
podloga u epidemiološkim studijama) postaje veliki problem a razilaženje u rezultatima
raznih autora vrlo veliko. Ostaje i dodatni op i problem razli ite osjetljivosti pokusnih
životinja i ljudi na pojedini otrov npr. nezgoda u Sevesu je pokazala da su ljudi mnogo
otporniji na djelovanje dioksina od pokusnih životinja ali ima i obrnutih slu ajeva.
Zbog navedenih neizvjesnosti u procjeni ovisnosti izme u doza i posljedica esto
ukupna metoda analize rizika dolazi pod znak pitanja osobito u komunikaciji s javnoš u
pa je zbog toga est slu aj da u formiranja regulative percepcija rizika od strane javnosti
dobiva ve u težinu od stru nih prosudbi koje ne mogu isklju iti široko podru je
neizvjesnosti ili se stru ne analize prihva aju ugra uju i u zakonska rješenja
najkonzervativnije pretpostavke.
c) Neizvjesnost u procjeni izloženosti nepovoljnim efektima
Ovaj korak u procjeni rizika je obi no manje problemati an ali je tako er izvor dijela
neizvjesnosti.
Procjena izloženosti se bazira na rezultatima mjerenja i na matemati kom modeliranju
problema te na njihovoj kombinaciji. Podaci mjerenja su obi no ograni eni po opsegu i
po trajanju, a ra unski modeli moraju uklju iti niz prirodnih karakteristika okolice te
opise pojedinih prirodnih pojava (disperzija, sorpcija, taloženje, kemijska stabilnost,
sinergisti ki i antagonisti ki efekti i sl.).
Antropocentri nost i ekocentri nost
"Sva dobra ovoga svijeta ne vrijede kao jedan ljudski život." Ova uzre ica bi se mogla
uzeti kao osnova antropocentri nog poimanja odnosa u prirodi. U skladu s tim
provedena metoda rizika prije svega vrednuje utjecaje na ljudski život i zdravlje, a
utjecaje na okoliš samo ako su oni izravno ili posredno od interesa za ljudsko zdravlje i
opstanak na Zemlji. Ostavljaju i po strani filozofsku pozadinu ovog problema, u
realnim analizama je posljedica takvog pristupa da okoliš (fizi ko i biološko okruženje
ovjeka) sami po sebi nemaju vrijednost. Op a povezanost svega na ograni enoj Zemlji
dovodi i do mogu eg zaklju ka da je sveukupno fizi ko i biološko okruženje ovjeka na
ovaj ili onaj na in s njim povezano. Briga o okolišu je stoga na globalnoj razini uvijek i
briga o ovjeku pa je svaki ekocentri ni koncept ustvari samo ispravna strategija u
antropocentri nom poimanju stvarnosti.
Problemi u vrednovanju nastaju na lokalnoj razini. Neupotrebljavani izvor pitke vode e
se manje vrednovati od onoga koji je vitalan za lokalno stanovništvo, šuma bukve manje
od šume hrasta, plemenita riba mnogo više od obi ne, kvaliteta vode u turisti kom
podru ju mnogo e se više cijeniti od kvalitete vode u nekoj luci i sl. Na razini
2
Nažalost, u nekim EU dokumentima, vjerojatno kao rezultat želje za
pojednostavnjenjem, nepostojanje praga neškodljivosti prihva eno je i u analizi utjecaja
nekih klasi nih emisija kao npr. sumpornog dioksida. Vrlo problemati ni rezultati
dobiveni na taj na in mogu predstavljati veliki problem u komunikaciji s javnoš u.
Nedavna intervencija Greenpeacea u slu aju Plomin predstavlja jedan takav primjer
kada jedan nepostoje i problem, zbog loše postavljenog modela i njegovih pretpostavki
te neodgovaraju e interpretacije rezultata, dovede do nepotrebnog uznemiravanja
javnosti.
ekonomske analize, koja se ne da izbje i jer je uvijek rije o ograni enim sredstvima,
problem je u tome što nitko ne želi s lokalno prikupljenim sredstvima rješavati globalne
probleme. Zbroj lokalnih optimuma ne predstavlja i globalni optimum.
Upravo je odnos izme u lokalnih i globalnih preferencija (a ne odnos izme u
antropocentri nog i ekocentri nog pristupa) klju an za stvaranje nužne osnove za
rješavanje svih problema zaštite okoliša.
Problem percepcije rizika od strane javnosti
Velik utjecaj na upravljanje zaštitom okoliša može imati i percepcija rizika od strane
javnosti. Danas je javnost zabrinuta zbog postojanja problema povezanih sa zaštitom
okoliša mnogo više nego ikada u prošlosti. Me utim, uglavnom vrijedi gotovo kao
pravilo da se redoslijed rješavanje problema tj. ocjena veli ine pojedinog rizika u
javnosti bitno razlikuje od rezultata provedenih istraživanja stru nih ekipa. Takva
razlika izme u percepcije rizika u javnosti i procjene rizika od stru nih osoba
predstavlja velik izazov i prili an problem u demokratskom društvu. Vlada i njena tijela
moraju uzeti u obzir mišljenje javnosti budu i da o tome ovisi i njihov opstanak na
vlasti. Ta injenica dovodi i do prakse da se zakonodavstvo i regulativa u podru ju
upravljanja rizikom esto oslanjaju mnogo više na mišljenje javnosti nego na stru ne
prosudbe. Na taj na in se i raspoloživa sredstva esto usmjeravaju uglavnom na one
probleme koji su diktirani javnim mišljenjem a stru ne analize ostaju u drugom planu.
Budu i da su stru ne analize uglavnom optere ene s mnogim neizvjesnostima i
neriješenim problemima rezultati nikada nisu dovoljno egzaktni da bi bili upravnim
tijelima dovoljna garancija u njihovoj svakodnevnoj aktivnosti. Problem percepcije
rizika u javnosti može se pokušati riješiti samo boljom komunikacijom izme u javnosti
i stru njaka te pove anjem me usobnog povjerenja. Kako bi se to postiglo nužno je
riješiti problem informiranja tj. stvoriti ispravan informativni sustav te problem
edukacije na najširoj osnovi. Nije potrebno naglašavati koliko je ulaganje u ispravno
informiranje i edukaciju javnosti koristan posao koji može znatno smanjiti razlike
izme u percepcije rizika od strane javnosti i rezultata stru nih analiza (ma kako one bile
nepotpune) te tako osigurati racionalnije gospodaranje sredstvima koja su namjenjena u
svrhu smanjivanja rizika.
Neki specifi ni problemi u vezi s procjenom utjecaja na okoliš u Hrvatskoj
Problemi pri izradi prostorno-planske dokumentacije
Iako se u Hrvatskoj u praksi i na regulatornom planu relativno rano afirmirala procjena
utjecaja na okoliš kao bitna aktivnost u donošenju investicijskih odluka i u licenciranju
krupnih gospodarskih inicijativa, strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš (SPUO) tek se
nedavno probila kao mogu nost, još uvijek sa skoro bezna ajnim utjecajem.
Problem se najve im dijelom osje a u nepostojanju SPUO u pripremi prostornih
planova i ostale prostorno-planske dokumentacije. S druge strane potpuna prostornoplanska dokumentacija je uvjet da se uop e može provesti procjena utjecaja na okoliš.
Budu i da postupak donošenja prostornih planova te njihova izmjena u pravilu traju vrlo
dugo, uklju ivanje nekog novog projekta u prostorno-plansku dokumentaciju može
trajati godinama s vrlo neizvjesnim ishodom. K tome, izrada prostorno-planske
dokumentacije skoro uvijek se veže uz sasvim konkretne lokalne preferencije pa se u
njih teško probijaju inicijative od šireg društvenog interesa. Kako se, uz to, pri izradi
prostornih planova ne primjenjuje SPUO, mogu e je, ak i vrlo vjerojatno, da mnoge
lokacije bitnih infrastrukturnih i ostalih ve ih projekata budu krivo odabrane, na temelju
oskudnih ili nikakvih prethodnih terenskih istraživanja i bez odgovaraju eg informiranja
javnosti.
Red je ovdje spomenuti jedan pozitivni projekt koji je imao sve elemente SPUO iako taj
koncept tada nikome nije bio na umu. Radi se o studiji “Prostorno planerske podloge,
istraživanja i ocjena podobnosti lokacija za termoelektrane i nuklearne objekte na
prostoru Hrvatske”. Studija je pokrenuta 1988. na inicijativu Hrvatske elektroprivrede
(tada: Zajednica elektroprivrednih organizacija Hrvatske, ZEOH), vodio ju je
Urbanisti ki institute Hrvatske u suradnji s desetak drugih renomiranih tvrtki.
Studija je imala sve elemente SPUO, vrlo dobru javnu prezentaciju, reviziju od
me unarodnih eksperata te vrlo intenzivnu potporu najviših tijela Republike Hrvatske.
Tako je ve u sije nju 1991. objavljena publikacija “Kriteriji za izbor lokacija za
termoelektrane i nuklearne objekte” s predgovorom predsjednika Vlade Republike
Hrvatske.
Studija je kona no usvojena u 1994. i predstavljala je podlogu (u podru ju kojim se
bavila) za izradu Strategije (1997.) i Programa prostornog ure enja Republike Hrvatske
(1998.).
Nažalost, otada se ništa bitno nije dogodilo, a još manje se realiziralo onoga što se u tim
dokumentima planiralo.
Zastoj u radu na prostorno-planskoj dokumentaciji, njena slaba kvaliteta naro ito u
odnosu na primjenu SPUO, este lokalne opstrukcije i veliki problem pri usvajanju
prostornih planova glavna su zapreka u implementaciji postupaka procjene utjecaja na
okoliš a time i u realizaciji korisnih gospodarskih projekata u skladu s koncepcijom
održivog razvoja.
Birokratiziranost postupka
Birokratiziranost postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš predstavlja od samih po etaka
veliki izazov i bitnu zapreku prema postizanju potrebne kvalitete postupka.
Postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš mora biti jednostavan I u inkovit. To mora biti
stalna aktivnost koja se svodi uglavnom na sljede e:
- bavljenje klju nim problemima;
- osiguranje nužne stru nosti na svim razinama;
- poticanje suštinskih umjesto formalnih analiza;
- osiguranje i kontrola kvalitete;
- izbjegavanje arbitraže na politi koj osnovi;
- ispravno informiranje javnosti o klju nim temama putem kvalificiranih osoba;
- eliminiranje voluntarizma, subjektivizma i neodgovornosti u postupku javne
rasprave;
- osiguranje striktnog poštivanja i provo enja zakonskih normi i ostale regulative.
Pad cijene i kvalitete potrebnih dokumenata
U posljednje vrijeme je evidentan pad cijene dokumentacije potrebne za procjenu
utjecaja na okoliš. Rezultat je to injenice što je uglavnom izbor konzultanta ovisan
samo o jednom parametru, a to je cijena. Budu i da uglavnom sadržaj posla nije
kvalitetno definiran (a ponekad to nije ni mogu e) reducira se sadržaj i po opsegu i
kvaliteti. Osobito se reducira opseg i kvaliteta istražnih radova nužnih za pripremu
dokumentacije. Investitori esto ne vide kako im takav stil dugoro no može škoditi jer
nedostaci i previdi u fazi procjene utjecaja na okoliš mogu pove ati troškove u kasnijim
fazama projekta.
Loša pozicija zaštite okoliša u sveu ilišnim programima
Izrada dokumentacije koja se odnosi na procjenu utjecaja na okoliš je multidisciplinarni
zadatak ali koji se ne može kvalitetno obaviti pukim sumiranjem priloga pojedinih usko
specijaliziranih stru njaka. Nažalost, upravo to je slu aj i to ne samo ako se radi o
autorima dokumentacije nego i o revidentima. Takav pristup, u kojemu se pojedini autor
brine samo za svoje podru je i ima svog revidenta s jednakim zadatkom, nije dobar jer
se upravo u me usektorskom, holisti kom pristupu nalazi bit i glavna kvaliteta studija o
utjecaju na okoliš i sli nih dokumenata.
Taj nedostatak je razmjerno rano uo en i u nas i u svijetu pa je koncem 70-tih planirana
u Hrvatskoj uspostava sveu ilišnih, uglavnom postdiplomskih studija u kojima bi se
polaznicima pružila na jednoj razmjerno visokoj razini osnovna znanja iz podru ja
zaštite okoliša. Planirano je da se na zagreba kom sveu ilištu na 7 fakulteta (PMF,
RGN, dva tehni ka fakulteta, ekonomski, filozofski i pravni) pokrenu odgovaraju i
studiji gdje bi se osnovna struka proširila sa znanjima iz drugih podru ja bitnih u zaštiti
okoliša.
Nažalost, program se donekle realizirao samo na PMF-u (Biološki odjel), a na drugim
fakultetima ponegdje i tek usput bez jasnog plana o tome što se želi posti i. Tako da ni
danas prakti no nemamo odgovaraju i priljev stru njaka specijaliziranih za vo enje
kompleksnih istraživanja, studijske i druge dokumentacije u podru ju zaštite okoliša.
Zbog toga nemamo ni u medijima novinare sa širim znanjima iz podru ja zaštite okoliša
pa je obrada nekih tema od razmjerno velikog javnog interesa esto površna,
neadekvatna, a nerijetko i potpuno pogrešna.
Zaklju ak
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš afirmirala se posljednjih nekoliko desetlje a u svijetu i u nas
kao kao jedna od glavnih aktivnosti u licenciranju industrijskih, energetskih,
poljoprivrednih, infrastrukturnih i op enito ve ih gospodarskih projekata.
Njen glavni dokument, Studija o utjecaju na okoliš, postala je stožerni dokument u
pripremi nekog projekta, prakti no jedini dokument u kojemu se u jednom propisanom
formalnom postupku ispreple u i uskla uju razmišljanja, stavovi i interesi svih
zainteresiranih glavnih dionika: investitora, državne uprave, konzultanta i javnosti.
Po etkom 70-tih godina prošlog stolje a kad se procjena utjecaja na okoliš posvuda u
svijetu po ela uvoditi kao organizirani formalni postupak, okoliš je u svijetu bio u vrlo
lošem stanju.
Danas je situacija neusporedivo bolja. Razvila su se vrlo efikasna tehni ka rješenja za
smanjenje emisije u zrak, za pro iš avanje otpadnih voda, za obradu otpada i sl. Danas
su projektirane specifi ne emisije SO2 i estica iz termoelektrana i do stotinu puta manje
od emisija sli nih objekata izgra enih prije 40 godina. Rijeka Sava je vrlo prihvatljive
II. kategorije, a kvaliteta zraka u Zagrebu i drugim ve im gradovima nije bitno lošija
nego u ruralnom prostoru Like i Gorskog kotara.
Postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš i studija o utjecaju na okoliš kao glavni dokument
te razvoj i implementacija odgovaraju e regulative odigrali su u tome klju nu ulogu.
Screening in Environmental Impact Assessment
Katarina Celi
Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje, Dunajska 22, Ljubljana, Slovenija ([email protected])
Abstract
Screening is a process by which we identify and justify the reasons for requiring an
environmental impact assessment (EIA). In EU Member States the obligation to
perform screening is based on Directive 2011/92/EU. EIAs must be carried out for all
project types listed in Annex I and for Annex II projects that exceed the thresholds laid
down by national law, in cases where the application of the criteria set out in Annex III
suggest that the project could have a significant impact on environment. The approach
varies from country to country. Upper and/or lower thresholds are being used, combined
with evaluation on a case by case basis. If a project reaches the threshold, an obligation
to perform the EIA is determined by applying the selection criteria. Due to incorrect
transposition and application of these provisions infringement procedures are already
taking place against some countries.
Slovenia has decided to set fixed national thresholds in order to establish an obligation
to perform the EIA, which in principle, the Directive enables. Nevertheless, the
European Commission pointed to the incorrect transposition of the Directive, and
Slovenia is modifying its Environmental Protection Act and establishing the obligation
of screening "case by case" for Annex II projects.
Since it has been proven that screening can also be an effective way to reduce the
number of EIA procedures, this phase of the procedure is significantly upgraded in the
recent EC proposal to amend the Directive.
Key words: EIA, screening, criteria, infringement, acquis
Introduction
The term screening is used in various fields, and can mean a systematic examination or
assessment, done especially to detect an unwanted substance or attribute; an activity of a
person who screens, as in ascertaining the qualifications of applicant; or testing objects
or persons in order to find out which are the ones that have special (desirable or
unwanted) features.
With regard to environmental impact assessment (hereinafter EIA) screening is defined
as "the process by which a decision is taken on whether or not an EIA is required for a
particular project" Error! Reference source not found.. Expressions for the screening
in EIA, used in some other European languages, have various meanings, from
vérification préliminaire in French, selezione in Italian, die Vorprüfung/
Umwelterheblichkeitsprüfung in German. In Slovenia various translations and terms
have been used so far: predhodno vrednotenje (ex-ante evaluation), predhodna
preveritev ( the previous procedure) and predpresoja (pre-assessment) . The official
term will be established once the amendments to the Act on Environment are adopted,
scheduled for 2013.
In the context of EIA, screening is a procedure in which for a proposed project the
reasons for the obligation to perform EIA are found, identified and justified. Screening
is therefore not an integral part of the EIA process but the two are inextricably linked.
This paper presents one of the reasons why the screening phase should be seriously
considered, both in national legislation and when dealing with each individual project.
Screening in the acquis3
Contrary to the belief that the screening requirement is laid down by Directive
2011/92/EUError! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found.
('the Directive'), it should be noted that the wording of the Directive does not contain
the term and does not explicitly require from Member States to carry it out.
The original text of the 1985 Directive, Article 4 Error! Reference source not found.
reads as follows:
“2. Projects of the classes listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an
assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider
that their characteristics so require. To this end Member States may inter alia
specify certain types of projects as being subject to an assessment or may
establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine which of the
projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be subject to an assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10.”
After the first five years of implementation of the Directive it has been established that
Member States have understood and implemented the above provisions very differently,
therefore in 1997, an amendment was made in the fourth Article:
“2. Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States
shall determine through:
(a) a case-by-case examination,
or
(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be
made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).”
Member States (hereinafter: MS) are therefore free to prescribe their own thresholds or
criteria to determine which projects have to be subject to EIA due to their possible
environmental impacts and are not required to carry out EIAs for projects that are below
these thresholds/criteria or when judged on a case by case basis, found to be outside of
these criteria. The term screening as we understand its meaning, therefore lies in the
Article 4 of the Directive in the term ”a case-by-case examination” .
Nevertheless, in certain documents of the European Commission (hereinafter: EC) there
are explanations which suggest that screening is a mandatory integral part of the process
in which the first step is to determine whether an EIA should be carried out for the
projects listed in Annex II, and that this step is called screening, which includes the case
by-case examination as well as setting national thresholds or criteria on the basis of the
selection criteria set out in Annex III.
The most important thing in both approaches is to use uniform selection criteria to be
considered when implementing screening in a) or in setting thresholds or criteria
3
acquis communautaire: the accumulated legislation, legal acts, and court decisions which
constitute the body of European Union law.
referred to in point b) above. These criteria are set out in the Directive, Annex III, and
relate to the characteristics of the project and its impacts and the location of the project.
However, 12 years after the amended Directive, MSs still haven’t unified their approach
in deciding which projects should be subject to EIAError! Reference source not
found.. There are still major differences among the types of projects, levels of
thresholds and criteria set by the MSs in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
In determining thresholds they are often beyond the limits of their discretion, as is
apparent from the judgments of the European Court of Justice Error! Reference source
not found.. Considerable differences among countries in this respect are shown
eloquently by the details of the performed EIAs (see table).
The Directive was amended again in 2003, in order to comply with the Aarhus
Convention on Public Participation4.
The amendment stipulated that Member States should ensure that the determinations of
the competent authorities referred to in Article 4(2) are available to the public, with
"public" meaning "one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national
legislation or practice, their associations, organizations or groups."
Implementation of the Directive and screening practices in EU Member States
In the period 2005-2008 19 MSs carried out 12.505 EIAs, the estimation for EU-27
being 15.829 EIAs per year Error! Reference source not found. 27.400 to 33.800
screening procedures are estimated to be carried out yearly in this period for projects
listed in Annex II. 5-10% of all screening decisions were positive, which means that the
decision made EIA obligatory.
Number of EIA procedures varies considerably from country to country:
- less than 30 EIA procedures per year are performed in Malta, Latvia and
Austria;
- between 100 and 500 EIA procedures per year are performed in the Czech
Republic, Sweden, Greece and Hungary;
- more than 1,000 EIA procedures per year are performed in Germany, Spain,
Italy, France and Poland.
Table 1. Data on the introduction of EIA by MSs
Only
Combination
Screening
thresholds screening/thresholds decisions/year5
average 2005/2008
AT
*
96
BE *(Wallon) *(Fland+Bruss)
2337
CY
*
58
CZ
*
1610
DE
*
2200
DK
*
2500
EE
*
/
4
EIA/year6
average 2005/2008
23
183
117
96
1000
125
80
The European Community signed the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters (the Aarhus Convention) on 25 June 1998 and ratified it on 17 February 2005.
5
6
Only Annex II projects
Annex I and Annex II projects
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
SE
SI ii
SK
UK
i
ii
*
*
*7
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
36
0
/
613
/
/
/
/
710
62 8
/
4400
0
/
0
476
2745
1054
38
3867
425
152
197
/
/
/
11
10
123
4000
/
/
58
670
334
source for all MSs except SI: Error! Reference source not found.
source: Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Slovenia
Based on the data provided by some MSs carrying out screening Error! Reference
source not found., it is clear that the share of EIAs introduced on the basis of screening
varies significantly: from 1% in Belgium and 25% in Latvia to 50% in Poland and 90%
in Cyprus. The average share is 19%. We can guess what influences such differences
among countries:
- The chosen method of determining the EIA obligation,
- Level of set thresholds/criteria,
- In the case of countries with set thresholds without screening - the possibility of
avoiding the EIA by dividing the project into smaller units below threshold.
Most countries have opted for a combined approach in deciding which projects listed in
Annex II will be subject to an EIA. They have therefore prescribed lists with the types
of projects and thresholds above which EIA should be carried out or thresholds below
which EIA and screening need not be conducted, or a combination of both types of lists.
Only a few countries use only the set thresholds and do not carry out case-by-case
examinations, these are: Slovenia, France, Malta, Portugal and the Walloon part of
Belgium. Information on how MS are implementing Article 4(2) and data on screening
and EIA procedures by MS (with the exception of Romania and Bulgaria) are shown in
above Table 1.
Details on national systems in some MS carrying out screening are presented below. We
were interested in particular in:
- How a procedure starts and on whose initiative,
- How a decision-making process is organized and which are the competent
authorities,
7
France has since then already changed the legislation on EIA
The figure should be taken with reserve, as cited study also states that Malta is not
carrying out screenings
8
-
What is the time frame for a competent authority to decide in a screening
procedure,
The arrangements for legal protection and rights of the public,
Whether a screening decision has a limited period of validity,
The information on which the competent authority shall take the screening
decision.
Procedures and requirements for screening in all four countries of United Kingdom
(England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) are almost identical. They differ in
some details, such as the time limit for issuing a decision and the competent authorities.
The provisions of the EIA are set out in the sectoral rules (for local land use planning,
agriculture, forestry, water management, etc.) for each country separately and
specifically for national infrastructure projects.
A screening decision can be challenged. The appellate body may decide otherwise or
the same, subject to the same criteria for decision-making. Actions are also possible
with the Supreme Court, if compliance with the administrative provisions of the EIA
process is not met. If the competent authority does not issue an opinion within the
prescribed time limit, the applicant may also appeal to the appellate body.
The competent authority in England to decide on an EIA procedure when it comes to
town and country planning is the planning authority. In this procedure, the authority
makes an assessment on the basis of its own data, thresholds and criteria and the
information provided by the applicant. The competent authority shall issue a screening
opinion which must be clearly and accurately explained, to the applicant within 3
weeks. This timeframe may be extended in agreement with the applicant. If the opinion
is not issued in time or if the applicant does not agree with it, he can request a
ministerial decision. The Minister shall issue their scoping decision within 3 weeks. The
Minister may also initiate the procedure on their initiative or at the written request of
any other person. The EIA shall be imposed if the competent authority determines that:
- the project is listed on the Schedule 1 (consistent with Annex I of the Directive),
or
- that the project is listed on the Schedule 2 (consistent with Annex II of the
Directive, with the exception of certain projects, covered by other special rules)
and that
- any part of the project is located in a sensitive area (area of protected nature and
landscapes, parks, natural features, cultural heritage, Natura 2000, etc.), or that
- any relevant criterion from Schedule 3 (consistent with Annex III of the
Directive) is reached or exceeded.
When it comes to projects in agriculture (land restructuring), the competent authority
in England is Natural England, a public non-governmental institution in charge of the
protection of nature. Appeal against their screening opinion is provided for. If a project
does not start within 3 years from the issue of the opinion its validity expires. In Wales,
Welsh Ministers are the body responsible for this field and they also decide on the
appeal. Action with the Supreme Court is also possible. Scottish Government is the
competent authority in Scotland and the only action possible against its screening
decisions is with the Sheriff.
When it comes to forestry projects (initial afforestation, deforestation, forest roads and
forest quarries) the competent authorities for screening are Forestry Commission (in the
territory of England and Scotland), the Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (Northern Ireland) and Natural Resources Wales, which must issue their
opinion within 28 days. The appellate body is the minister responsible for the
environment (in the case of England and Scotland) or the National Assembly for Wales,
which also have a 28 days deadline for a decision. Screening opinions and decisions in
the field of forestry are valid no longer than 5 years if the project has not been
developed until then, or even less, depending on the decision of the competent authority.
State infrastructure projects are governed by a separate regulation, which sets the
Secretary of State as a competent authority for screening, in line with the general
provisions on the planning of projects that are of national importance. The Planning
Inspectorate carries out certain functions related to national infrastructure planning on
behalf of the Secretary of State.
In Denmark Error! Reference source not found., the developer files a request along
with the project plan to the locally competent authority to decide whether an EIA should
be carried out for the project. If the project is listed in Schedule 1, the assessment is
always required. If the project is listed in Schedule 2, the authority shall carry out
screening, determining possible significant effects on the environment. Projects in the
areas of intensive livestock farming are prevailing. Once all the necessary information is
collected, one day is enough to decide. The aim of the competent authorities is for the
decision process to be completed within a maximum of two weeks. Screening decisions
should be made public, and within 4 weeks, anyone can challenge this decision by
appealing to the national appeal body. Every year more than 2000 screening decisions
are issued and about 200 complaints are filed. About 25 officers in 12 counties are
employed to perform screening. Denmark also believes that screening greatly improves
projects before they are submitted for approval, or they are even improved by the
process of screening itself resulting in only 4% of obligatory Annex II EIAs.
The screening procedure in Germany Error! Reference source not found. is initiated
either at the request of the developer or at the request of the authority responsible for
approval of the project. If the law requires screening for a particular type of project, EIA
is carried out only if the competent authority considers that this project could have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. To determine the obligation for EIA a
sufficient reason is a justified expectation of a significant adverse impact on the
environment; submitting detailed evidence is not required. Thresholds are specified in a
single table, with three different thresholds that can be set for a type of project: 1) EIA
is always required, 2) EIA is required if the medium threshold is reached and the
selection criteria fulfilled and 3) EIA is required if minimum threshold is reached and
project located in a sensitive area.
The competent authority carries out screening on the basis of their own information and
project data submitted by the developer. The developer is obliged to participate.
Acquisition of expertise is generally not required. In justified cases, the opinion of other
authorities and a field visit may be necessary. Screening is carried out as soon as
possible and without delay. The evaluation result reflects the assessment of the
competent authority. The competent authority has to explain reasons for its screening
decision and document the result in a publicly accessible record (if necessary for the
judicial review or appeal process with the European Commission). Screening is not
required if the developer and the competent authority agree on the EIA.
If the screening showed that EIA is not mandatory, it is necessary to publish this
information: bulletin board, gazette, local newspapers and internet. When publishing
this decision it has to be noted that its findings can not be independently challenged. If
the process for the project approval is already underway, it is necessary to provide for
publication as soon as the competent authority decides that EIA is not required. The
competent authority may publish the result of the screening, even if the application for
approval of the project has not been submitted, but only with consent of the developer,
because it can not be ruled out that the developer will abandon the project. The
screening decision must be published no later than the publication of the project takes
place, if it is so provided, while specifying the place and the means of access to
screening records. If the competent authority determines that EIA is mandatory such
decision must be made publicly available on request in accordance with regulations on
environmental information. Stand-alone publication is not obligatory, since the public is
informed about the project in the EIA procedure.
In Finland, the competent authority for assessing the impact on the environment is a
regional centre for the environment. Screening decisions should be issued as soon as
possible, within one month of receipt of a completed application (with all the necessary
information about the project). Before deciding, the authority must consult with all other
relevant institutions and give applicants the opportunity to be heard. The decision must
be made public for at least 14 days on the notice boards of all affected municipalities. It
must also be published electronically and forwarded for information to all relevant
institutions. Projects listed in the government decree, list I (which is not identical to
Annex I of the Directive), reaching the threshold, or other projects, if meeting the
criteria set out in List II, are subject to EIA Error! Reference source not found..
Slovenia has decided (for the transposition of Annex II of the Directive) to prescribe a
national system of thresholds in accordance with the provision Article 4(2) (b).
Thresholds are prescribed by the Regulation on the Type of Intervention in the
Environment Error! Reference source not found., which is the same system Slovenia
had before joining the EU and before the acquisition of the acquis communautaire. Data
on EIA procedures are shown in Figure 1. The EIA obligation is met when the project
reaches a certain threshold, which can be stricter in sensitive areas (e.g. water protected
areas, Natura 2000, cultural heritage). The competent authority for EIA procedures is
the Agency for the Environment, a body within the Ministry of Agriculture and
Environment which issues environmental consents. This consent is a prerequisite for the
realisation of the project and a requirement to obtain permission for its implementation
(construction permit). The table with thresholds therefore serves both developers as an
indication of the potential difficulty of obtaining the construction permit and staff of the
authorities responsible for issuing permits and whose work is checking that the project
complies with the EIA legislation. The reason for the introduction of such a system is
therefore simplicity and transparency of administrative procedures and the objectivity of
the decision on whether the project needs EIA. Currently, only 5 employees at the
Agency for the Environment are involved in the EIA procedures.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
EIA permits issued
EIA applications filed
Figure 1: Number of EIA procedures in Slovenia (source: Agency for the Environment)
Breaches of the EU acquis
As previously described, a number of MS have incorrectly interpreted and implemented
the Directive. For example in the period 1997-2001, the EC has received 852
complaints (mostly against Spain, Ireland and Germany) and started 125 procedures
against MSs (mostly Italy and Spain) on its own initiative. In such cases, the EC first
opens a pilot project with the MS in order to get information and to issue an informal
warning of possible violations, and then starts an infringement procedure by issuing a
letter of formal notice. If the MS doesn’t comply with EU law within the given time
period, the EC may bring the case before the European Court. The infringement may
relate to a wrongly transposed acquis or its improper implementation in specific cases.
The case-law (judgments of the Court of Justice against MS) shows that MS when
determining the thresholds often exceed the limits of their discretion, either to take into
account only some of the selection criteria listed in Annex III or with exclusion of
certain types of projects in advance. Differences among MS in the number of conducted
EIAs are undoubtedly influenced by the level at which thresholds were set. There are
also many cases of not taking cumulative effects into account and cases of splitting
projects into smaller units in order to avoid the EIA.
Some infringement cases Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference
source not found. Error! Reference source not found. concerning the application of
the Directive are presented below.
- In Hungary, the EIA Directive was incorrectly transposed into national law, in
particular in relation to the project screening process which determines whether
certain projects listed in Annex II to the Directive require an EIA. Hungarian
law established exclusion thresholds and criteria which did not take account of
all the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive.
- Austrian legislation exempts projects from the EIA requirement if they are
classified as sanitation or adaptation measures. Austria applied this exemption
when providing for an emergency path for the evacuation of a glacier skiing
area. Such a precedent would risk opening the way to potential loopholes that
could ultimately result in serious negative impacts. Austria maintained its view
that that the exemption from the necessity of an EIA was in line with the
requirements of the EIA directive.
- In Italy a rehabilitation of a former industrial area that included a landfill of
contaminated soil and hazardous waste was approved by the Italian authorities
without undergoing any screening or EIA.
- Dutch legislation sets thresholds above which an EIA is required. However,
problems were identified with how these thresholds were determined. The Court
found that the system did not sufficiently take all possible impacts into account.
- The Court ruled that Ireland's legislation did not comply with the EIA Directive
to ensure that certain types of project, in this case marine fish farm
developments, undergo a procedure to decide whether an environmental
assessment is required before consent is granted.
Slovenia has also received several informal and formal warning signs regarding the
transposition of the Directive into national legislation. The Directorate General for
Environment Error! Reference source not found. raised several issues of concern and
expressed their opinion that
- Slovenian legislation with simple absolute thresholds is not sufficient for the
transposition of the Directive, since Article 4(3) of the Directive provides that in
determining whether an EIA for all projects listed in Annex II all relevant
criteria set out in Annex III have to be taken into account;
-
Slovenia has exceeded its discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) thereof,
because the determination of national thresholds for projects listed in Annex II
takes into account only the size of projects and, to a limited extent, their
location, instead of all the relevant criteria set out in Annex III to the Directive.
Hence, they suggest that Slovenia should update its system so that projects that
do not meet prescribed thresholds are verified on the basis of the selection
criteria.
Slovenia has committed to bring its legislation into line with the recommendations of
the EC and to change the Act on Environment Protection and regulation on EIA in
2013. By doing this Slovenia is hoping to avoid a procedure before the European Court
of Justice, but by implementing these new rules new issues can be expected, for
example:
- Unknown number of new applications for screening decisions and insufficient
number of administrative staff to deal with them,
- Uneven application of the selection criteria on a case-by case basis – because of
subjectivity, lack of expertise or pressure from developers,
- Unsatisfactory expert data basis for decision-making (information that should be
accessible to the public)
- screening decisions issued after the prescribed period,
- Dissatisfaction of the public by published screening decisions,
- Complaints of developers because of disagreement with the usage of criteria.
Future developments of EIA legislation in EU
In autumn of 2012 EC presented a proposal for amendments and modifications of the
Directive, as announced by examining the implementation of the Directive in 2009
Error! Reference source not found.. Among others, it is also proposed to clarify the
procedure of screening by changing the selection criteria specified in Annex III, and to
clearly justify the screening decision. These changes are intended to ensure that EIA is
to be carried out only for projects with significant impacts on the environment, in order
to avoid unnecessary administrative burden.
The proposed changes in Article 4 should contribute to a more rational process of
screening and unified approach of the MS, so as to require EIA only when it is clear that
there are significant environmental impacts of the project on the environment.
Therefore, the developer should submit additional information to the competent
authorities with (new Annex II.A). It is also proposed that the selection criteria listed in
Annex III are more precisely defined by means of delegated acts (comitology
procedure). Account has also been taken of the case where the European Court of
Justice emphasized the need for "adequate reasoned" screening decisions which should
include or are made available with all the information with which it is possible to verify
whether the decision was based on the appropriate screening. The timeframe for
adopting a screening decision is also proposed (maximum 60 days).
However, the negotiations on proposed amendments to the Directive with MS are still
ongoing, so the final scope and content of the amended directive is still uncertain.
Conclusion
This article may be of help to countries that are changing their national legislation in
order to comply with the provisions of the Article 4 of the Directive. It may be useful to
be aware of the experiences of other MS, to know there is no point in arguing with EC
and that their own however expert interpretations of the Directive can be misleading.
Since MSs who have set a prescribed system of thresholds do not comply with all other
requirements (adequately reasoned screening decisions and use of relevant selection
criteria) the only possible solution is to embrace screening on a case-by-case basis for
Annex II projects as the only reasonable method in determining the obligation for EIA.
Literature
[1] Bundesumweltministerium, Deutschland. (2003). Leitfaden zur Vorprüfung des
Einzelfalls im Rahmen der Feststellung der UVP-Pflicht von Projekten.
http://www.bmu.de/
[2] Državni zbor Republike Slovenije (2012) Zakon o varstvu okolja, neuradno
pre iš eno besedilo (Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 41/04, 20/06, 39/06,
70/08, 108/09, 48/12, 57/12). http://www.dz-rs.si/
[3] Eskild Holm Nielsen, E.H.. (2005). EIA Screening Iin Denmark: Aa New
Regulatory Instrument? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management. Vol. 7, No. 1 (March 2005) pp. 35–49
[4] European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA: Screening. June 2001.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eiasupport.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment
[5] European Commission (2003) Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA
Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC): How
successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm
[6] European Commission (2009) Report from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the EIA
Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and
2003/35/EC). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm
[7] European Commission (2012) Letter of formal notice no. C(2012)6579 from
27.9.2012
[8] European Commission (2012) Impact assessment accompanying the document
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment. Brussels, 30 October 2012.
[9] European Commission (2013) Documents on infringements (letters of formal
notice and reasoned opinions). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/
[10]
European Commission (2013) Environmental Impact Assessment of
Projects,
Rulings
of
the
Court
of
Justice.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm
[11]
European Commission (2013) Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council on the Application and Effectiveness of
the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC):
How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm
[12]
European Commission. (2012) Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, October
26th 2012. COM (2012) 628 final
[13]
European Court of Justice, Case Law. http://curia.europa.eu
[14]
Foo, V. (2010). Collection of information and data to support the Impact
Assessment study of the review of the EIA Directive. London: GHK.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm
[15]
Forestry Commission. (2009) Environmental Impact Assessment of
Forestry
projects.
Edinburgh:
Grants
&
Licences,
Forestry
CommissionIB14/19(EIA)-GL-MDA-Jun
09
.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/library
[16]
Ministry of the Environment, Finland. Act on Environmental Impact
Assessment Procedure, 468/1994, amendments up to 458/2006, Decree on
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure 713/2006, unofficial translation.
http://www.environment.fi/
[17]
Official Journal of the European Communities (1985). Council Directive
of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p.
40) (85/337/EEC)
[18]
Official Journal of the European Union (2012) Directive 2011/92/EU of
the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (codified).
[19]
Statutory instruments (1999) Ministerial Order on Supplementary Rules
Pursuant to the Planning Act, London: The Stationery Office Limited No. 428 of
2. http://legislation gov.uk
[20]
Statutory instruments (2006) The Environmental Impact Assessment
(Agriculture) (Scotland) Regulations 2006,. London: The Stationery Office
Limited No. 582. http://legislation gov.uk
[21]
Statutory instruments (2006) The Environmental Impact Assessment
(Agriculture) (England) (No2) Regulations 2006. London: The Stationery Office
Limited, No. 2522. . http://legislation gov.uk
[22]
Statutory instruments (2007) The Environmental Impact Assessment
(Agriculture) (Wales) Regulations, 2007, London: The Stationery Office
Limited No. 2933 (W. 253). http://legislation gov.uk
[23]
Statutory instruments (2011) The Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. London: The Stationery
Office Limited, No. 1824. http://legislation gov.uk
[24]
Statutory instruments (2012) The Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland). London: The Stationery Office
Limited No. 59. http://legislation gov.uk
[25]
Vlada RS (2013). Uredba o vrstah posegov v okolje, za katere je treba
izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, neuradno pre iš eno besedilo št. 4.
http://www.mko.gov.si
Stalno povjerenstvo u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš –
prednosti i nedostaci
Anamarija Matak1, Anita Gulam1
1
Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, Ulica Republike Austrije 14, Zagreb, Hrvatska
([email protected])
Sažetak
Postupak ocjene kvalitete dokumentacije u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš jedan je
od klju nih koraka u procjeni utjecaja na okoliš koji se provodi kako bi se osiguralo da
su informacije prikazane u dokumentaciji dostatne za donošenje odgovaraju ih odluka.
Direktivom 2011/92/EU o procjeni u inaka odre enih javnih i privatnih projekata na
okoliš državama lanicama dana je mogu nost da samostalno utvrde na ine ocjene
kvalitete dokumentacije.
Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša (Narodne novine broj 110/07) Republika Hrvatska propisala
je model ocjene kvalitete studija o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš koji uklju uje sudjelovanje
savjetodavnog stru nog povjerenstva. Povjerenstvo u postupku procjene utjecaja na
okoliš utvr uje cjelovitost i stru nu utemeljenost studija o utjecaju na okoliš ime
zapo inje proces ocjene kvalitete informacija.
lankom 77. Zakona o zaštiti okoliša nadležnom tijelu dana je mogu nost da se za ve i
broj istovrsnih zahvata imenuje stalno povjerenstvo za tu vrstu zahvata.
U ovom radu, analizom postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš u kojima su sudjelovala
stalna povjerenstva dan je prikaz prednosti i nedostataka rada stalnih povjerenstva u
procesima ocjene kvalitete studija o utjecaju na okoliš.
Klju ne rije i: procjena utjecaja na okoliš, studija o utjecaju na okoliš, savjetodavno
stru no povjerenstvo
Uvod
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš strukturirani je pristup prikupljanja i vrednovanja
informacija o okolišu koje se u kasnijim postupcima odobravanja projekta koriste u
procesima donošenja odluke. Stoga je od iznimne važnosti da informacije o okolišu koje
se koriste u procjeni utjecaja odre enog projekta na okoliš budu vjerodostojne i
primjenjive za svaki pojedina ni projekt. Upravo iz tog razloga ocjena kvalitete
informacija korištenih u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš jedan je od klju nih
koraka procjene utjecaja na okoliš. Osim same kona ne odluke o odobrenju projekta
kvaliteta dostavljenih informacija jedan je od bitnih imbenika trajanja samog postupka
procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
Cilj ovog rada je utvrditi u inkovitost korištenja stalnog povjerenstva kao mehanizma
za osiguranje kvalitete informacija dostavljenih u obliku studije utjecaja na okoliš za
potrebe procjene prihvatljivosti odre enih zahvata na okoliš. Prilikom izrade rada
napravljena je analiza klju nih propisa koji reguliraju postupak procjene utjecaja na
okoliš kao i analiza provedenih postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate
izgradnje cesta i autocesta. Analizirani su postupci u razdoblju od 1997. – 2010. godine.
Ocjena kvalitete informacija u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš
Direktivom 2011/92/EU Europskog Parlamenta i Vije a od 13. prosinca 2011. godine o
procjeni u inaka odre enih javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš utvr uju se osnovni
zahtjevi postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
Razli ita zakonodavstva na razli it na in odre uju postupke procjene utjecaja na okoliš,
me utim op enito se mogu prepoznati osnovni koraci procjene utjecaja na okoliš. To
su:
- odre ivanje potrebe provo enja postupka procjene utjecaju na okoliš
- odre ivanje obuhvata procjene utjecaja na okoliš (u hrvatskom zakonodavstvu
primjenjuje se postupak odre ivanja sadržaja studije utjecaja na okoliš koji nije
obvezan)
- izrada studije utjecaja na okoliš (obveza nositelja zahvata)
- ocjena kvalitete informacija dostavljenih u obliku studije utjecaja na okoliš
(obveza nadležnog tijela)
- donošenje odluke
- utvr ivanje mjera zaštite okoliša i pra enje procijenjenih zna ajnih utjecaja
Odre ivanje potrebe PUO
(SCREENING)
Odre ivanje obuhvata
PUO (SCOPING)
Izrada Studije utjecaja na okoliš (SUO)
Konzultacije i
sudjelovanje s
zainteresiranom
javnoš u i
nadležnim
tijelima
Opis zahvata i postoje eg stanja okoliša
Procjena utjecaja
Procjena zna ajnosti utjecaja
Prijedlog mjera zaštite okoliša i program
pra enja stanja okoliša
Ocjena cjelovitosti i
stru ne utemeljenosti
SUO
Donošenje odluke
(DECISION MAKING)
Pra enje utjecaja
(MONITORING)
Slika 1. Osnovni koraci procjene utjecaja na okoliš
PROVJERA
Kao što je u uvodu spomenuto jedan od klju nih koraka samog postupka je ocjena
kvalitete informacija. Kako bi nadležna tijela mogla odlu iti može li se odre eni zahvat
odobriti, klju no je da informacije vezane uz okoliš koje nositelj zahvata navodi u
studiji utjecaja na okoliš daju jasne odgovore na pitanja o mogu im zna ajnim
utjecajima. Stoga je cilj studija utjecaja na okoliš proizvesti i prikazati te informacije
jasno, dosljedno i to no.
Osiguranje kvalitete i objektivnosti dokumentacije je vrlo zahtjevan proces s obzirom da
se prilikom donošenja odluke o prihvatljivosti odre enog projekta za okoliš javljaju
razli iti interesi. U metodologiji procjene utjecaja na okoliš postoji više razli itih na ina
za osiguranje kvalitete i objektivnosti ocjene studija o utjecaju na okoliš. Neke od
naj eš e korištenih metoda su:
- upotreba kriterija za ocjenjivanje
- ovlaš ivanje (akreditacija) fizi kih i pravnih osoba za izradu i ocjenjivanje
studija
- uspostava nezavisnog stru nog tijela za ocjenu studija
- objava rezultata ocijene uz sudjelovanje javnosti
Postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš u Republici Hrvatskoj odre en je Zakonom o
zaštiti okoliša (Narodne novine, br. 110/07), Uredbom o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na
okoliš (Narodne novine, br. 64/08 i 67/09), Uredbom o informiranju i sudjelovanju
javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti u pitanjima zaštite okoliša (Narodne novine, br. 64/08),
Popisom osoba koje se mogu imenovati za lanove i zamjenike Povjerenstva u
postupcima strateške procjene, procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš i utvr ivanja
objedinjenih uvjeta zaštite okoliša (Narodne novine, br. 126/09 i 65/12) i Pravilnikom o
uvjetima za izdavanje suglasnosti pravnim osobama za obavljanje stru nih poslova
zaštite okoliša (Narodne novine, br. 57/10). Svi navedeni propisi uskla eni su s bitnim
odredbama Direktive 2011/92/EU Europskog Parlamenta i Vije a od 13. prosinca 2011.
godine o procjeni u inaka odre enih javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš.
U Republici Hrvatskoj, od samih po etaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš, za osiguranje
kvalitete dokumentacije, koristi se instrument ovlaš ivanja (akreditacija) pravnih osoba
za izradu studija utjecaja na okoliš, a radi osiguranja objektivnosti u ocjenjivanju studija
o utjecaju na okoliš sudjeluje nezavisno stru no tijelo (savjetodavno stru no
povjerenstvo za ocjenu studija utjecaja na okoliš, a prije toga komisija za ocjenu studija
utjecaja na okoliš).
Temeljem Zakona o zaštiti okoliša savjetodavno stru no povjerenstvo ocjenjuje utjecaj
zahvata na okoliš, njegovo vrednovanje i prihvatljivost na temelju studije utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš te nadležnom tijelu daje mišljenje o prihvatljivosti zahvata, predlaže
mogu e varijante za okoliš i mjere zaštite okoliša te program pra enja stanja okoliša.
Povjerenstvo se imenuje za svaki pojedina ni zahvat pri emu se sastav i broj lanova
povjerenstva odre uju odlukom - ovisno o vrsti zahvata, a lanovi se imenuju s popisa
osoba iz redova znanstvenih i stru nih djelatnika, predstavnika tijela i/ili osoba
odre enih posebnim propisima, predstavnika jedinica lokalne i podru ne samouprave te
predstavnika Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode (Popis osoba koje se mogu imenovati
za lanove i zamjenike Povjerenstva u postupcima strateške procjene, procjene utjecaja
na okoliš i utvr ivanja objedinjenih uvjeta zaštite okoliša, Narodne novine br. 126/09 i
65/12).
Povjerenstvo ima najmanje 5 lanova i tajnika. Povjerenstvo radi na sjednicama koje
vodi predsjednik-a povjerenstva, a sjednice su javne. Na prvoj sjednici povjerenstvo
ocjenjuje cjelovitost studije, a nakon utvr ivanja cjelovitosti utvr uje se stru na
utemeljenost studije. Na kraju postupka povjerenstvo razmatra mišljenja, primjedbe i
prijedloge javnosti te donosi mišljenje o prihvatljivosti zahvata. Mišljenje obavezno
sadrži: opis najprihvatljivije varijante zahvata za okoliš s obrazloženjem, prijedlog
mjera zaštite okoliša s prijedlogom plana provedbe i prijedlog programa pra enja stanja
okoliša s prijedlogom plana provedbe.
Stalno savjetodavno stru no povjerenstvo za ocjenu studija o utjecaju na okoliš
Od samog po etka ure ivanja sustava procjene utjecaja na okoliš u okviru sektora
zaštite okoliša, tijelima nadležnim za vo enje upravnog postupka procjene utjecaja na
okoliš dana je mogu nost da imenuju stalno povjerenstvo za odre enu vrstu zahvata.
Trenutno je lankom 77. Zakona o zaštiti okoliša nadležnom tijelu tako er dana
mogu nost da za ve i broj istovrsnih zahvata imenuje stalno povjerenstvo za tu vrstu
zahvata.
U gotovo tridesetogodišnjoj provedbi procjene utjecaja na okoliš u Hrvatskoj, bez
obzira na na in imenovanja povjerenstva (Vlada ili ministar zaštite okoliša), osnovano
je i djeluje samo jedno stalno povjerenstvo. Iako se tijekom godina naziv povjerenstva
mijenjao ono je od po etka zaduženo za ocjenu studija utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate
izgradnje cesta i autocesta. Izraz koji se i danas u javnosti naj eš e koristi je „komisija
za ceste“. Premda su se lanovi Stalnog povjerenstva tijekom godina mijenjali sastav
samog povjerenstva je tijekom godina ostao gotovo isti i njega ine predstavnici:
- tijela nadležnog za zaštitu okoliša
- tijela nadležnog za prostorno ure enje
- tijela nadležnog za zaštitu prirode
- tijela nadležnog za vodno gospodarstvo
- tijela nadležnog za poljoprivredu
- tijela nadležnog za šumarstvo
- tijela nadležnog za turizam
- tijela nadležnog za promet
- tijela nadležnog za zaštitu kulturne baštine
- Hrvatskog zavoda za javno zdravstvo
- županijskog zavoda za prostorno ure enje
- tijela nadležnog za zaštitu okoliša na županijskoj razini
Stalne lanove ovog povjerenstva ine predstavnici tijela na državnoj razini te su isti
sukladno danas važe em zakonodavstvu imenovani zajedni kom odlukom dok se
lanovi povjerenstva koji predstavljaju tijela na regionalnoj razini imenuju
pojedina nom odlukom za svaki pojedini zahvat ovisno o lokaciji. Tijekom rada Stalnog
povjerenstva mijenjao se i popis zahvata za koje se provodi postupak procjene utjecaja
na okoliš, ali u podru ju izgradnje prometnica te izmjene nisu bile od velikog zna aja
tako da možemo zaklju iti da su zahvati za koje je ovo Povjerenstvo ocjenjivalo
dokumentaciju uglavnom autoceste i državne ceste. Na proces odre ivanja lanova
ovog Povjerenstva veliku ulogu imala je odluka da, s obzirom da se radi velikim
infrastrukturnim projektima od zna ajnog javnog interesa, u rad Povjerenstva budu
uklju enja tijela koja sudjeluju u daljnjim postupcima realizacije zahvata. Naime,
temeljem propisa iz podru ja prostornog ure enja i graditeljstva navedena tijela u
postupcima daljnjih odobrenja (lokacijska i gra evinska dozvola) odre uju uvijete i
mjere sukladno posebnom propisu koriste i pri tome rezultate procjene utjecaja na
okoliš.
Postupci procjene utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate autocesta i državnih cesta
U analiziranom razdoblju, od 1997. – 2010. godine Stalno povjerenstvo sudjelovalo je u
130 postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš. Na slici 2. prikazana je raspodjela postupaka
procjene utjecaja na okoliš provedenih u tom razdoblju po godinama. Za više od 96 %
provedenih postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš izdano je rješenje o prihvatljivosti
zahvata za okoliš uz primjenu mjera zaštite okoliša i programa stanja okoliša. Tako er
je važno napomenuti da je za samo 3 % svih provedenih postupaka pokrenut upravni
spor odnosno da je pokrenut postupak osporavanja izdanog rješenja o prihvatljivosti
zahvata za okoliš na upravnom sudu. Za sve pokrenute tužbe donijete su presude u
korist Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode odnosno sud je potvrdio izdana rješenja. Iz
gore navedenog može se zaklju iti da je u razdoblju od 1997. – 2010. godine Stalno
povjerenstvo donijelo 125 mišljenja o prihvatljivosti izgradnje državne ceste ili
autoceste koja su prihva ena i od strane nadležnog tijela (Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i
prirode) i od pravosudnih tijela u slu ajevima kada su ista bila osporavana na sudu.
Prilikom ocjenjivanja rezultata rada ovog Povjerenstva treba uzeti u obzir i podatak da
je u analiziranom razdoblju postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš vo en za cijelu mrežu
autocesta koje su danas ili izgra ene ili planirane (A1, A4, A5, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12,
A13). Radi se o najzna ajnijim infrastrukturnim projektima u Republici Hrvatskoj u
protekla dva desetlje a.
Broj provedenih postupaka PUO za izgradnju
državnih cesta i autocesta
30
25
20
29
15
Broj postupaka PUO
10
5
0
13
4
2
4
11
4
9
10
11
9
5
11
8
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Slika 2. Broj postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš u kojima je sudjelovalo Stalno
Povjerenstvo
Izvor: Arhiva Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode
Uzimaju i u obzir da se u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš u prosjeku održe 2 – 3
sjednice povjerenstva lako se do e do podatka da je Stalno povjerenstvo u razmatranom
periodu zasjedalo na oko tristotinjak sjednica. Uglavnom su odluke donesene na
sjednicama usvajane jednoglasno, bilo da se radi o utvr ivanju cjelovitosti i stru ne
utemeljenosti studija utjecaja na okoliš ili o mišljenju o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš.
S obzirom na dugogodišnji rad ovog Povjerenstva praksa Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i
prirode je da se u postupcima ocjene o potrebi procjene utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate
rekonstrukcija i djelomi nog izmještanja državnih cesta zatraži mišljenje lanova
Stalnog povjerenstva.
Rasprava
Stalno savjetodavno stru no povjerenstvo za ocjenu zahvata izgradnje državnih cesta i
autocesta jedino je stalno povjerenstvo u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš u
Republici Hrvatskoj. Na temelju analize rada ovog Povjerenstva mogu e je utvrditi
pozitivne i negativne strane korištenja stalnog povjerenstva u procjeni utjecaja na
okoliš.
Prednosti korištenja stalnog povjerenstva odnose se u prvom redu na ujedna eni kriterij
ocjenjivanja studija utjecaja na okoliš. Naime vrlo esto u stru noj javnosti spominje se
neujedna enost kriterija pojedinih lanova povjerenstva prilikom ocjene studija utjecaja
na okoliš te se osnivanjem stalnih povjerenstava za istovrsne zahvate postavljaju i
jedinstveni kriteriji za ocjenu. Tako er se postiže i ujedna enost propisanih mjera
zaštite okoliša i programa pra enja stanja okoliša. Nadalje u savjetodavnim stru nim
povjerenstvima formiranim za pojedina ne zahvate lanovi vrlo rijetko sagledavaju širu
sliku pojedinog zahvata ve su obi no usmjereni na svoje odre eno podru je. U radu
Stalnog povjerenstva uo eno je da upravo radi dugogodišnjeg zajedni kog sudjelovanja
u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš za izgradnju državnih cesta i autocesta lanovi
svaki pojedina ni zahvat ocjenjuju u kontekstu ve provedenih postupaka. Potvrda ovih
zaklju aka može se na i u statistici provedenih postupaka prikazanih u prethodnom
poglavlju. Posebno zna ajan je podatak da iako su postupci vo eni za najve e
infrastrukturne projekte u Republici Hrvatskoj te su u provedenim postupcima
prometnice nerijetko smještane u podru ja velike prirodne o uvanosti, odluke koje je
donijelo ovo Povjerenstvo vrlo su rijetko osporavane od strane stru ne javnosti ili
zainteresirane javnosti op enito.
Osnovni nedostatak Stalnog povjerenstva može biti komunikacija i vrsta odnosa koja se
razvija tijekom dugogodišnjeg rada. Uloga povjerenstva je da kao grupa stru njaka na
temelju pojedina nih stru nih znanja i kompetencija savjetuje Ministarstvo o kvaliteti
dostavljenih informacija odnosno prihvatljivosti samog zahvata za okoliš. Problem se
javlja kada grupa stru njaka po ne djelovati kao poseban tim koji, radi me usobnih
odnosa koji se tijekom dugogodišnjeg zajedni kog rada neminovno javljaju, u
raspravama o odre enim problemima postaje subjektivan. Zajedni ki interes
Povjerenstva ne e i ne bi trebao uvijek biti isti uzimaju i u obzir razli ite utjecaje koje
zahvat može imati na pojedine sastavnice okoliša.
Prilikom donošenja zaklju ka o nedvojbenoj prednosti sudjelovanja stalnog
savjetodavnog stru nog povjerenstva u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš važno je
napomenuti da se u postupcima procjene za izgradnju državnih cesta i autocesta radi o
specifi nim vrstama zahvata gdje se, osim Stalnog povjerenstva, kao jedan od sudionika
procesa uklju uje i „stalni“ nositelj zahvata. Stoga se u ocjenu rezultata rada ovog
Povjerenstva mora uzeti u obzir i doprinos nositelja zahvata.
Zaklju ak
Cilj ovog rada bio je utvrditi u inkovitost korištenja stalnog povjerenstva kao
mehanizma za osiguranje kvalitete informacija potrebnih za donošenje odluke u
postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš. U tu svrhu analizirani su klju ni propisi koji
reguliraju postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš kao i postupci procjene utjecaja na
okoliš za zahvate izgradnje ceste i autocesta u razdoblju od 1997. – 2010. godine u
kojima je sudjelovalo Stalno povjerenstvo. Prednosti korištenja stalnog povjerenstva u
postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš su primjena ujedna enih kriterija ocijene studija
utjecaja na okoliš te ujedna enost propisanih mjera zaštite okoliša i programa pra enja
stanja okoliša. Tijekom dugogodišnjeg zajedni kog rada stalnog povjerenstva
me usobni odnosi lanova stalnog povjerenstva mogu utjecati na objektivnost rasprava
u postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
Iako bi za potpunu ocjenu rada Stalnog savjetodavnog stru nog povjerenstva za ocjenu
zahvata izgradnje državnih cesta i autocesta, bilo potrebno provesti temeljitu analizu
provedenih postupaka na na in da se na temelju rezultata propisanih programa pra enja
stanja okoliša do sada izgra enih državnih cesta i autocesta ocijeni kvaliteta donesenih
mišljenja, možemo zaklju iti da korištenje stalnog povjerenstva kao mehanizma za
osiguranje kvalitete informacija nedvojbeno doprinosi u inkovitosti, objektivnosti i
standardizaciji prikupljanja i prezentiranja informacija potrebnih za donošenje odluka.
Literatura
[1] L.K. Caldwell (1989) Understanding impact analysis: technical process,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
administrative reform, policy principle. In Bartlett, R.V. (ed) Policy through
Impact Assessment. New York: Greenwood Press
Directive2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13
Decembre 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
project on the environment (codification), Official Journal of the European
Union, 28.1.2012.
European Commission, DG ENV (2009), Study concerning the report on the
application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, Final Report [online].
European
Commission.
Dostupno
na:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf
Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, Sektor za procjenu okoliša i industrijsko
one iš enje, Aplikacija za unos i statisti ku obradu podataka
Narodne novine (2008) Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš. Zagreb:
Narodne novine d.d., 64, str. 2-12
Narodne novine (2009) Uredba o izmjenama i dopunama Uredbe o procjeni
utjecaja zahvata na okoliš. Zagreb: Narodne novine d.d., 67, str. 2-7
Narodne novine (2007) Zakon o zaštiti okoliša. Zagreb: Narodne novine d.d.,
110, str. 8269-8315
EIA Standing Committee – Advantages and Weaknesses
Anamarija Matak1, Anita Gulam1
1
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, Republike Austrije 14, Zagreb, Croatia
([email protected])
Abstract
The review of the quality of EIA documentation is a key step in the environmental
impact assessment procedure. It is used to ensure that submitted environmental
information is sufficient for the decision-making process. According to the Directive
2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment, Member States are entitled to develop different tools for a quality review
of documentation.
The Environmental Protection Act (Official Gazette 110/07) (EPA) prescribes a general
tool for the quality review of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) based on
participation of an Advisory expert committee. The main role of the Committee is to
evaluate the completeness and quality of the information gathered in an EIS as the
beginning of a quality review stage in the EIA procedure.
According to Article 77 of the EPA the competent body may appoint a standing
Committee when a larger number of projects of the same type is planned.
In this paper, based on the analysis of EIA procedures involving the standing
Committee, the authors have presented advantages and weaknesses of using the
standing Committee as a tool for the quality review of Environmental Impact Studies.
Key words: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Environmental Impact Study
(EIS), Advisory expert committee
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a structured approach to gathering and
evaluating environmental information that in subsequent project permitting procedures
are used in decision-making processes. It is therefore of utmost importance that
environmental information used in assessing the environmental impact of a certain
project be authentic and applicable to every individual project. This is why the quality
review of information used in EIA procedures is an essential step of the EIA. Besides
the final decision on project permitting, the quality of provided information is an
essential factor of the duration of EIA procedures.
The aim of this paper is to establish the efficiency of using a standing committee as a
mechanism for ensuring the quality of the information submitted in the form of an EIS
for purposes of assessing the environmental acceptability of certain projects. While
drafting the paper an analysis of key regulations governing the EIA procedure was
carried out, as well as an analysis of EIA procedures implemented for road and
motorway construction projects. Procedures that were carried out in the 1997–2010
period have been analysed.
Quality review of information in EIA procedures
By Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13
December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment, basic requirements on EIA procedures are established.
Various national laws determine EIA procedures in different ways, however, generally,
basic steps of EIA can be identified. They are:
- determining the necessity of carrying out an EIA procedure (screening)
- determining the scope of EIA (in Croatian legislation the procedure of
determining the EIS content is applied, which is not mandatory)
- preparation of an EIS (obligation of the developer)
- quality review of information submitted in the form of an EIS (obligation of the
competent authority)
- decision-making
- establishment of environmental protection measures and monitoring of the
significant impacts assessed
SCREENING
SCOPING
Drawing up of an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS)
Consultations with
and participation of
the public
concerned and
competent
authorities
Description of the project and current environmental
status
Impact assessment
Environmental protection measures proposal
Quality Review of EIS
DECISION MAKING
MONITORING
Fig. 1. Basic steps of environmental impact assessment
VERIFICATION
As initially mentioned, an essential step of the procedure is the quality review of
information. In order to enable competent authorities to decide on granting the consent
for a certain project, it is essential that environmental information provided by the
project developer in the EIS provide clear answers to issues regarding potential
significant effects of the project. Therefore the objective of EIS is to present such
information in a clear, consistent and accurate manner.
Ensuring documentation quality and objectivity is a very demanding process, in view of
the fact that when taking a decision on the environmental acceptability of a certain
project various interests/concerns occur. The EIA methodology comprises several
different methods of ensuring EIS quality and objectivity, and some of the most
frequently applied methods are:
- application of review criteria
- accreditation of natural and legal persons for study development and review
- establishment of an independent expert body for study review
- publication of results of the review under public participation
The EIA procedure in the Republic of Croatia is governed by the Environmental
Protection Act (Official Gazette 110/07), Regulation on environmental impact
assessment (Official Gazette 64/08 and 67/09), Regulation on information and
participation of the public and public concerned in environmental matters (Official
Gazette 64/08), List of persons eligible to be appointed members and deputy members
of committes in procedures of strategic assessment, environmental impact assessment of
projects and establishment of integrated environmental requirements (Official Gazette
126/09 and 65/12), and Ordinance on requirements for issuing approvals to legal
persons for performing professional environmental protection activities (Official
Gazette 57/10). All of the indicated regulations are harmonised with essential provisions
of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13
December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment.
In the Republic of Croatia, from the very beginning of environmental impact
assessment, for purposes of ensuring documentation quality, the instrument of
accreditation of legal persons for developing environmental impact studies has been
applied, and in order to ensure objectivity in reviewing EIS, an independent expert body
participates (the advisory expert committee for EIS review, formerly the commission for
EIS review).
Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, an advisory expert committee reviews the
project's environmental impact, its evaluation and acceptability on the basis of an EIS,
and delivers to the competent authority its opinion on the project's acceptability,
proposes possible alternatives for the environment, as well as environmental protection
measures, and a programme of environmental status monitoring. A committee shall be
appointed for each individual project, and the composition and number of committee
members shall be determined by a decision – depending on the type of project, and
members are appointed from the list of persons from among scientific and expert
employees, representatives of bodies and/or persons designated by special regulations,
representatives of local and regional selfgovernment units and representatives of the
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection (List of persons eligible to be
appointed members and deputy members of committees in procedures of strategic
assessment, environmental impact assessment of projects and establishment of
integrated environmental requirements, Official Gazette 126/09 and 65/12).
The committee shall have at least 5 members. The committee shall perform its work in
sessions chaired by the president of the committee and the committee sessions shall be
public. At the first session, the committee shall review the study’s integrity¸ whereas the
review of the study’s expert foundation may be given upon establishment of the study's
integrity. At the end of the procedure the committee shall consider public opinions,
objections and proposals and issue its opinion on the acceptability of the project. The
committee’s opinion on the acceptability of the project shall mandatorily contain: a
description of the project’s most acceptable alternative for the environment with an
explanation, a proposal of environmental protection measures with an implementation
plan, and a proposal of an environmental monitoring programme with implementation
plan proposal.
Standing advisory expert committee for EIS review
From the very beginning of regulation of the EIA system within the environment sector,
the authorities competent for conducting administrative EIA procedures were given the
possibility of appointing a standing committee for a certain type of project. Currently,
pursuant to Art. 77 of the EPA, the competent body is also given the possibility of
appointing a standing committee when a larger number of projects of the same type is
planned.
During almost thirty years of EIA implementation in Croatia, regardless of the manner
of appointing committees (by the Government or the environment minister), only one
standing committee has been established and is operating. Although over the years the
name of the committee has changed, from the beginning it is responsible for the review
of EIS for road and motorway construction projects. The term that also today is most
often used by the general public is „road commission“. Although over the years the
members of the Standing committee had changed, the composition of the committee
itself has remained almost st same, and it is composed of representatives of:
- authority competent for environmental protection
- authority competent for physical planning
- authority competent for nature protection
- authority competent for water management
- authority competent for agriculture
- authority competent for forestry
- authority competent for tourism
- authority competent for transport
- authority competent for cultural heritage conservation
- Croatian National Institute of Public Health
- county institute for physical planning
- authority competent for environmental protection at the county level
Permanent members of this committee consist of representatives of authorities at the
state level, and they are appointed, pursuant to the legislation currently in force, by a
joint decision, whereas committee members representing authorities at the regional level
are appointed by individual decisions for every individual project depending on its
location. In the course of the Standing committee's operation the list of projects for
which EIA procedures were carried out has changed, however in the field of
communications construction these changes have not been of major significance,
allowing for the conclusion that projects for which documentation was reviewed by this
Committee mostly consisted of state roads and motorways. In the process of
determining the members of this Committee a major role was played by the decision
that, since it was the case of major infrastructure projects of significant public interest,
in the work of the Committee authorities should be involved that participate in further
procedures of project realisation. In fact, pursuant to regulations in the field of physical
planning and construction, in further permitting procedures (location and building
permits) the said authorities establish requirements and measures pursuant to special
regulations using thereby EIA results.
EIA procedures for motorway and state road projects
In the analysed period, from 1997–2010, the Standing committee participated in 130
EIA procedures. In fig. 2 the distribution of EIA procedures carried out in this period is
presented by years. For more than 96% of EIA procedures carried out decisions on the
environmental acceptability of a project were issued under application of environmental
protection measures and the programme of environmental status. It also needs to be
pointed out that for only 3% of all procedures carried out adminitrative disputes were
instituted, or procedures of contesting the decisions on the environmental acceptability
of a project before the administrative court. In all the instituted legal actions rulings in
favour of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection were passed, i.e. the
court confirmed the issued decisions. Based on the indicated it can be concluded that in
the 1997–2010 period the Standing committee delivered 125 opinions on the
acceptability of state road or motorway construction projects that were also accepted by
the competent authority (Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection) and by
judiciary authorities in those cases when these opinions were challenged in legal
actions. When evaluating the results of operation of this Committee also the fact needs
to be taken into account that in the analysed period EIA procedures were carried out for
the entire network of motorways that to date have either been built or are planned (A1,
A4, A5, A6, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13). These are the most significant infrastructure
projects in the Republic of Croatia over the past two decades.
No. of EIA procedures carried out for the construction
of state roads and motorways
30
25
20
29
15
10
5
0
13
4
2
4
4
11
Number of EIA
9
10
11
9
5
11
8
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Figure 2. Number of EIA procedures involving the participation of a Standing
committee Source: Archives of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
Taking into accout that in EIA procedures on average 2 – 3 commission sessions are
held, the information is easily available that in the observed period the Standing
committee held some three hundred sessions. At these session decisions were mostly
adopted unanimously, both when referring to establishing the completeness and expert
foundation of EIS' or to opinions on the environmental acceptability of projects. In view
of this Committee's operation over many years, the Ministry of Environmental and
Nature Protection applies the practice of requesting the opinion of Standing committee
members in EIA screening procedures regarding projects of reconstruction and partial
relocation of state roads.
Discussion
The Standing advisory committee for the assessment of state road and motorway
construction projects is the only standing committee in EIA procedures in the Republic
of Croatia. By analysing the operation of this Committee, positive and negative aspects
of using a standing committee in EIA can be established.
The advantages of using a standing committee refer primarily to consistent criteria in
reviewing EIS. In fact, in the professional community very often inconsistent criteria of
individual committe members when reviewing EIS are commented, whereas by
establishing standing committees for projects of the same type uniform review criteria
are set. Likewise, uniformity of prescribed environmental protection measures and
environmental monitoring programmes is achieved. Furthermore, in advisory expert
committees established for individual projects their members only rarely view the wider
context of a project, but are rather concentrated on their specific field. It has been
observed that in the Standing committee's operation for the very reason of the long-time
joint participation in EIA procedures for state road and motorway construction projects
every individual project is reviewed by committee members in the context of already
carried out procedures. A substantiation of these conslusions can be found in the
statistics of carried out procedures presented in the previous chapter. It is of particular
significance that despite the fact that the procedures were conducted for major
infrastructure projects in the Republic of Croatia, and in the carried out procedures
communications were rather frequently located in areas of highly preserved nature, the
decisions taken by this Committee were only very rarely contested by the professional
community or, in general, the public concerned.
A fundamental disadvantage of the Standing committee could consist in the
communication and type of relationships developing over many years of operation. The
role of the committee is to deliver, as a group of experts on the basis of individual
expertise and competences, advice to the Ministry on the quality of submitted
information or the environmental acceptability of the project itself. Problems arise when
a group of experts starts acting as a separate team, which due to mutual relations that
inevitably develop over many years of joint work, in discussions on certain issues
becomes subjective. The Committee's common interest will and should not always be
the same, considering the various impacts a project may have on individual
environmental components.
When arriving at a conclusion on the unquestionable advantage of the participation of a
standing advisory committee in EIA procedures, it is important to point out that in
assessment procedures for road and motorway construction projects specific types of
projects are dealt with, where, besides the Standing committee, as one of the stakeholder
in the process also a „standing“ developer is involved. Therefore, in the review of the
results of this Committee's operation also the developer's contribution has to be taken
into account.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to establish the efficiency of using a standing committee as a
tool for ensuring the quality of the information necessary for taking a decision in EIA
procedures. For this purpose key regulations governing the EIA procedure were
analysed, as well as EIA procedures implemented for road and motorway construction
projects in the 1997–2010 period in which the Standing committee participated.
Advantages of using a standing committee in EIA procedures consist in the application
of consistent criteria in reviewing EIS and the uniformity of prescribed environmental
protection measures and environmental monitoring programmes. Over many years of
joint work of the Standing committee mutual relations of standing committee members
may have an impact on the objectivity of discussions in EIA procedures.
Although for a full review of the operation of the Standing advisory committee for the
assessment of road and motorway construction projects it would be necessary to
undertake a in-depth analysis of the carried out procedures by reviewing, on the basis of
results of the environmental status monitoring programmes prescribed for state roads
and motorways built to date, the quality of the delivered opinions, we can conclude that
the use of a standing committee as a tool for ensuring quality of information
undoubtedly contributes to the efficiency, objectivity and standardisation of gathering
and presenting information necessary for decision-making.
Literature
[1] L.K. Caldwell (1989) Understanding impact analysis: technical process,
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
administrative reform, policy principle. In Bartlett, R.V. (ed) Policy through
Impact Assessment. New York: Greenwood Press
Directive2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13
Decembre 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
project on the environment (codification), Official Journal of the European
Union, 28.1.2012.
European Commission, DG ENV (2009), Study concerning the report on the
application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, Final Report [online].
European
Commission.
Dostupno
na:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf
Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, Sektor za procjenu okoliša i industrijsko
one iš enje, Aplikacija za unos i statisti ku obradu podataka
Narodne novine (2008) Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš. Zagreb:
Narodne novine d.d., 64, str. 2-12
Narodne novine (2009) Uredba o izmjenama i dopunama Uredbe o procjeni
utjecaja zahvata na okoliš. Zagreb: Narodne novine d.d., 67, str. 2-7
Narodne novine (2007) Zakon o zaštiti okoliša. Zagreb: Narodne novine d.d.,
110, str. 8269-8315
Interakcija prostornih planova i studija utjecaja na okoliš
Goranka Radovi
Crodux Energetika d.o.o., Kaptol 19, Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Sažetak
Strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš je novi instrument planiranja zahvata u ranoj fazi
odlu ivanja, dakle prilikom donošenja strateških dokumenata prostornog ure enja.
Uredbom o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš propisano je da se postupak procjene utjecaja na
okoliš može provoditi za zahvate koji su planirani važe im prostornim planovima. U
praksi se pokazalo da nije mogu e za sve zahvate u prostoru takvu odredbu tuma iti na
na in da se postupak procjene može provoditi tek kada su glede prostornih planova
ispunjene sve pretpostavke za izdavanje lokacijske dozvole. Odluka o tome što je prije
procjena utjecaja na okoliš ili provedbeni dokument prostornog ure enja za taj zahvat,
ovisi o mogu em utjecaju zahvata, o osjetljivosti lokacije, o detaljnosti i sadržaju
obveznog dokumenta prostornog ure enja.
Mjere zaštite okoliša kao rezultat postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš mogu biti važne
za donošenje prostorno-planerske odluke, mogu utjecati na utvr ivanje mikrolokacije
zahvata, a ponekad su važne tek kod izrade projekta za lokacijsku/gra evinsku dozvolu.
Kod linearne infrastrukture se kroz postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš posebice
preispituju trase utvr ene prostornim planovima. U slu ajevima kada se trasa planirana
važe im prostornim planom ocijeni neprihvatljivom ili manje prihvatljivom za okoliš u
odnosu na studijom ponu ena varijantna rješenja, rezultat procjene ugra uje se u
prostorne planove kroz postupak njihovih izmjena i dopuna.
Klju ne rije i: strateška procjena, procjena utjecaja na okoliš, strateški i provedbeni
dokumenti prostornog ure enja
Uvod
Prostorno planiranje kao interdisciplinarna djelatnost uvažava integralni pristup u zaštiti
prostora Republike Hrvatske još od 50-tih godina prošlog stolje a. Izrada studija
utjecaja na okolinu u Republici Hrvatskoj kao formalni postupak bila je prvi put
propisana odredbom l.55. Zakona o prostornom planiranju i ure enju prostora
(„Narodne novine“ br.54/80) ime se institucionalizirao ve u prostornom planiranju
postoje i integralni pristup u zaštiti prostora Republike Hrvatske. Slijedom toga
možemo re i da se postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš provodio u RH vrlo rano u
odnosu na druge europske zemlje i to zahvaljuju i sveobuhvatnoj prirodi prostornog
planiranja koja u RH ima dugu, neprekinutu tradiciju.
U važe e hrvatsko zakonodavstvo iz podru ja prostornog ure enja, zaštite okoliša i
prirode ugra en je princip da se procjena utjecaja na okoliš provodi kao formalan
postupak za zahvate koji su planirani odgovaraju im prostornim planovima i zbog toga
je odredbom l.6.st.2.to .3. Uredbe o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš („Narodne
novine“ br.64/08 i 67/09) propisano da se uz zahtjev za provo enje postupka procjene
utjecaja na okoliš prilaže mišljenje tijela uprave nadležnog za izdavanje lokacijske
dozvole o uskla enosti zahvata u prostoru s važe om prostorno-planskom
dokumentacijom. Ovo iz razloga što je na zakonodavnoj razini dogovoreno da PUO kao
formalan postupak ne može biti, kad je rije o zahvatima u prostoru, samostalni
instrument prostornog planiranja, neovisan o postupcima izrade i donošenja prostornih
planova i njihovih izmjena i dopuna.
Ipak valja re i da odgovor na pitanje kako treba vremenski uskladiti korake u
postupcima procjene utjecaja na okoliš/ocjene prihvatljivosti za ekološku mrežu i
donošenja dokumenata prostornog ure enja/njihovih izmjena i dopuna nije niti
jednozna an niti jednostavan budu i je Zakonom o prostornom ure enju i gradnji
("Narodne novine", br. 76/07, 38/09, 55/11, 90/11, 50/12, 55/12 i 80/13) propisana
obveza donošenja dokumenata prostornog ure enja razli itih po namjeni (strateških i
provedbenih) koji moraju biti me usobno uskla eni, a donose se na tri razine, državnoj,
regionalnoj i lokalnoj. Slijedom takvog zakonskog rješenja u svrhu provedbe zahvata u
prostoru (isho enja lokacijske dozvole) ve ina zahvata treba biti planirana ne samo
strateškim dokumentom prostornog ure enja ve jedinice lokalne samouprave moraju
donijeti još i provedbeni dokument prostornog ure enja. Imaju i na umu takav sustav
provedbe zahvata u prostoru, klju no je pitanje može li se neovisno o tome o kakvom se
zahvatu u prostoru radi, re i da postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš može prethoditi
planiranju zahvata u prostornom planu bez obzira radi li se o strateškom ili
provedbenom planu ili pak da je procjena utjecaja na okoliš postupak koji slijedi po
donošenju svih obveznih prostornih planova a prethodi njihovoj provedbi (izdavanju
lokacijske dozvole).
Trenutno stanje svakako da je, izme u ostalog, i posljedica toga što se prema Zakonu o
zaštiti okoliša ("Narodne novine", br.110/07) strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš
trebala provoditi samo za prostorne planove županija i Prostorni plan Grada Zagreba a
ocjena o potrebi strateške procjene provodila se samo za izmjene i dopune tih planova.
Budu i da je Uredba o strateškoj procjeni utjecaja plana i programa na okoliš ("Narodne
novine", br.64/08) stupila na snagu kada su ve bili doneseni svi prostorni planovi
županija i Prostorni plan Grada Zagreba, u me uvremenu nije donesen niti jedan novi
prostorni plan županije za koji je provedena strateška procjena, a velika ve ina ocjena o
potrebi strateške procjene izmjena i dopuna prostornih planova županija završila je
odlukom da ista nije potrebna, strateška procjena dokumenata prostornog ure enja u
Republici Hrvatskoj još uvijek nije uhodan prostorno-planerski instrument, a posljedica
ega je da je procjena utjecaja na okoliš, koja se provodi ve gotovo 30 godina (od
1984.), djelomi no preuzela ulogu strateške procjene.
Novim Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša ("Narodne novine" br.80/13) propisano je da se
strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš provodi u ranoj fazi izrade svih strateških
dokumenata prostornog ure enja (osim prostornih planova ure enja op ina i gradova) a
postupak ocjene o potrebi provedbe iste za njihove izmjene i dopune te za prostorne
planove ure enja op ina i gradova. Tijelo koje je nositelj izrade strateškog dokumenta
prostornog ure ena ujedno je i nadležno za provo enje strateške procjene u suradnji s
tijelom nadležnim za zaštitu okoliša iste razine.
Ovakvim novim zakonskim rješenjima kojima je propisano da je strateška procjena
odnosno ocjena o potrebi njezine provedbe sastavni dio postupka izrade svih strateških
dokumenata prostornog ure enja, a da se procjena utjecaja na okoliš i dalje provodi kao
samostalni upravni postupak u okviru provedbe zahvata ( isho enja lokacijske dozvole
ili eventualno izrade provedbenog dokumenta prostornog ure enja) trebalo bi u
konkretnim slu ajevima biti manje dilema oko odgovora na pitanje „Što je prije,
prostorni plan ili PUO?“.
Što je prije, prostorni plan ili PUO?
Tijelo koje donosi odluku o tome, bilo da je rije o tijelu uprave koje daje mišljenje o
uskla enosti zahvata za potrebe provo enja postupka procjene utjecaja ili o jedinici
regionalne/lokalne samouprave koja donosi odluku o izradi prostornog plana, mora pri
tome uzeti u obzir npr.:
- je li zahvat bio predmetom strateške procjene utjecaja za prostorni plan šireg
podru ja i je li u tom slu aju uskla en s mjerama zaštite okoliša i planom
provedbe istih
- kakav je odnos javnosti prema zahvatu
- je li zahvat od javnog ili pojedina nog interesa
- radi li se o to kastom ili linearnom zahvatu u ure enom gra evinskom podru ju
ili izvan izgra enih struktura
- kakvi se utjecaji o ekuju (na koje sastavnice okoliša, na ekološku mrežu, kojeg
intenziteta)
- mogu i utjecaj zahvata na pokazatelje one iš enja okoliša/ošte enosti prirode
koji su kriti ni
- detaljnost i obvezan sadržaj novog obveznog prostornog plana u odnosu na
specifi nost zahvata
- mogu nost donošenja fleksibilnijih detaljnijih prostornih planova i drugo.
Strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš
Ako je provedena strateška procjena utjecaja na okoliš za izmjene i dopune prostornog
plana županije, iji predmet izmjena je bio i razmatrani zahvat, tada elementi zahvata u
prostoru koji se definiraju županijskim planom ( l.71. Zakona o prostornom ure enju i
gradnji – položaj, vrsta, najve i kapacitet i veli ina), trebaju biti provjereni ve u tom
postupku. U tom slu aju, ukoliko se u me uvremenu ne do e do novih saznanja
/ograni enja, urbanisti ki plan ure enja može se donijeti i prije provedene procjene
utjecaja na okoliš. U tako provedenom postupku ne bi se smjelo dogoditi da se npr.
kapacitet neke ugostiteljsko-turisti ke zone (broj ležajeva, gra evinska/bruto površina)
drasti no smanji tek u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš, odnosno tijekom donošenja
detaljnijeg prostornog plana budu i su vjerojatno zna ajni utjecaji na okoliš/ekološku
mrežu trebali biti razmotreni u postupku strateške procjene.
Odnos javnosti prema zahvatu
Kad je rije o zahvatima koji su op e prihva eni od lokalne zajednice i udruga,
injenica jesu li doneseni svi propisani prostorni planovi i je li zahvat u potpunosti
uskla en s njima nije presudna za provo enje postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
Eventualne izmjene prostornih planova i donošenje detaljnijih prostornih planova mogu
slijediti nakon okon anja postupka procjene utjecaja.
Kod zahvata koji nisu u javnosti dobrodošli zbog svog možebitnog negativnog utjecaja
na okoliš nije dovoljno to što su u trenutku provo enja postupka procjene utjecaja na
okoliš na elno planirani strateškim dokumentima prostornog ure enja, ve isti u pravilu
trebaju biti planirani i provedbenim prostornim planovima koje donose jedinice lokalne
samouprave.
Isto vrijedi i kada se radi o zahvatima od pojedina nog interesa, odnosno kod zahvata
od javnog interesa puno je više prostora za fleksibilniju primjenu propisa iz podru ja
prostornog ure enja.
Vrsta zahvata (to kasti, linearni)
Ukoliko je ve i linearni infrastrukturni zahvat planiran i podru jem za koje je obvezan
detaljniji prostorni plan, u pravilu je opravdano da postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš
za taj zahvat prethodi izradi provedbenog plana. Ovo posebice kada je taj infrastrukturni
zahvat planiran planom šireg podru ja bez da su prethodno provedena neophodna
istraživanja, sagledan utjecaj na okoliš i izra eno kvalitetno idejno rješenje.
Za razliku od prethodnog kada je rije npr. o eksploatacijskom polju šljunka koje se
treba sanirati u svrhu formiranja sportsko-rekreacijske zone, studija utjecaja na okoliš i
detaljniji prostorni plan trebaju se raditi paralelno kako bi se uskladili na in
eksploatacije i prostorno-planersko rješenje sanacije (kona na namjena, oblikovanje
prostora).
Vrsta i intenzitet utjecaja zahvata na ekološku mrežu
Kod zahvata za koje se provodi glavna ocjena prihvatljivosti za ekološku mrežu, za
ekivati je da e rezultati tog postupka dati podatke (i uvjete) koji su neophodni za
izradu detaljnijeg prostornog plana. U tom slu aju provedbeni prostorni planovi trebali
bi se izra ivati paralelno s provo enjem postupka glavne ocjene posebice ako nije
provedena strateška procjena za plan šireg podru ja.
Vrsta i intenzitet utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Kada se radi o to kastom zahvatu kod kojeg se usprkos tome što zauzima veliku
površinu izvan izgra enih struktura, ne o ekuje zna ajan utjecaj na ciljeve o uvanja i
cjelovitost podru ja ekološke mreže, tada rezultati procjene utjecaja na okolišu u pravilu
ne utje u na namjenu površina koju utvr uje detaljniji prostorni plan.
Me utim prije donošenja odluke što je prije detaljniji plan ili PUO potrebno je
procijeniti radi li se o zahvatu za koji e u postupku PUO biti propisane mjere zaštite
okoliša koje bi mogle utjecati na prostorno-planerska rješenja (npr. zaštita povijesne
baštine, mogu nost nasipavanje mora u ugostiteljsko-turisti kom kompleksu, vizure,
utjecaj na krajobraz).
Stanje one iš enja okoliša/ošte enosti prirode
Jedinice lokalne/regionalne samouprave sklone su propisati obvezu detaljnijeg
prostornog plana za sanaciju postoje ih eksploatacijskih polja gra evno-tehni kog
kamena kod kojih se bespravnom eksploatacijom devastirao širi prostor od samog
eksploatacijskog polja, a sanacijom ih se planira biološki rekultivirati ili prenamijeniti u
sportsko-rekreacijsku zonu. Na in sanacije dijelova prirode koji zahtjeva posebnu
pozornost radi o uvanja biološke i krajobrazne raznolikosti, prethodno bi trebalo
procijeniti kroz postupak PUO i/ ili ocjene prihvatljivosti za ekološku mrežu pa tek
onda izraditi detaljniji prostorni plan ukoliko je isti, kad je rije o biološkoj sanaciji,
uop e opravdano donositi.
Detaljnost i sadržaj novog obveznog prostornog plana
Sadržaj prostornih planova propisan je pravnim pravilima Pravilnika o sadržaju,
mjerilima kartografskih prikaza, obveznim prostornim pokazateljima i standardu
elaborata prostornih planova („Narodne novine“ br. 106/98, 39/04, 45/04, 163/04,
148/10 (prestao važiti) i 9/11). Ukoliko je za o ekivati da e neka od mjera zaštite
okoliša /mjera ublažavanja štetnih posljedica zahvata na ciljeve o uvanja podru ja
ekološke mreže utjecati na lokacijske uvjete tj. na ono što je obvezan sadržaj novog
obveznog prostornog plana (npr. linija nasipavanja, podru je unutar kojeg je dozvoljeno
gra enje, visina gra evina, na in zbrinjavanja otpadnih voda), tada je preporuka da
procjena utjecaja prethodi izradi tog plana.
Fleksibilnost detaljnijih prostornih planova
Jedinice lokalne samouprave ponekad odlu e izraditi detaljniji plan za još uvijek
nepoznatog investitora, što u pravilu zna i i bez provedene procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
U tom slu aju preporuka je donijeti takav urbanisti ki plan ure enja koji e omogu iti
fleksibilnost utvr ivanja lokacijskih uvjeta u postupku provedbe tog plana, ali naravno
uz uvjet da se to ne protivi zakonodavstvu iz podru ja prostornog ure enja. Ovo se u
pravilu rijetko može primijeniti kad je rije o detaljnom planu ure enja.
Kompenzacijska podru ja
U slu aju da se zahvat ocijeni neprihvatljivim za ekološku mrežu i utvrdi prevladavaju i
javni interes, uspostavljanje kompenzacijskog podru ja tako er bi trebalo biti uskla eno
s prostornim planovima. U suprotnom izmjena prostornih planova može slijediti tek po
utvr ivanju prevladavaju eg javnog interesa.
Zaklju ak
Pravilna odluka o na inu interakcije prostornog planiranja i procjene mogu ih utjecaja u
dijelu koji se odnosi na definiranje terminskog plana provo enja postupaka strateške
procjene / procjene utjecaja na okoliš / prihvatljivosti zahvata za ekološku mrežu i
postupaka donošenja prostornih planova/njihovih izmjena i dopuna može:
- poboljšati kvalitetu prostorno-planerskih odluka
- unaprijediti ve donesene planerske odluke
- uskladiti javne i pojedina ne interese u ranoj fazi projekta
- osigurati u inkovitiju provedbu mjera zaštite okoliša/prirode
- skratiti vrijeme potrebno za isho enje odobrenja na na in da se postupci vode
paralelno
- smanjiti troškove provedbe zahvata
i time doprinijeti uravnoteženom prostornom razvoju uskla enom s gospodarskim,
društvenim i okolišnim polazištima.
Nužan uvjet jest da oni koji donose takve odluke trebaju biti senzibilizirani i educirani
za prostorno planiranje kao interdisciplinarnu djelatnost, spremni za donošenje odluka
na na in da integralno sagledavaju problematiku prostornog razvoja, zaštite okoliša i
zaštite prirode.
Stvaranje novih zakonodavnih okvira jest tako er prilika da se unaprijedi ovaj postupak
važan za svaku investiciju kod koje se o ekuje zna ajan utjecaj na prostor, okoliš i
prirodu. Pri tome treba nastojati poboljšati na in donošenja odluka uskla ivanjem
postupaka propisanih razli itim zakonima, a ne samo deklaratorno skra ivati/ukidati
procedure i prolongirati rješavanje problema za daljnje faze projekata ime se ugrožava
njihova realizacija a ponekad i javni interes.
Literatura
[1] Zakon o prostornom ure enju i gradnji ("Narodne novine", br. 76/07, 38/09,
55/11, 90/11, 50/12, 55/12 i 80/13)
[2] Pravilnik o sadržaju, mjerilima kartografskih prikaza, obveznim prostornim
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
pokazateljima i standardu elaborata prostornih planova („Narodne novine“ br.
106/98, 39/04, 45/04, 163/04, 148/10 - prestao važiti i 9/11)
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša ("Narodne novine", br.110/07)
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš ("Narodne novine", br.64/08 i
67/09)
Uredba o strateškoj procjeni utjecaja plana i programa na okoliš ("Narodne
novine", br.64/08)
Zakon o zaštiti prirode ("Narodne novine", br. 70/05, 139/08 i 57/11)
Pravilnik o ocjeni prihvatljivosti plana, programa i zahvata za ekološku mrežu
("Narodne novine", br.118/09)
[8] Zakon o zaštiti okoliša ("Narodne novine", br.80/13)
[9] Zakon o zaštiti prirode ("Narodne novine", br. 80/13)
[10] Prijedlog teksta Zakona o prostornom ure enju iz lipnja 2013.
Proces izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš
Zrinka Vladovi -Relja1, Dubravka Ba un2
1
Interkonzalting,
Ulica
grada
([email protected])
2
Istarska 45a, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Vukovara
43a,
Zagreb,
Hrvatska
Sažetak
Nositelj zahvata za zahvate propisane Uredbom o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš,
NN 64/08, 67/09 (dalje: UoPUO), mora provesti postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš, a
rezultat je Studija o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš (dalje Studija). Studija je preduvjet za
isho enje rješenja o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš. Uredbom (UoPUO) su propisani
zahvati za koje postoji obaveza provedbe procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš, kao i
odgovaraju e aktivnosti. Budu i da se radi o nizu me usobno povezanih aktivnosti koje
djeluju jedna na drugu, govorimo o procesu izrade Studije o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na
okoliš (dalje: Proces). U medijima se esto mogu uti izjave nositelja zahvata da je
postupak dugotrajan, kao i izjave politi ara da postupak treba skratiti. U propisima su
navedene neke obvezne aktivnosti tijekom Procesa izrade Studije, i propisano je koliko
one traju. Osim propisanih postoje i one nepropisane bez kojih je itav postupak
nemogu e provesti. Neki postupak se ne može skratiti ako nije poznata ve ina potrebnih
aktivnosti u procesu, niti koliko one traju. U ovom radu se, na temelju prakti nog
iskustva, navode glavne aktivnosti, a njihovo trajanje je teško procijeniti jer ovisi od
niza imbenika. Navode se problemi i nesporazumi koji nastaju ako nema jasnih pisanih
uputa/smjernica. U radu se navode prijedlozi koji mogu poboljšati postoje i proces tako
da bude djelotvoran – da se planirane aktivnosti i planirani rezultati postižu uz najmanji
utrošak resursa, te u inkovit – da bude usmjeren na bitne aktivnosti.
Klju ne rije i: proces, studija, procjena, utjecaj, okoliš
Uvod
Prema naslovu rada Proces izrade studije o utjecaju na okoliš (dalje: Proces i Studija),
razvidno je da je cilj rada opisati proces koji se ponavlja pri izradi svake Studije. Isto
tako, cilj je povezati odvijanje Procesa u gospodarskoj organizaciji s odvijanjem
Procesa u organizacijama javne vlasti, te razmotriti mogu nosti za poboljšanje. Svaki
proces, pa i Proces izrade Studije traje odre eno vrijeme. Predstavnici nositelja zahvata
tvrde da Proces traje predugo i da nailaze na brojne prepreke, dok politi ari obe avaju
da e taj Proces poboljšati i skratiti. Trajanje Procesa može se razmatrati sa stanovišta
nadležnog ministarstva, nositelja zahvata, ovlaštenika, javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti.
Metode primijenjene pri izradi rada su:
- analiza propisa i normi primjenjivih na Proces i Studiju,
- analiza propisanih postupaka, kao i onih koji se moraju provesti, a nisu
propisani,
- analiza iskustava na izradi Studija.
Analiza dosadašnjih iskustava na izradi Studija zna ila je i uvažavanje injenica da
Proces izrade Studije, ovisno o vrsti zahvata može biti više ili manje zahtjevan, u njemu
može sudjelovati ve i ili manji broj stru njaka za razli ita podru ja, vrijeme izrade
Studije može biti kra e ili duže ovisno o složenosti zahvata, ali i zbog okolnosti koje je
na po etku Procesa bilo teško predvidjeti i sli no. Autorice su morale uvažavati u estale
promjene propisa koji se odnose na sam Proces, ali i na zahvat koji se obra uje.
Pretpostavka jest da postoje mogu nosti poboljšanja i skra ivanja Procesa. Da bi se to
postiglo potrebno je detaljno sagledati cjelovit Proces sa svim propisanim i
nepropisanim aktivnostima i tek poslije pažljive analize odlu iti o mogu im
poboljšanjima. U sagledavanju Procesa važno je razmotriti i ekonomski aspekt jer
prema Zakonu o zaštiti okoliša, NN 80/13 (ZoZO) [1], lanak 85.(5) nositelj zahvata
osigurava izradu Studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš i podmiruje sve troškove u
postupku procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš.
Osvrt na europske i hrvatske propise i norme koji se odnose na proces izrade
studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš (Proces)
Povremeno, u medijima ili na skupovima, može se uti odnosno pro itati osvrt na
kvalitetu samog Procesa, ali i Studija. Kvaliteta Studije kao rezultata Procesa ovisi o
kvaliteti podloga za rad i ulaznim podacima. Kroz kvalitetu Studije ocjenjuje se i
kvaliteta rada ovlaštenika koji izra uje Studiju. Ovlaštenik je samo jedan od dionika
procesa, a kvaliteta Studije ovisi o kvaliteti rada svih direktnih i indirektnih dionika
Procesa. Ovlaštenik ima mali ili gotovo nikakav utjecaj na kvalitetu propisa, normi,
uputa, smjernica, izvještaja i ostalih dokumenata potrebnih za izradu Studije, Slika 1.
PROCJENA UTJECAJA NA OKOLIŠ
ORG.
DOKUMENTI
ORG.
DOKUMENTI
REPUBLIKA
HRVATSKA
ME UNARODNA
RAZINA
PROPISI
Europski parlament
i Vije e (EU)
Directive 2011/92/EU
dodati
Sabor, Vlada, ministarstva
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša,
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš i dr.
NORME
ISO, IEC, CEN,
CENELEC
EN ISO 14001,
EN ISO 14015 i dr.
EN ISO 9001 i dr.
OSTALI DOKUMENTI
UNDP, WBCSD
korporacije
Aarhus konvencija
HZN
Metodologija procjene
utjecaja na okoliš (H1)
HRN EN ISO 14001
HRN EN ISO 14015 i dr.
HRN EN ISO 9001 i dr.
Povelje, Pravila ponašanja
Pravila dobre prakse,
interni dokumenti
Proces procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš:
Cilj: procijeniti mogu e zna ajne utjecaje zahvata na okoliš
Dionici: tijela javne vlasti, nositelj zahvata, ovlaštenik, javnost i zainteresirana javnosti i dr.
Dokument: studija utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Popratno: informiranje, dijeljenje znanja, sticanje povjerenja, o uvanje ugleda i konkurentnosti,
Strateški pristup upravljanju promjenama, upravljanju rizicima, upravljanju znanjem
društvena dozvola za rad
Slika 1. Utjecaj propisa, normi i ostalih dokumenata na Proces i Studiju
Temeljni propisi koji se odnose i propisuju osnovne zna ajke Procesa su Zakon o zaštiti
okoliša, NN 80/13 (ZoZO) i Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš, NN 64/08,
67/09 (UoPUO). Osim njih, na odvijanje procesa odnose se i drugi propisi, na primjer:
Zakon o op em upravnom postupku. Slijedom te injenice može se zaklju iti da se na
Proces i Studiju odnosi više propisa.
Nazivi i objašnjenja
Održivi razvoj
Prema ZoZO [1], temeljnog propisa za procjenu utjecaja zahvata na okoliš, jedan od
ciljeva zaštite okoliša je osiguranje i razvoj dugoro ne održivosti i to okolišne,
ekonomske i društvene. Prema izvještaju Naša zajedni ka budu nost (Our Common
Future), Svjetske komisije za okoliš i razvoj iz 1987. godine, održivi razvoj je objašnjen
kao proces promjena u kojem su iskorištavanje resursa, smjer ulaganja, orijentacija
tehni kog razvoja i institucionalne promjene u me usobnom skladu i omogu avaju
ispunjavanje potreba i sadašnjih i budu ih naraštaja. Pod institucionalnim promjenama
podrazumijevamo promjene u politi kom, obrazovnom, pravnom, financijskom itd.
sustavu. Stvarnost ukazuje na injenicu da je potrebno uložiti dosta napora, a da bi se taj
sklad postigao. injenica jest da se tehni ke promjene odvijaju znatno brže od
institucionalnih, a promjena propisa jest dio institucionalnih promjena na ijem
poboljšanju treba zajedni ki poraditi.
Proces i procesni pristup
Objašnjenje održivog razvoja naglašava procesni pristup i promjene, ali i sklad me u
tim promjenama. Prema normi HRN EN ISO 9000:2008 Sustavi upravljanja kvalitetom
-- Temeljna na ela i terminološki rje nik [4], proces je skup uzajamno povezanih ili
me usobno djeluju ih radnja koje ulaze (po etak neke radnje) pretvaraju u izlaze
(završetak neke radnje) ili ulazi u neki proces su op enito izlazi iz drugih procesa.
Procesi se planiraju i provode u nadziranim uvjetima radi stvaranja dodatne vrijednosti.
Razlikuju se klju ni procesi, kojih je obi no manji broj, i podržavaju i procesi. Proces
mora biti dokumentiran, Slika 1., mora se znati tko je vlasnik procesa i tko njime
upravlja (MZOIP), kao i tko i na koji na in sudjeluje u pojedinim aktivnostima kao
dijelu procesa (nositelj zahvata, ovlaštenik i drugi dionici).
Skupine dokumenata koje utje u na Proces prikazane su na Slici 1., a rezultat procesa je
Studija. Efikasan (djelotvoran) je onaj Proces kojim se ostvaruju planirane aktivnosti i
postižu planirani rezultati uz najmanji utrošak resursa. Efektivan (u inkovit) Proces onaj
je koji je usmjeren na bitne aktivnosti.
Procesni je pristup strategija upravljanja jer to zna i da se upravlja procesima kao i
me udjelovanjem izme u procesa: informacijama, energijom, resursima i sve te procese
me usobno povezuje. Procjena utjecaja zahvata na okoliš je dio upravljanja
promjenama jer svaki zahvat predstavlja odre enu promjenu u okolišu.
Procjena utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Prema ZoZO [1], lanak 76., procjena utjecaja zahvata na okoliš je procjena mogu ih
zna ajnih utjecaja na okoliš zahvata odre enih UoPUO. Procjena se provodi u okviru
pripreme namjeravanog zahvata, prije izdavanja lokacijske dozvole za provedbu zahvata
ili drugog odobrenja za zahvat za koji izdavanje lokacijske dozvole nije obvezno.
Procjenom utjecaja zahvata na okoliš prepoznaje se, opisuje i ocjenjuje, na prikladan
na in, utjecaj zahvata na okoliš, tako da se utvr uje mogu i izravni i neizravni utjecaj
zahvata na: tlo, vodu, more, zrak, šumu, klimu, ljude, biljni i životinjski svijet, prirodne
vrijednosti, krajobraz, materijalnu imovinu, kulturnu baštinu, uzimaju i u obzir njihove
me uodnose.
Zakonsko objašnjenje djeluje jasno i razumljivo. U stvarnom odvijanju procesa može se
raspravljati o tome koji je to prikladan na in, odnosno što je to zna ajan utjecaj. Praksa
pokazuje da razli iti dionici imaju razli ita tuma enja navedenih izraza.
Studija o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš
Prema ZoZO [1], lanak 85., Studija je stru na podloga koja obuhva a sve potrebne
podatke, dokumentaciju, obrazloženja i opise u tekstualnom i grafi kom obliku,
prijedlog ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata i mjere zaštite okoliša u odnosu na zahvat te
program pra enja stanja okoliša.
Samoj izradi Studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš mogu, ali i ne moraju prethoditi
postupci:
- izrade strateške procjene utjecaja strategije, plana i programa na okoliš
- izdavanje upute o sadržaju Studije
- izrada zahtjeva za ocjenu o potrebi procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Paralelno s izradom Studije mogu i su postupci:
- ocjene o prihvatljivosti zahvata na prirodu/ekološku mrežu/NATURA 2000 [9]
- izrada dokumentacije za utvr ivanje objedinjenih uvjeta zaštite okoliša [10].
Nositelj zahvata
Prema ZoZO [1], lanak 4.(26), nositelj zahvata je podnositelj zahtjeva: za ocjenu o
potrebi procjene utjecaja na okoliš, za utvr ivanje sadržaja studije o utjecaju na okoliš
ili za procjenu utjecaja na okoliš. U stvarnom odvijanju procesa, nositelj zahvata može
biti izvan Zagreba/Hrvatske i odabire ovlaštenika kao stru nu osobu koja e mu
pripremiti potrebne dokumente, obavljati poslove umjesto nositelja zahvata te pomagati
u bržem odvijanju procesa. Tako er, nositelj zahvata ne mora nužno biti i investitor, ve
osoba koja temeljem punomo u u ime investitora podnosi zahtjev.
Ovlaštenik
Prema ZoZO [1], lanak 4. (43.), ovlaštenik je pravna ili fizi ka osoba koja posjeduje
suglasnost za obavljanje stru nih poslova iz podru ja zaštite okoliša. Ovlaštenik je i
pravna osoba odgovorna za istinitost, to nost, stru nu utemeljenost i udovoljavanje
propisanim zahtjevima u vezi s izradom i sadržajem studije. U stvarnom odvijanju
procesa ovlaštenik ima veliku odgovornost i sudjeluje u brojnim nepropisanim
aktivnostima koje osiguravaju što brže i nesmetano odvijanje procesa.
Predstavnici javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti o ekuju tijekom javne rasprave, važnog
dijela Procesa, da ovlaštenik odgovara na pitanja odnosi li se neki propis na zahvat ili
ne. Ovlaštenik može biti kompetentan odgovoriti na takovo pitanje, ali nije ovlašten.
Osiguravanje provedbe podzakonskih propisa uklju uje i ovlast davanja tuma enja tih
propisa, ukoliko razli ita tuma enje tog propisa dovode u pitanje njegovu provedbu.
Tuma enje odnosi li se neki propis na zahvat ili ne može dati samo tijelo koje je
ovlašteno za njegovo donošenje.
Proces izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš
Nositelja zahvata zanima koliko traje postupak isho enja potrebnih dokumenata do
ostvarenja samog zahvata te vrlo esto traže tabli ni prikaz odvijanja postupka izrade
Studije s jasno definiranim rokom trajanja pojedinih dijelova Procesa, a do isho enja
Rješenja o prihvatljivosti zahvata. Proces, ije trajanje ga zanima, sastoji se od niza
podprocesa, a jedan od njih je proces izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš
(Proces). U Tablici 1., prikazane su osnovne aktivnosti prilikom procjene utjecaja na
okoliš. Tako er, uzet je u obzir jednostavniji proces pri kojem ne dolazi do
prekograni nih utjecaja, nije prethodno traženo izdavanje upute o sadržaju studije, nije
prethodio postupak ocjene o potrebi procjene, nema utjecaja na Naturu 2000 itd. Bez
obzira što se radi o tzv. jednostavnijem procesu, Tablica 1. se sastoji od cca 20 koraka,
od kojih bi se neki zasigurno mogli raš laniti na još nekoliko podaktivnosti. Tablica 1. i
navedene aktivnosti temeljene su na ZoZO i UoPUO, kao i na dosadašnjem iskustvu u
postupcima PUO. Tablica 1. je samo jedan od na ina prikazivanja Procesa.
Tablica 1. Pregled aktivnosti u Procesu
Aktivnost
Tko
Izrada zahtjeva za procjenu
Ovlaštenik
utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Rok
---
Propis
ZoZO (NN 80/13),
lanak 80.,
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 6.
Izrada Studije
Ovlaštenik
Nositelj
Predaja Zahtjeva i Studije u
zahvata/
MZOIP
ovlaštenik
Informiranje
javnosti
i
zainteresirane
javnosti
o
zahtjevu, nakon što nadležno
Nadležno tijelo
tijelo utvrdi da su zahtjev i
Studija u skladu s lankom 6. i
7. Uredbe
---
ZoZO (NN 80/13),
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09)
---
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 6.
---
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 8.
Uredba o informiranju i
sudjelovanju javnosti*
(NN 64/08), lanak 7. i
8.
ZoZO (NN 80/13),
lanak 87.,
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 9.
Imenovanje
savjetodavnog
Nadležno tijelo
stru nog povjerenstva
---
Dostava Studije
lanovima
Ovlaštenik
stru nog povjerenstva
---
Sastanak
prve
savjetodavnog
povjerenstva
U roku
od
10
dana od
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
dana
imenova 67/09), lanak 13.
nja
povjeren
stva
sjednice
stru nog Nadležno tijelo
Izrada i dostava zapisnika s
primjedbama
savjetodavnog
stru nog povjerenstva
Dopuna
Studije
temeljem
zaprimljenih
mišljenja
savjetodavnog
stru nog
povjerenstva
Upu ivanje Studije na javnu
raspravu
Priprema i slanje odgovaraju eg
broja primjeraka za provedbu
postupka javne rasprave
Održavanje javne rasprave
(javni uvid i javno izlaganje)
---
Nadležno tijelo
---
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 12.
Ovlaštenik
30 dana
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 13.
Nadležno tijelo
---
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 14.
ovlaštenik
---
UoPUO (NN 64/08,
67/09), lanak 14.
Nadležno
tijelo/JLP(R)S
Izrada i dostava zapisnika i
izvješ a s održane javne
Nadležno
rasprave uklju uju i primjedbe,
tijelo/ JLP(R)S
prijedloge i mišljenja javnosti i
zainteresirane javnosti
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 14.
Najmanj Uredba o informiranju i
e
30 sudjelovanju javnosti*
(NN 64/08),
dana
lanak 16., 17., 18. i
19.
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 15.
Uredba o informiranju i
--sudjelovanju javnosti*
(NN 64/08),
lanak 19. , 20. i 21.
itovanje nositelja zahvata
putem
ovlaštenika
na
zaprimljene
primjedbe,
prijedloge i mišljenja i dopuna
Studije sukladno tome
Stru no povjerenstvo razmatra
itovanja nositelja zahvata
putem
ovlaštenika
na
zaprimljene
primjedbe,
prijedloge i mišljenja
Druga sjednica savjetodavnog
stru nog povjerenstva/
Donošenje
mišljenja
o
prihvatljivosti zahvata
Izrada
nacrta
prijedloga
mišljenja
povjerenstva
o
prihvatljivosti zahvata
Donošenje
rješenja
o
prihvatljivosti zahvata
Informiranje
javnosti
i
zainteresirane
javnosti
o
rješenju
Postupak procjene utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš mora se
provesti u roku od etiri mjeseca
od dana primitka urednog
zahtjeva nositelja zahvata
Nositelj
zahvata/
Ovlaštenik
---
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 15.
---
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 15. i 16.
Nadležno tijelo
Najviše
30 dana
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 15. i 16.
Nadležno
tijelo/
Ovlaštenik
---
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 16. i 17.
Nadležno tijelo
---
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 22.
Nadležno tijelo
---
UoPUO (64/08, 67/09),
lanak 22.
Nadležno tijelo
4
mjeseca
ZoZO (NN 80/13),
lanak 88.
--- oznaka zna i da rok nije propisan i isti može zna ajno varirati
* Uredba o informiranju i sudjelovanju javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti u pitanjima zaštite
okoliša (NN 64/08)
Preporuke i prijedlozi za poboljšanje
Tablica 1., koja sadrži samo osnovne aktivnosti u Procesu, pokazuje o koliko se
složenom procesu radi bez da su razmatrani ostali propisi s dodatnim zahtjevima. U
nastavku su prikazani prijedlozi za unapre enje samog Procesa, s ciljem njegova
poboljšanja, skra ivanja i smanjenja troškova.
Uskla ivanje s europskim propisima
Mnogi gospodarski subjekti u Hrvatskoj dio su me unarodnih gospodarskih
organizacija ili posluju na me unarodnom tržištu, posebno europskom. Isto tako,
europske gospodarske organizacije mogu biti zainteresirane za ulaganje u Republiku
Hrvatsku ili poslovanje na hrvatskom tržištu. Sve njih zanima uskla enost europskih i
hrvatskih propisa, Usporedbom europskih i hrvatskih propisa se mogu uo iti razlike i
kao posljedica toga mogu i nesporazumi, odnosno potreba za dodatnim tuma enjem.
Prijedlog:
Prirediti jasne upute o tome kako se europski propisi prenose u hrvatsko zakonodavstvo.
Objaviti uz hrvatski propis instrumente za uskla ivanje zakonodavstva: Izjavu o
uskla enosti prijedloga propisa i Usporedni prikaz podudaranja odredbi propisa.
Prije donošenja, primjenu propisa provjeriti na modelu.
Uloge i odgovornosti
U propisima jasnije opisati uloge, odgovornosti i ovlasti, na primjer: ovlaštenik je
odgovoran za istinitost, to nost, stru nu utemeljenost i udovoljavanje propisanim
zahtjevima u vezi s izradom i sadržajem Studije. U izradi Studije ovlaštenik se služi
podacima i informacijama iz izvještaja akreditiranih i ovlaštenih organizacije, neovisnih
javnih ustanova itd. Stvarnost je pokazala da podatke i informacije iz izvještaja i ostalih
dokumenata treba ponekad provjeriti, ali nitko nije odgovoran što podataka ili nema, ili
nisu cjeloviti ili ih nitko ranije nije provjerio, ali e ovlaštenik biti odgovoran ako ih
koristi u Studiji, a utvrdi se da nisu onakvi kako propis traži.
Tako er ovlaštenik koji izra uje Studiju ne mora nužno imati zaposlenog npr.
projektanta/arhitekta ili strojarskog inženjera, a u odre enim postupcima sastavni dio
Studije su i dijelovi strojarskih projekata/rješenja, idejnih projekata i sl. Ukoliko je
navedene dokumente izradilo poduze e ovlašteno za tu vrstu posla, odnosno ukoliko ih
je izradio ovlašteni projektant/arhitekt, strojar i sl., smatra se da je dokumentacija
izra ena po pravilima struke te da nema potrebe provjeravati istu. Provjera podataka i
informacija, izrada dodatnih analiza može usporiti i poskupiti Proces izrade Studije, a
neprovjereni podaci mogu utjecati na kvalitetu Studije.
Osim toga, UoPUO u lanku 19. postavlja obavezu sudjelovanja projektanta u samom
Procesu, kao i u postupku javnog izlaganja, no ne predvi a situaciju u kojoj nema
projektanta, a s obzirom da postupak još nije došao u fazu izrade idejnog rješenja, ve
se temelji na npr. detaljnom urbanisti kom planu ili urbanisti kom planu ure enja
Nositelj zahvata svoje planove temelji na službenim dokumentima poput strategija i
prostornih planova na državnoj ili lokalnoj razini, nositelj zahvata može postaviti pitanje
tko je odgovoran ako se planovi ne provode i rokovi ne poštuju, te se nositelju zahvata
pove avaju troškovi ili ve uloženo propadne ili se ulaganje uop e ne ostvari.
Postavlja se pitanje odgovornosti za neprovjereno, ponekad neistinito i
senzacionalisti ko informiranje.
Predstavnici javnosti nisu odgovorni ako se pozivaju na propise koji nisu odgovaraju i
za zahvat na koji se odnosi Studija te takvim zahtjevima produljuju i poskupljuju sam
Proces.
Prijedlog:
Jasno opisati uloge, odgovornosti i ovlasti svih dionika u procesu. Propisima predvidjeti
situaciju kada za planirani zahvat još ne postoji idejno rješenje ili idejna skica i stoga
nije mogu e sudjelovanje projektanta u Procesu.
Ukoliko se kao podloga za izradu Studije koristi urbanisti ki plan ure enje ili detaljan
plan ure enja proširiti lanak 19. Uredbe na na in de se u sudjelovanje u Procesu
uklju i i ovlašteni izra iva plana, a ime bi se Uredbom predvidjela gore opisana
situacija.
Opis Procesa
Prema postoje im propisima mogu i su razli iti na ini izrade Studije i opisa Procesa,
posljedica ega mogu nastati nesporazumi kako s predstavnicima javnosti i
zainteresirane javnosti, tako i s ostalim dionicima Procesa.
Prijedlog:
Prirediti smjernice s opisom i dijagramom tijeka odvijanja Procesa, rokovima za
pojedine aktivnosti, kao i opisom uloga pojedinih dionika u Procesu.. U izradu tog
dokumenta potrebno je uklju it više dionika s razli itim iskustvima. Navedene
smjernice bile bi doprinos projektu http://www.eenviper.eu/ u kojem sudjeluje i
Republika Hrvatska.
Nazivi i objašnjenja
O problemu razli itih prijevoda odre ene engleske rije i na hrvatski jezik i
nesporazumima koji su posljedica takove situacije ve je više puta naglašavano.
Prijedlog:
- normirati (standardzirati) nazive i objašnjenja, tako da se za odre enu rije na
engleskom koja se upotrebljava u EU propisima osigura odgovaraju i prijevod
koji e upotrebljavati svi koji pripremaju propise na hrvatskom jeziku. Takvim
pristupom bi se izbjeglo da se za istu rije na engleskom jeziku koriste dva
razli ita prijevoda.
- dogovoriti nazive i objašnjenja kako bi se izbjegla razli ita tuma enja i mogu i
nesporazumi oko prevo enja i tuma enja odre enog naziva, na primjer naziv
„nulto ili po etno stanje okoliša“ koje ovlaštenici uobi ajeno koriste za stanje
okoliša na nekoj lokaciji, prije zapo injanja s nekim zahvatom, dok je praksa
pokazala kako je izraz „nulto stanje“ mogu e razli ito tuma iti. est primjer
nesporazuma je i tuma enje naziva zna ajan. Na stranicama MZOIP objavljena
je metodologija [11] za odre ivanje zna ajnosti, ali ju ne koriste svi, tako da i
primjena i uspore ivanje rezultata razli itih metoda može biti izvor
nesporazuma.
- uskladiti nazive i objašnjenja izme u tijela javne vlasti i Hrvatskog zavoda za
norme, te Instituta za hrvatski jezik.
Sustavi upravljanja
Proces procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš je dio sustava upravljanja kako na državnoj i
lokalnoj razini, tako i na razini gospodarskog subjekta – nositelja zahvata. Zbog
estalih problema koji se javljaju tijekom tog procesa, povremeno, netko spomene
poznatu re enicu Alberta Einsteina: "The significant problems we face today cannot be
solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." ili u slobodnom
prijevodu „Zna ajne problem s kojima se danas suo avamo nije mogu e riješiti istim
na inom razmišljanja kao u vrijeme kada smo ih stvorili” To zna i da su potrebne
promjene.
Prijedlog:
Temeljito razmotriti dosadašnje odvijanje Procesa, utvrditi probleme i predložiti
poboljšanja.
Na in komunikacije
Iako je komunikacija tema koja prelazi okvire ovog rada i nije posebno obra ivana u
njemu, potreban je iskustveni osvrt na neke aktivnosti koje se ne može smatrati
racionalnom upotrebom resursa.
Umnožavanje i dostava Studija
Primjedba se odnosi na umnožavanje Studija o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš. Prema
Tablici 1. jasno je da se radi o nekoliko verzija Studije: po etnoj, onoj s dodanim
primjedbama i prijedlozima stru nog savjetodavnog povjerenstva, te završnoj poslije
održane javne rasprave i uvažavanja nekih prijedloga javnosti. Ako se svaki puta Studija
mora dostavljati u papirnatom obliku lanovim povjerenstva i nadležnim tijelima može
se govoriti o tisu ama stranica.
Prijedlog:
Studiju dostaviti na CD-u.
Na in dostave primjedbi, prijedloga i mišljenja s javne rasprave
Nositelj zahvata, putem ovlaštenika, mora se o itovati na zaprimljene primjedbe,
prijedloge i mišljenja koji se uobi ajeno dostavljaju nositelju zahvata, odnosno
ovlašteniku u papirnatom obliku odnosno skenirani.
Prijedlog:
Prilikom definiranja na ina o itovanja mogu e je zna ajno ubrzati postupak ukoliko se
UoPUO definira dostava primjedbi, prijedloga i mišljenja kako u papirnatom obliku,
tako i u elektroni kom (word) obliku, a kako bi se olakšao i ubrzao postupak o itovanja
na iste
Sudjelovanje projektanta i ovlaštenog izra iva a plana u Procesu PUO
Potrebno je uredbom predvidjeti i situaciju u kojoj ne postoji idejno rješenje ili idejna
skica za planirani zahvat, nastavno na tu injenicu, nije niti mogu e sudjelovanje
projektanta u Procesu, a kako je definirano Uredbom, lanak 19. Za neke zahvate, kao
podloga za izradu Studije, koristi se urbanisti ki plan ure enja ili detaljan plan ure enja,
a koje izra uje ovlašteni izra iva plana.
Prijedlog:
Predvidjeti mogu nost da u komunikaciji tijekom Procesa PUO ne sudjeluje projektant,
odnosno proširiti Uredbu na na in da se omogu i sudjelovanje ovlaštenog izra iva a
plana, ukoliko se kao podloga za izradu Studije koristi urbanisti ki plan ure enja ili
detaljan plan ure enja.
Zaklju ak
U radu je obra en proces izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš. Ukazano je da se
na Proces odnose i neki drugi propisi i dokumenti koji mogu utjecati na kvalitetu
Procesa i Studije. Naglašeni su mogu i izvori problema i dani prijedlozi za poboljšanje.
Navedeni su propisani i neki nepropisani dijelovi Procesa i uspostavljena je veza s
propisima koji na njih utje u, Slika 1. Predložena su i neka poboljšanja poput izrade
smjernica za Proces kako bi se isti ubrzao i postao kvalitetniji.
itav rad temeljen je na iskustvu ovlaštenika kao dionika u Procesu, te u praksi uo enih
mogu nosti za poboljšanje procesa.
Kratice i njihovo zna enje
JLP(R)S = jedinica lokalne i podru ne (regionalne) samouprave
MZOIP = Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode
ZoZO = Zakon o zaštiti okoliša, NN 80/13
Literatura
[1] Zakon o zaštiti okoliša, NN 80/13, www.nn.hr
[2] HRN EN ISO 14001:2009 Sustavi upravljanja okolišem – Zahtjevi s uputama za
primjenu
[3] HRN EN ISO 14004:2008 Sustavi upravljanja okolišem - Op e smjernice o
na elima, sustavima i podržavaju im tehnikama
[4] HRN EN ISO 9000:2008 Sustavi upravljanja kvalitetom -- Temeljna na ela i
terminološki rje nik
[5] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private
projects
on
the
environment,
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:026:0001:0021:EN:P
DF
[6] Ba un, D., Mateši , M., Omazi , M. A. (2012) Leksikon održivog razvoja Prvo
izdanje. Zagreb: Naklada Hrvatski poslovni savjet za održivi razvoj
[7] Uredba o informiranju i sudjelovanju javnosti i zainteresirane javnosti, NN
64/08, www.nn.hr
[8] Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš, NN 64/08, 67/09, www.nn.hr
[9] Pravilnik o ocjeni prihvatljivosti plana, programa i zahvata za ekološku mrežu,
NN 118/09, www.nn.hr
[10] Uredba o postupku utvr ivanja objedinjenih uvjeta zaštite okoliša, NN 118/09 ,
www.nn.hr
[11] Metodologija procjene utjecaja na okoliš,
http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/IPPC/Metodologija_procjene_utjecaja_na_okolis.pdf
(16.svibnja 2013)
The process of preparing the environmental impact assessment study
Zrinka Vladovi -Relja1, Dubravka Ba un2
1
Interkonzalting, Ulica grada Vukovara 43a, Zagreb, Croatia
([email protected])
2
Istarska 45a, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
The developer referred to in the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment,
Official Gazette “NN” Nos. 64/08, 67/09 (hereinafter: REIA), shall implement an
environmental impact assessment procedure, the result thereof being the Environmental
Impact Study (hereinafter: Study). The Study is the prerequisite to obtain the Decision
on Environmental Acceptability of the Project. The Regulation (REIA) specifies the
projects for which the requirement of environmental impact assessment exists, as well
as the appropriate activities. Since such series of activities are correlated, and influence
each other, we talk about a process of Environmental Impact Assessment Study
development (hereinafter: Process). Developer’s statements can be often heard in the
media regarding the length of the process, as well as politicians’ statements that such
process should be shortened. Regulations contain determined compulsory activities
during the Study Process development as well as the duration thereof. Aside from
prescribed activities, there are also those non-prescribed, without which it is impossible
to implement the entire process. A determined process cannot be reduced if the majority
of activities necessary for the process and the duration thereof are unknown. This paper,
based on practical experience, includes main activities, while their duration is difficult
to assess, since they depend on various factors. The paper also includes problems and
misunderstandings arising in lack of clear written instructions/guidelines. Propositions,
which can improve the existing process to make it effective, are also mentioned –
planned activities and planned results are achieved by spending resources minimally,
and to make it efficient – by aiming it to important activities.
Keywords: process, study, assessment, impact, environment
Introduction
According to the title of the paper Environmental Impact Assessment Study
Development Process (hereinafter: Process and Study), it is clear that the goal hereof is
to describe the process, which is repeated in the development of every Study. Also, the
goal is to connect the development of the Process in economic organization to the
development of the Process in the organization of public authority, and to consider the
possibility of improvement. Each process, including the Study development process
takes determined time. The representatives of the developer claim that the Process takes
too long and that they have encountered numerous obstacles, while politicians promise
that such Process shall be improved and shortened. The Duration of the Process can be
considered from the viewpoint of the competent ministry, the developer, the authorized
person, the public and the public concerned. The methods applied during development
hereof are as follows:
- Analysis of regulations and standards applicable to the Process and Study,
-
Analysis of prescribed procedures, as well as those to be implemented, which
are not prescribed,
Analysis of experience on Study development.The analysis of previous
experience on Study development meant taking into account the fact that the
Study development Process, depending on the type of project can be more or
less demanding, a larger or smaller number of experts in various fields can
participate therein, the period of Study development can be longer or shorter,
depending on the complexity of the project, and due to circumstances difficult to
anticipate at the beginning of the Process and similar. The authors had to
consider frequent modification of regulations referring to the Process itself, as
well as to the processed project.
The assumption is that there are possibilities to improve and reduce the Process. In
order to achieve that it is necessary to view the entire Process in detail with all the
prescribed and non-prescribed activities, and upon a detailed analysis to decide on
possible improvements. During Process review it is important to consider the economic
aspect because pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette “NN”
No. 80/13 (EPA) [1], Article 85 (5) the developer ensures the Environmental Impact
Assessment Study and settles all expenses of the environmental impact assessment
procedure.
Overview of European and Croatian regulations and standards referring to the
Environmental Impact Assessment Study Development Process (Process)
ORG.
DOCUMENTS
REPUB
LIC OF
CROAT
ORG.
INTERNATIONAL
LEVEL
From time to time, in the media or at meetings, overviews regarding the quality of the
Process itself and of the Study can be heard or read. Study quality as result of the
Process depends on the quality of the working basis and input data. The quality of the
authorized person, who develops the Study, is evaluated through the Study’s quality.
The authorized person is just one of the stakeholders in the process, and the quality of
the Study depends on the quality of work of all direct and indirect stakeholders in the
Process. The authorized person’s influence on the quality of regulations, standards,
instructions, guidelines, reports and other documents required for the Study
development, is small or almost nonexistent, Picture 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
REGULATIONS
STANDARDS
OTHER
DOCUMENTS
European Parliament
ISO, IEC, CEN,
UNDP, WBCSD
and Council (EU)
CENELEC
Corporations
Directive 2011/92/EU
add
EN ISO 14001,
EN ISO 14015 and
other
EN ISO 9001 and
other
Sabor ( Croatian
Parliament),
Government,
Ministries
HZN (Croatian
Standards Institute)
Aarhus Convention
Environmental
Impact Assessment
Methodology (H1)
DOCUMENT
S
Environmental
Protection Act,
Regulation on
Environmental Impact
Assessment and others
HRN EN ISO 14001,
HRN EN ISO 14015
and other
HRN EN ISO 9001
and other
Charters, Rules of
Conduct, Rules of
Good Practice,
Internal documents
Environmental Impact Assessment Process:
Goal: to assess possible significant impacts of projects on the environment and
other
Participants: public authority bodies, developer, authorized person, public and
public concerned and others
Document: Environmental Impact Assessment Study
Additional: information, distribution of knowledge, gaining trust, maintaining
reputation and competitiveness, strategic approach to change management, risk
management, knowledge management, social licence to operate
Picture 1. Impact of regulations, standards and other documents on the Process and
Study.
Basic regulations regarding and prescribing the elementary characteristics of the Process
are the Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette “NN” No. 80/13 (EPA) and
Environmental Impact Assessment, Official Gazette “NN” Nos. 64/08, 67/09 (REIA).
Aside from those, other regulations refer to the process development, such as: General
Administrative Procedure Act. In connection with that, we can conclude that several
regulations concern the Process and Study.
Terms and Explanations
Sustainable Development
Pursuant to EPA [1], the basic regulation for environmental impact assessment, one of
the goals of environmental protection is the provision and development of long-term
sustainability and namely environmental, economic and social. According to the Our
Common Future report, of the World Commission on Environment and Development of
1987, sustainable development is explained as a process of changes in which the use of
resources, direction of investments, technical development orientation and institutional
changes are in mutual harmony and provides the meeting of needs of current and future
generations.
Institutional changes imply changes in political, educational, legal, financial and other
systems. Realty points to the fact that it is necessary to make significant efforts to
achieve such harmony. It is a fact that technical changes are developed more rapidly
than institutional ones, and the change in regulations is a part of institutional changes,
therefore it is necessary to work on the development thereof.
Process and Process Approach
The explanation of sustainable development points out the process approach and
changes, as well as the harmony between them. According to standard HRN EN ISO
9000:2008 Quality management systems – Basic Principles and Terminology
Dictionary [4], the process is a group of mutually connected or mutually acting
activities which transform inputs (beginning of an action) into outputs (completion of an
action) or inputs in a process are generally outputs of other processes. Processes are
planned and implemented in controlled conditions for the creation of additional value.
Key processes differ, which are generally less in number, from supporting processes. A
process must be documented, Image 1, we have to know who is the process owner and
who manages it (Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection –MENP), as well as
who and how someone participates in individual activities as part of the process
(developer, authorized person and other stakeholders).
Groups of documents that influence the Process are shown in Image 1, and the Study is
the result thereof. A Process, which accomplishes planned activities and achieves
planned results with a minimal use of resources, is efficient. A process focused on
important activities is effective.
Process approach is a management strategy because it means that processes are
managed as well as mutual actions between processes: with information, energy and
resources, which processes are mutually connected. Environmental impact assessment is
a part of change management because each project represents a determined change in
the environment.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Pursuant to EPA [1], Article 76, the environmental impact assessment is the assessment
of possible significant environmental impacts of projects set ou in REIA. The
assessment is conducted within the preparation of the intended project, prior to the
issuance of the site construction permit for the implementation of the project or of
another permit for the project, which does not require a site construction permit
issuance.
The environmental impact assessment appropriately identifies, describes and assesses
the project’s impact on the environment, by establishing the possible direct or indirect
effect of the project on: soil, water, sea, air, forests, climate, humans, flora and fauna,
natural values, landscape, material assets, cultural heritage, while taking into account
their mutual interrelations.
The legal explanation seems clear and intelligible. In the actual process development the
appropriate method can be discussed, i.e. what exactly is a significant impact.
Experience shows that different stakeholders have different interpretations of the above
terms.
Environmental Impact Assessment Study
Pursuant to EPA [1], Article 85, a Study is the expert basis, which includes all necessary
information, documentation, explanations and descriptions in written and graphic form,
the proposal of the evaluation of project acceptability and environmental protection
measures with respect to the project and the environmental status monitoring
programme.
The development of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study may, but does not
necessarily have to be preceded by the following procedures:
- Development of strategic assessment of environmental strategy, plan and
programme impact,
- Issuance of instructions on Study content,
- Development of a request for the evaluation on the necessity of environmental
impact assessment,
- Together with the development of the Study, the following procedures are
possible:
- Assessment of acceptability of the project on nature/ecologic
network/NATURA2000 [9],
- Development of documentation for the establishment of the single
environmental protection conditions [10].
Developer
Pursuant to EPA [1], Article 4 (26), the developer is the person submitting an
application: for evaluation of the need for environmental impact assessment, for
determining the content of the environmental impact study or for environmental impact
assessment. In the actual process development, the developer does not have to be from
Zagreb/Croatia and can choose the authorized person as the expert, who shall prepare
the required documents, perform the tasks instead of the developer and help him to
accelerate the process development. Also, the developer does not necessarily have to the
also the investor, but a person that files the application pursuant to a power of attorney
on behalf of the investor.
Authorized Person
Pursuant to EPA [1], Article 4 (43), authorized person means a legal or natural person,
which possesses the approval for performance of professional environmental protection
activities. The authorized person is also a legal person responsible for the authenticity,
correctness, expert establishment and meeting the prescribed requirements regarding the
development and content of the study. In the actual development of the process, the
authorized person has a great responsibility and participates in numerous non-prescribed
activities, which ensure the most rapid possible and unhindered process development.
The representatives of the public and public concerned expect during public debate, an
important part of the Process, that the authorized person answers to questions whether a
certain regulation refers to the project or not. The authorized person may be competent
to answer such question, but is not authorized. The provision of by-laws implementation
includes also the authorization to give interpretations of such regulations, if different
interpretations thereof question their implementation. The interpretation whether a
certain regulation refers to a project or not can be given only by a authority authorized
for the adoption thereof.
Environmental Impact Assessment Study Process Development
The developer wants to know how long does it take to obtain necessary documents for
the accomplishment of the project, and often requires a table display of the Study
development process with clearly defined term of duration of individual parts of the
Process, and until the obtaining of the Decision on project acceptability. The Process,
the length of which interests him/her, consists of a series of sub-processes, one of which
is the Environmental Impact Assessment Study Process (Process). Table 1 shows the
basic activities during the environmental impact assessment. Also, a simpler process is
taken into account, whereby there are no cross-border effects, where the issuance of the
study content instructions were not previously requested, where there was no prior
evaluation procedure regarding the needs for assessment, no effects on Natura 2000
were present etc. Regardless of the fact that it is the so-called simpler process, Table 1
consists of approximately 20 steps, some of which could surely be divided in other sub
activities. Table 1 and the aforementioned activities, are based on EPA and REIA, as
well as on previous experience in EIA procedures. Table 1 is only one of the methods of
describing the Process.
Table 1. Overview of activities in the Process
Activity
Who
Development of the Request for
Environmental
Impact Authorized
person
Assessment
Deadline
---
Regulation
EPA (NN 80/13),
Article 80,
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 6
Authorized
person
Study Development
Submitting the Request
Study to the MENP
and
Developer
Authorized
person
Information of the Public and the
Public Concerned in the Request,
after the competent authority
Competent
establishes that the Request and
authority
the Study comply with Articles 6
and 7 of the Regulation
---
EPA (NN 80/13),
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09)
---
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 6
/
---
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 8
Regulation
on
Information
and
Participation of the
Public* (NN 64/08),
Articles 7 and 8
EPA (NN 80/13),
Article 87,
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 9
Appointment of the advisory
Competent
expert committee
authority
---
Delivery of Study to the
Authorized
members of the expert committee
person
---
Meeting of the first session of the
Competent
advisory expert committee
authority
Within 10
days from
the date of
REIA (NN 64/08,
appointment
67/09), Article 13
of
the
committee
Draw up and delivery of minutes
containing annotations of the Competent
authority
advisory expert committee
Amendments to the Study based
on received opinion of the
advisory expert committee
Carrying out public debate on the
Study
Preparation and sending of an
appropriate number of copies for
the implementation of public
debate procedure
---
---
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 12
Authorized
person
30 days
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 13
Competent
authority
---
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 14
Authorized
person
---
REIA (NN 64/08,
67/09), Article 14
Competent
Public debate
(public examination and public authority
/LRSGU
presentation)
REIA
(64/08,
67/09),
Article 14
Regulation
on
and
At least 30 Information
Participation of the
days
Public* (NN 64/08),
Articles 16, 17, 18
and 19
Draw up and delivery of minutes
and reports from the conducted
public
debate,
including Competent
objections,
proposals
and authority
opinions of the public and public /LRSGU
concerned
Developer’s response through
the authorized person regarding
Developer
received objections, proposals
Authorized
and opinions and amendment to
person
the Study pursuant thereto
The expert committee considers
the developer’s response through
the authorized person regarding
received objections, proposals
and opinions
Second session of the advisory
expert committee/ Adoption of
the
opinion
of
project
acceptability
Draw up of the proposal of the
committee’s opinion on project
acceptability
---
REIA
67/09),
Article 15
---
REIA
(64/08,
67/09),
Articles 15 and 16
Maximum
30 days
REIA
(64/08,
67/09),
Articles 15 and 16
---
REIA
(64/08,
67/09),
Articles 16 and 17
/
Competent
authority
Competent
authority
Authorized
person
---
REIA
(64/08,
67/09),
Article 15
Regulation
on
Information
and
Participation of the
Public* (NN 64/08),
Articles 19, 20 and
21
/
Passing of the decision on
Competent
project acceptability
authority
Informing the public and public
Competent
concerned on the decision
authority
Environmental
impact
assessment procedure shall be
conducted within four months Competent
from the date of receipt of the authority
regular request by the developer
---
---
4 months
REIA
67/09),
Article 22
REIA
67/09),
Article 22
(64/08,
(64/08,
(64/08,
EPA (NN 80/13),
Article 88
--- Designation means that the deadline is not prescribed and may vary significantly
* Regulation on Information and Participation of the Public and Public Concerned in
Environmental Matters (Official Gazette “NN” no. 64/08)
Improvement Recommendations and Proposals
Table 1, containing only basic activities within the Process, shows how complex the
process is without considering other regulations with additional requests. Below are
shown proposals for the improvement of the Process itself, with the goal of its
improvement, shortening and reduction of expenses.
Harmonization with European Regulations
Many business entities in Croatia are part of international economic organizations or
operate on the international market, especially on the European market. Also, European
economic organizations can be interested to make investments in the Republic of
Croatia or to operate on the Croatian market. They are all interested in the
harmonization of European and Croatian regulations. By comparing European and
Croatian regulations differences can be noticed and possible misunderstandings as a
result thereof, i.e. a requirement for additional interpretation.
Proposal:
Prepare clear instruction on how European regulations are transferred into the Croatian
legislation. Publish legislation harmonization instruments with the regulations:
Statement on Compatibility of the Draft Legislation and Concordance of the Provisions
of the Legal Acts.
Before adoption, verify the application of legal acts on the model.
Roles and Responsibilities
Describe roles, responsibilities and powers in the regulations more clearly, for example:
the authorized person is responsible for the authenticity, correctness, expert
establishment and meeting the prescribed requirements regarding the development and
content of the Study. During the development of the Study, the authorized person shall
use data and information from the reports of accredited and authorized organizations,
independent public institutions etc. Reality has shown that data and information from
reports and other documents sometimes need to be verified, but no one is responsible if
there are no data, or if they are incomplete or if such data have not been previously
verified, but the authorized person shall be responsible if he/she uses them in the Study,
but it is established that such data are not in compliance with the regulations.
Also, the authorized person developing the Study does not necessarily have to hire, for
example, a project designer/architect or a mechanical engineer, if the Study includes, in
determined procedures, also parts of mechanical engineering projects/decision,
preliminary designs and similar. If companies authorized for such type of work made
such documents, i.e. if they were made by an authorized project designer/architect,
mechanical engineer or similar, it shall be considered that the documentation has been
made according to the rules of the profession and the verification thereof is not required.
The verification of data and information, the performance of additional analyses can
slow the Study development Process as well as make it more expensive, and unverified
data may affect the quality of the Study.
Aside from that, Article 19 of REIA establishes the obligation the project designer’s
participation in the Process, as well as the public presentation procedure, but does not
set out a situation where there is no project designer, and considering that the procedure
has not yet reached the phase of the conceptual design development, but is based on, for
example, a detailed urban plan or design urban plan.
The developer bases his/her plans on official documents such as strategies and spatial
plans at the national or local level, and the developer may ask who is responsible if
plans are not carried out and deadlines are not adhered to, therefore increasing the
developer’s expenses or causing the failure of his investments or lack of realization
thereof.
The question regarding the responsibility for unverified, sometimes incorrect or
sensationalist information is made.
The public representatives are not responsible if they refer to regulations, which are not
appropriate for the project to which the Study refers, and such requests prolong the
Process itself, making it more expensive.
Proposal:
Describe roles, responsibilities and powers of all stakeholders of the process more
clearly. Anticipate the situations with regulations, when conceptual designs or
conceptual drafts do not exist, which disables the project designers’ participation in the
Process.
If an urban plan or a detailed urban plan is used as the basis for the development of the
Study, Article 19 of the Regulation should be expanded in order to include the
authorized plan developer in the Process, whereby the Regulation would anticipate the
aforementioned situation.
Process Description
According to existing regulations, different methods of Study development and Process
description are possible, which may cause misunderstandings with the public
representatives and the public concerned, as well as with other Process stakeholders.
Proposal:
Prepare guidelines with the description and Process flowchart, deadlines for individual
activities, as well as the description of separate stakeholders in the Process. It is
necessary to
include more stakeholders with different experience in the development of such
document. Such guidelines would contribute to the project http://www.eenviper.eu/ in
which the Republic of Croatia also participates.
Terms and Explanations
The issue of different translation of a determined word from English to Croatian and the
misunderstandings resulting from such situation has been addressed several times.
Proposal:
- Standardize terms and explanations, in order to provide the appropriate
translation for a determined word in English used in EU regulations, which word
shall be used by all who prepare regulations in Croatian. The use of such
approach would avoid the use of two different translations for the same word in
English.
- Agree on terms and explanations in order to avoid different interpretations and
possible misunderstandings in the translation and interpretation of a determined
term, such as “zero or initial environmental status”, which is often used for
environmental status on a location, prior to the beginning of a project, while the
praxis has shown that the expression “zero status” can be interpreted differently.
A common example of misunderstandings is the interpretation of the term
“significant”. The MENP published the methodology [11] of significance
determination on their website, which is not used by everyone, therefore the
application and comparison of results of different methods can be the source of
misunderstandings.
- Harmonize terms and explanations between public authority bodies and the
Croatian Standards Institute, and the Institute of Croatian Language.
Management Systems
The Environmental Impact Assessment Process is part of a management system on the
national and local level, as well as the level of business entity – developer. Due to
frequent problems arising during such process, from time to time, the following Albert
Einstein famous quote is mentioned: "The significant problems we face today cannot be
solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." This means
changes are necessary.
Proposal:
Consider the previous development of the Process in detail, establish problems and
propose improvements.
Communication Method
Even though communication is a topic that goes beyond the limits of this paper and has
not been separately treated herein, the experience overview of determined activities,
which cannot be considered as rational use of resources, is necessary.
Duplication and Delivery of Studies
The annotation refers to the duplication of Environmental Impact Assessment Studies.
According to Table 1, it is clear that in includes several version of the Study: initial, the
one containing additional annotations and proposals of the advisory expert committee,
and the final one after the public debate has been held and after adopting some of the
public’s proposals. If the Study has to be delivered to the members of the committee and
competent authorities in paper form each time, we could be talking of thousands of
pages.
Proposal:
Deliver the Study on CD.
Method of Delivery of Objections, Proposals and Opinions from the Public Debate
The developer, through the authorized person, shall respond to the received objections,
proposals and opinions, which are usually delivered to the developer, i.e. the authorized
person in paper form, i.e. scanned.
Proposal:
During the definition of the method of response, it is possible to accelerate the
procedure significantly if the REIA defines the delivery of objections, proposals and
opinion in paper form and in electronic form (Word), in order to facilitate and accelerate
the procedure of responding thereto.
Participation of the Project Designer and Authorized Plan Developer in the EIA
Process
The Regulation should anticipate the situation where there is no conceptual design or
conceptual layout plan for the planned projects, and therefore, the participation of the
project designer in the Process is not possible, as defined in the Regulation, Article 19.
For determined projects, an urban plan or a detailed urban plan is used at the basis for
the development of the Study, which is made by the authorized plan developer.
Proposal:
Anticipate the possibility that the project designer does not participate in the
communication during the EIA Process, i.e. expand the Regulation in order to include
the authorized plan developer in the Process, if an urban plan or a detailed urban plan is
used at the basis for the development of the Study.
Conclusion
This paper elaborates the Process of Environmental Impact Assessment Study
development. We have shown that other regulations and documents, which can affect
the Process and Study quality, refer to the Process. Possible problem sources and given
improvement proposals have been pointed out. Prescribed and some non-prescribed part
of the Process have been mentioned and the connection with the regulations affecting
them has been made, Image 1. Some improvements have been proposed, such as the
development of guidelines for the Process, for the purpose of acceleration and
achievement of higher quality thereof.
The entire paper is based on the authorized person’s experience as a stakeholder in the
Process, as well as in the practice of notices possibilities for the improvement of the
process.
Abbreviations and Their Meanings
LRSGU = Local and Regional Self-government Unit
MENP = Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
EPA = Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette “NN” 80/13
Literature
[1] Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette “NN” 80/13, www.nn.hr
[2] HRN EN ISO 14001:2009 Environmental Management Systems – Requirements
with Guidance for Use
[3] HRN EN ISO 14004:2008 Environmental Management Systems – General
Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Support Techniques
[4] HRN EN ISO 9000:2008 Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and
Vocabulary
[5] Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private
projects
on
the
environment,
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:026:0001:0021:EN:P
DF
[6] Ba un, D., Mateši , M., Omazi , M. A. (2012) Leksikon održivog razvoja Prvo
izdanje. Zagreb: Naklada Hrvatski poslovni savjet za održivi razvoj
[7] Regulation on Information and Participation of the Public and Public Concerned,
Official Gazette “NN” 64/08, www.nn.hr
[8] Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment, Official Gazette “NN” 64/08,
67/09, www.nn.hr
[9] Regulation on the Assessment of Acceptability of the Plan, Programme and
Project for the Ecology Network, Official Gazette “NN” 118/09, www.nn.hr
[10] Regulation on the Establishment of the Single Environmental Protection
Conditions, Official Gazette “NN” 118/09, www.nn.hr
[11] Methodology of Environmental Impact Assessment,
http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/IPPC/Metodologija_procjene_utjecaja_na_okolis.pdf
(16.svibnja 2013)
20 godina provedbe postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš na podru ju
Primorsko-goranske županije
Koraljka Vahtar-Jurkovi
Primorsko-goranska
[email protected])
županija,
Adami eva
10,
Rijeka,
Hrvatska,
(koraljka.vahtar-
Sažetak
U radu se daje pregled postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš provedenih na podru ju
Primorsko-goranske županije u proteklih 20 godina. Razmatraju se pravne osnove,
nadležnosti, vrste zahvata, utjecaji na okoliš, pra enje stanja okoliša, rezultati provedbe
postupaka u smislu prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš, kao i ostvarenje zahvata nakon
završenih postupaka procjene. Ukazuje se na zahvate koji su izazvali najve u reakciju
javnosti te se razmatra je li to utjecalo na kona ni rezultat postupka. Na temelju izvješ a
o stanju okoliša i rezultata pra enja stanja okoliša zaklju uje se da realizirani zahvati
nisu imali za posljedicu zna ajna pogoršanja zate enog stanja okoliša.
Klju ne rije i: zaštita okoliša, instrumenti zaštite okoliša, procjena utjecaja na okoliš,
Primorsko-goranska županija
Uvod
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš pokazala se jednim od naju inkovitijih instrumenata u
ostvarenju ciljeva zaštite okoliša. Njezinom primjenom postižu se rezultati u zaštiti
života i zdravlja ljudi, zaštiti biljnog i životinjskog svijeta, biološke i krajobrazne
raznolikosti te o uvanju ekološke stabilnosti, zaštiti kakvo e pojedinih sastavnica
okoliša, kao i kulturnih i estetskih vrijednosti krajobraza, te sprje avanje one iš enja
okoliša i velikih nesre a koje uklju uju opasne tvari. Sukladno na elu održivog
razvitka, prema kojemu zahtjevi zaštite okoliša moraju biti uklju eni u pripreme i
provedbu aktivnosti na svim podru jima gospodarskog i socijalnog razvitka, u postupku
procjene utjecaja na okoliš primjenjuju se mnoga na ela zaštite okoliša (na elo
uvanja vrijednosti prirodnih dobara, biološke raznolikosti i krajobraza, na elo
zamjene i/ili nadomještaja, na elo one iš iva pla a te na elo pristupa informacijama i
sudjelovanja javnosti), a ostvaruje se prije svega na elo predostrožnosti9.
Obveza procjene utjecaja na okoliš po prvi je put uvedena Zakonom o prostornom
planiranju i ure ivanju prostora (Narodne novine broj 54/80, 16/86, 18/89, 34/91, 61/91
i 59/93). To je omogu ilo da se prilikom izdavanja dozvola za realizaciju novih zahvata
u prostoru predvide mogu i utjecaji na okoliš odre enoga zahvata na odre enoj lokaciji
i utvrde mjere zaštite. Postupak je bio detaljnije propisan Pravilnikom o izradi studije o
9
Na elo predostrožnosti traži da, radi izbjegavanja rizika i opasnosti po okoliš, pri
planiranju i izvo enju zahvata treba primijeniti sve utvr ene preventivne mjere zaštite
okoliša što podrazumijeva korištenje dobrih iskustava kao i uporabu proizvoda, opreme
i ure aja te primjenu proizvodnih postupaka i sustava održavanja projektiranih
parametara postrojenja, koji su najpovoljniji po okoliš. Izvor: Zakon o zaštiti okoliša,
lanak 10., Narodne novine broj 80/13.
utjecaju na okolinu (Narodne novine broj 14/84, 31/84 i 14/90), a provodila su ga
upravna tijela tadašnjih op ina koja su provodila dokumente prostornog ure enja.10
U listopadu 1994. godine donesen je prvi Zakon o zaštiti okoliša u Republici Hrvatskoj
koji je radi ostvarenja na ela preventivnosti u zaštiti okoliša potvrdio provedbu procjene
utjecaja na okoliš kao važnog instrumenta zaštite okoliša. Podrobnije je ovaj postupak
razra en podzakonskim aktima: do 1997. primjenjivao se spomenuti Pravilnik o izradi
studije o utjecaju na okolinu, nakon kojega je donesena Uredba o procjeni utjecaja na
okoliš (Narodne novine broj 34/97 i 37/97) pa zatim Pravilnik o procjeni utjecaja na
okoliš (Narodne novine broj 59/00, 136/04 i 85/06), a trenutno je na snazi Uredba o
procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (Narodne novine broj 64/08 i 67/09).
Sukladno navedenim propisima, postupci procjene utjecaja na okoliš provodili su se u
pravilu na državnoj razini, a nositelji provedbe bile su odgovaraju e službe redom
Ministarstva prostornog ure enja, graditeljstva i stanovanja, Državne uprave za zaštitu
okoliša, Ministarstva zaštite okoliša, prostornog ure enja i graditeljstva te Ministarstva
zaštite okoliša i prirode.
U skladu s propisima, a u ovisnosti o veli ini i zna aju zahvata te njegovu utjecaju na
okoliš, samo je mali broj postupaka proveden na županijskoj razini. 11 U sklopu
upravnog djelokruga Primorsko-goranske županije djelovao je tadašnji Ured za
prostorno ure enje, stambeno-komunalne poslove, graditeljstvo i zaštitu okoliša, koji je
bio nositeljem provedbe upravnih poslova zaštite okoliša uklju uju i i procjenu utjecaja
na okoliš. Od 2002. godine ove je poslove obavljao Ured državne uprave u Primorskogoranskoj županiji, Služba za prostorno ure enje i imovinsko-pravne poslove, a od
2008. godine Upravni odjel za graditeljstvo i zaštitu okoliša Primorsko-goranske
županije.
U sklopu postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš razmatran je i utjecaj zahvata na
prirodu, a nakon promjene regulative 2007. godine, na propisani se na in provodi
postupak ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata za ekološku mrežu.
Materijal i metode
Pri izradi rada korištena je dokumentacija nekadašnjeg Ureda državne uprave u
Primorsko-goranskoj županiji i županijskog Zavoda za održivi razvoj i prostorno
planiranje, kao i Upravnoga odjela za graditeljstvo i zaštitu okoliša Primorsko-goranske
županije - studije o utjecaju na okoliš, rješenja o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš te
izvješ a s javnog uvida i javne rasprave. Korištena su izvješ a o stanju pojedinih
sastavnica okoliša Nastavnog zavoda za javno zdravstvo te izvješ a o rezultatima
pra enja stanja okoliša DINE petrokemije na otoku Krku, INE Rafinerije nafte Rijeka i
Brodogradilišta „Viktor Lenac“. Jednako tako, korišteni su osnovni dokumenti zaštite
okoliša Primorsko-goranske županije – Strategija i Program zaštite okoliša Primorskogoranske županije te Izvješ e o stanju okoliša Primorsko-goranske županije.
Primijenjene su metode analize, sinteze i komparacije.
10
Izvor: rnjar, M., Vahtar-Jurkovi , K. Primorsko-goranska županija i nužnost izrade
strateške procjene utjecaja na okoliš za podru je Kvarnera, str.10.
11
Godine 1993. stupio je na snagu novi teritorijalni ustroj Republike Hrvatske kojim je
ustrojena 21 županija i Grad Zagreb sa statusom županije, unutar kojih je ustrojen velik
broj gradova i op ina kao administrativnih jedinica. Primorsko-goranska županija
osnovana je 14. travnja 1993. Izvor: Primorsko-goranska županija: 20 godina lokalne i
regionalne samouprave, ur. N. Horvat-Brazzoduro, Primorsko-goranska županija,
Rijeka, 2013., str. 24.
Rezultati i rasprava
Pregled podataka
U tabeli 1. daje se prikaz provedenih procjena utjecaja na okoliš zahvata na podru ju
Primorsko-goranske županije u razdoblju 1993.-2013.
Tabela 1. Prikaz provedenih procjena utjecaja na okoliš zahvata na podru ju Primorskogoranske županije u razdoblju 1993.-2013.
R.br.
1.
ZAHVAT
Brodogradilište «Viktor Lenac» I faza, prethodna studija
GOD
1993.
RP
D
2.
Adria LNG terminal Omišalj na
otoku Krku (4 prethodne SUO)
D
3.
Autocesta - dionice Jurdani-tunel
arija-Lupoglav
1993.
1996.
1994.
4.
5.
JANAF, naftovod Omišalj-Urinj
INA Rafinerija nafte Rijeka postrojenje MHC/HDS na Urinju
1994.
1995.
D
D
6.
Kamenolom na Vozu, otok Krk
1995.
D
7.
Kamenolom Gri -Hambarište u
Vrbovskom
1996.
D
8.
Gradska magistralna cesta GMC105 u Rijeci
1996.
D
9.
Kamenolom «Ri
Vinodolski-Senj
1996.
D
10.
Eksploatacija
gra evnog kamena
Drenovi vrh, Rijeka
tehni kog
Kikovica-
1997.
D
11.
Izgradnja
obalnog
rubaproširenje radnog platoa u
brodogradilištu «Viktor Lenac» u
Martinš ici
Gra evina
za
skladištenje,
obradu i odlaganje komunalnog i
neopasnog otpada s podru ja
PGŽ
(prethodna SUO)
Magistralni
plinovod
PulaKarlovac
1999.
D
1999.
Plutaju a crpna stanica Punatotok Krk
Rekonstrukcija termoelektrane
«Rijeka» u Kostreni- etverovez
12.
13.
14.
15.
ko bilo» Novi
U
Z, V, B,
M, K,P,
O
Z, V, B,
M, K,P,
O
P, V, T,
Š, DiL,
K, PB,
KB, B, Z
M
Z, V, M,
P, K, S,
O, B, T
-
M
Z, V, M,
B
PZO
da
R
da
-
-
-
V, B
da
ne
M
Z, V, T,
B
da
da
da
da
-
da
Z, V, T,
PB, K, B,
O, P, Fl,
Fa
P, K, S,
V, M, Z,
B, T
Z, V, T,
PB, K,
KB, B,
O, P,
Z, V, T,
PB, K,
KB, B,
O, P,
K, P, T,
M
B,
sanacija i
biološka
obnova
V, B
zahtjev
odba en
da
da
da
B,
sanacija i
biološka
obnova
B,
sanacija i
biološka
obnova
-
da
ne
da
da
da
da
D
Z, V, M,
T, O, S,
P, PB
-
-
ne
2000.
D
Z, V, T,
Fa, KB,
Š, L, O,
B
da
da
2000.
D
-
revitaliza
cija
vegetacij
e, plin u
slu aju
akcidenta
-
ne
ne
2000.
D
-
-
ne
ne
D
da
za prihvat tankera
Akumulacija Križ Potok
Izvorište vode za regionalni
vodovod Gorskog kotara
Rekonstrukcija terminala za soju
i žitarice u rije koj luci
Zaobilaznica Grada Krka u
pravcu državne ceste D-102
Izgradnja dijela ceste ZamostHrvatsko
Državna cesta D-100 PorozinaMali Lošinj, dionica uz Vransko
jezero
Eksploatacija
tehni kog
gra evnog kamena u ležištu
Brgu i-Klana
Spojna cesta od državne D-3 do
vora Vrbovsko
P, K, S,
O, PB,
KB, V
P, O, B,
Z
P, K, V,
B,
P, K, V,
B, DiL
P, K, V,
B, DiL
-
da
ne
Z, B, O
da
da
-
da
da
-
da
da
V
da
da
D
Z, V, Fa
Z, B, V
da
ne
2002.
D
V, B
da
da
Rekonstrukcija-proširenje
postoje ih kapaciteta u Marini
Punat
Rekonstrukcija državne ceste D100, obilaznica Nerezina
2002.
D
P, V, T,
Š,
Fa,
DiL, K,
PB, KB,
B, Z
O, V
otpadne
vode
da
ne
2003.
D
V,
B
DiL,
da
da
25.
Autocesta Rijeka-Rupa, dionica:
Permani-granica Rep. Slovenije
2003.
D
B,
da
ne
26.
Sportsko-rekreacijski
Dubina
centar
2003.
D
T, Fa, V,
Z
da
ne
27.
Odlagalište
neopasnog
proizvodnog otpada na lokaciji
Šoi i
Sanacija odlagališta Prž Cres i
izgradnja pretovarne stanice
Bojnak-eksploatacija tehni kogra evnog
kamena
u
eksploatacijskom polju Bojnak
na otoku Cresu
Izgradnja i korištenje kopnenog
dijela otpremnog podmorskog
plinovoda Ivana K-Terminal Pula
Kalvarija-sanacija
odlagališta
otpada I. kategorije i izgradnja
pretovarne stanice i reciklažnog
dvorišta na lokaciji Kalvarija
Mali Lošinj
Mariš inagra evina
za
skladištenje, obradu i odlaganje
kom. i neop. teh. Otpada na
podru ju PGŽ
Prži Cres-sanacija odlagališta
otpada I. kategorije i izgradnja
pretovarne stanice i reciklažnog
dvorišta na lokaciji Prži
Rekonstrukcija
zra nog
pristaništa Mali Lošinj
Sportsko-rekreacijski
centar
2003.
D
V, DiL,
K, P, Z,
B, T, Fl,
Š, KB
V, DiL,
K, P ,B,
T, O, Š
V, O, P,
K, Fa, T,
B
T, Z, V
Z, V
ne
ne
2003.
D
Z, V
Z, V
da
ne
2004.
D
P, V, Z,
T, Fa, B,
K
seizmi ki
efekt
da
da
2004.
D
P, M
-
da
da
2004.
D
Z, V
Z, V
da
ne
2004.
D
Z, V, M,
T, O, S,
P, PB
Z, V
da
ne
2004.
D
Z, V
Z, V
da
ne
2004.
D
B
da
ne
2004.
D
P, K, T,
V, B
P, K, T,
V, T
da
ne
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
2000.
D
2001.
D
2001.
D
2001.
D
2001.
D
2001.
DiL,
T, Š
Dubina
Betonara Kukuljanovo
2004.
D
Bijela kosa- izgradnja zimskog i
planinskog
centra
Vrbovsko:skijalište Bijela kosaPakal
Ure aj za pro iš avanje otpadnih
voda grada Krka
2004.
D
2004.
D
39.
Jadranska
autocesta,dionica
Križiš e -Žuta Lokva
2004.
D
40.
Ure aj za pro iš avanje otpadnih
voda naselja Malinska i Njivice
2004.
D
41.
Ure aj za pro i avanje otpadnih
voda naselja Omišalj
2004.
D
42.
Rekonstrukcija državne ceste D8, dionica: Pasjak-Šapjane
2004.
D
43.
Izgradnja
drugog
(južnog)
kolnika autoceste Rijeka-Zagreb,
dionica Kikovica-Oštrovica
Družba Adria
Eksploatacija
tehni kogra evnog
kamena
u
eksploatacijskom
polju
Podbadanj
Obilaznica Opatijske rivijere
2004.
D
2005.
2005.
D
2005.
D
Državna cesta D-403 od vora
Škurinje do luke Rijeka
Sanacija i zatvaranje odlagališta
neopasnog proizvodnog otpada
na lokaciji Šoi i
Peterkov Laz – sanacija i
nastavak rada (do 2010.) te
zatvaranje odlagališta otpada
Peterkov Laz
Sorinj Rab – sanacija odlagališta
komunalnog otpada Sorinj Rab
Sovi Laz – sanacija i nastavak
rada
odlagališta komunalnog
otpada Sovi Laz u Delnicama
Komunalno - servisno podru je
Srdo i
2005.
D
2006.
D
2006.
Ži ara Skrad - Zeleni Vir
Izgradnja
postrojenja
hidrokreking
kompleksa
i
pomo nih jedinica u INA d.d. ,
Rafinerija nafte Rijeka
Vrbovsko – sanacija uz nastavak
odlaganja
do
otvaranja
Županijskog centra za odlaganje
36.
37.
38.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
V, Z
P, V, Fl,
Š, K, Z
V, Z, T,
B, K, Fa,
Fl, P, O
Z
da
da
Z, V, Fl,
Fa
da
ne
P, K, Fl,
Š, O, V,
T
V, DiL,
K, P, Z,
B, T, Fl,
Š,
PB,
KB
P, K, Fl,
Z, O, V,
T
P, K, Fl,
Z, O, T,
Š, V,
V, DiL,
K, P, Z,
B, T, Š,
KB, O
V,
Fa,
DiL, KB,
P, Š, O
Z, T, V,
Fa,
Fl,
PB, K
M,
ŽZMD,
V, Z, B
V, Š, Fa,
B
da
ne
da
ne
M,
ŽZMD,
V, Z, B
M,
ŽZMD,
V, Z, B
-
da
ne
da
ne
da
da
stradanje
životinja
i divlja i
Z, V, B
da
da
ne
da
ne
da
V,
P,
KB, B,
Fa, Fl, T,
K
V, S, Z,
B, P
T, Z, V
V,
Fa,
DiL, B
da
ne
V, B
da
ne
Z, V
da
da
D
Z, T, V,
B,
K,
KB, PB
Z, V
da
ne
2006.
D
Z, V, T
da
da
2006.
D
Z, T, V,
Fa, Fl, K
Z, T, V,
Fa, Fl, K
Z, V, T
da
da
2006.
Ž
V, Z, B
da
ne
2007
2007.
Ž
D
B, K, V,
P,
O,
KB, Z
Z, B, V,
T, O
Z, B, V
ne
da
ne
da
2007.
D
Z, V, Fa,
Fl, Š, K
MP, OP,
PV, SO
da
da
otpadom Mariš ina i zatvaranje
odlagališta komunalnog otpada
„Cetin“, grad Vrbovsko
Postrojenje
ekspandiraju eg
polistirena na lokaciji DINA
Petrokemija d.d. Omišalj
Sustav javne odvodnje grada
Raba
2008.
D
2008.
D
Ure aj za pro iš avanje otpadnih
voda Grada Crikvenice
Rekonstrukcija/dogradnja
rezervoarskog prostora terminala
Omišalj na otoku Krku
Uzgajalište lubina i komar e –
uvala Veli Bok na otoku Cresu
Kanalizacijski sustav priobalja
Op ine Dobrinj
2008.
D
2008.
D
2008.
D
2008.
D
62.
Sustav odvodnje otpadnih voda s
ure ajem
za
pro iš avanje
naselja Vrbnik
2008.
Ž
63.
Magistralni plinovod Zlobin –
Omišalj DN 1000/100
2009.
D
64.
65.
Vjetroelektrana Breze
Rekonstrukcija
i
dogradnja
zapadnog dijela luke Cres
2009.
2009.
D
D
66.
Sustav javne odvodnje Grada
Cresa i ure aj za pro iš avanje
otpadnih voda
2009.
D
67.
Izgradnja
magistralnog
plinovoda Kukuljanovo – Omišalj
DN 500/100
2009.
D
68.
Sanacija i zatvaranje odlagališta
„Osojnica“
2009.
D
69.
Izgradnja betonare u radnoj zoni
R 27 Kukuljanovo
2009.
D
70.
Sustav javne odvodnje grada
Malog Lošinja i ure aja za
pro iš avanje otpadnih voda
2009.
D
71.
Terminal za ukapljeni prirodni
plin na otoku Krku
2010.
D
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
Z, V, T,
KB, P,
K, O, B
B, Z, T,
M, V, O,
Fa,
Fl,
KB, P, K
P, V, B,
K, O, Z
V, T, O,
KB, K,
B, Z
na ribe,
M
P, K, Fl,
V, L, T,
O, Š, Z,
B,
V, T, B,
Z, Fa, Fl,
Š, KB,
M, O
Š,
poljop.,
L, R, P,
O, Z, B,
V, T, PB,
KB
svjetl.one
iš .
KB, B,
Z, O, M,
K,
B, Z, V,
T, K, P,
O,
V, T, PB,
K, KB,
Š, DiL,
Z, B, O,
T svjetl.
one .
Z, V, T,
Fl, Fa, D,
K, B,
zdravlje
ljudi
Z, V, T,
Fl,
Fa,
KB, P, B,
K, O
B, Z, V,
T, K, P,
O
M, V, K,
Z,
B,
Z, V, M,
zdravlje
stan.
M, Z, B,
V
da
ne
da
da
B, Z, V,
M
V, KB,
zaštita od
požara
ŽZMD
sediment
M,
ŽZMD,
V, Z, B
da
ne
da
ne
da
da
da
ne
M,Z,B
da
ne
Z,B
da
ne
ŽZMD,
M, V
ne
da
ne
da
V,
ispravnos
t
rada
ispusta
Z, B
da
ne
da
ne
V, Z, MP
ozelenjav
anje
da
ne
B, V, Z,
da
ne
V,
bentonsk
e
zajednice
M, V, Z,
B
da
ne
da
ne
KB, O,
Fa
Z, V, T,
Fl,
Fa,
KB, P, B,
K, O
Z, V, T,
PB, K,
KB, B,
O, P,
Z, V, T,
Fa, KB,
Š, L, O,
B, svjetl.
one iš .
72.
Proširenje postoje e betonare u
radnoj zoni R 27 Kukuljanovo
2010.
D
73.
Eksploatacija
tehni kogra evnog
kamena
na
eksploatacijskom polju Tresni
breg, Op ina Klana
Izgradnja
magistralnog
plinovoda Zlobin –Rupa DN
1000/100 bar
2010.
D
2011.
D
Postrojenje za proizvodnju i
preradu nafte - koking kompleks
u Rafineriji nafte Rijeka s
obra enim varijantnim rješenjem
zahvata u dijelu koji se odnosi na
lokaciju budu eg privezišta i
transportne
luke
izvan
Bakarskog zaljeva
Vjetroelektrana Breze
2011.
D
Z, V, T,
K,
S,
KB, B,
O, P
2011.
D
77.
Autocesta A8 – dionica Rogovi i
Matulji
2011.
D
78.
Eksploatacija
tehni kogra evnog
kamena
na
eksploatacijskom polju Garica
2011.
D
79.
2012.
D
2012.
D
81.
Pove anje kapaciteta uzgajališta
bijele ribe u uvali Veli Bok na
Cresu
Luka nauti kog turizma „Marina
Lovran“
Ži ara U ka (Medveja-Vojak)
2013.
Ž
82.
Vjetroelektrana Fužine
2013.
D
74.
75.
76.
80.
B, V, Z
da
da
B,
sanacija i
biološka
obnova
revitaliza
cija
vegetacij
e, plin u
slu aju
akcidenta
Z, V, M
da
ne
da
ne
prekid
postupka
ne
Fl, Fa, K,
KB, T,
B,
P,
K,
KB, Š,
D,V, Z,
B,
O
svjetl.one
B, KB,
T, Fa
da
ne
V, B
da
ne
Z, V, T,
Fl, Fa, K,
KB, B,
O, P
na ribe,
M
Z, B
da
da
ŽZMD
sediment
da
da
M, PB,
KB, V, K
K,KB,Fa,
Fl, DiL,
V, B, PB
Fl, Fa, K,
PB, T, B,
Š, DiL
M,V,PB
da
ne
PB, V, B
da
ne
B, Fl, Fa
ne
ne
Autorica: doc.dr.sc. Koraljka Vahtar-Jurkovi , 2013.
Izvor podataka: službena evidencija Upravnog odjela za graditeljstvo i zaštitu okoliša
Primorsko-goranske županije
Tuma kratica:
GOD – godina
RP – razina provedbe PUO (D – državna/Ž – županijska)
U – utjecaji na okoliš prema rješenju o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš (B – buka, DiL – divlja
i lovstvo, Fa – fauna, Fl – flora, K – krajobraz, KB – kulturna baština, M – more, O – otpad, P –
prostor, PB – prirodna baština, S – stanovništvo, Š – šume, T – tlo, V – vode, Z – zrak, ŽZMD –
životne zajednice morskog dna)
M – monitoring (B – buka, DiL – divlja i lovstvo, Fa – fauna, Fl – flora, K – krajobraz, KB –
kulturna baština, M – more, MP – meteorološke prilike, O – otpad, OP –odlagališni plinovi, P –
prostor, PB – prirodna baština, PV – procjedne vode, S – stanovništvo, SO – slijeganje
odlagališta, Š – šume, T – tlo, V – vode, Z – zrak)
PZO – prihvatljivost zahvata za okoliš
R – realizacija zahvata (zahvat izgra en i u funkciji je)
Vrste zahvata
Iz navedenih podataka je razvidno da su, prema podacima dostupnim nadležnom
županijskom upravnom odjelu, u proteklih 20 godina na podru ju Primorsko-goranske
županije provedena ukupno 82 postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš i to: najviše - 13
postupaka za gra evine za gospodarenje otpadom (od ega su dva postupka provedena
za centralnu zonu za gospodarenje otpadom, devet za sanacije postoje ih odlagališta
komunalnog otpada, a dva za odlagalište neopasnog proizvodnog otpada na lokaciji
Šoi i u Op ini Kostrena); 11 za cestovne prometnice; po devet postupaka je provedeno
za odvodnju otpadnih voda naselja s ure ajima za pro iš avanje otpadnih voda i za
eksploataciju mineralnih sirovina (kamenolome i šljun are); za terminal ukapljenog
plina provedeno je ukupno šest postupaka; pet postupaka za industrijske objekte
(brodogradilište, rafineriju nafte i petrokemiju); etiri postupka odnosila su se na
plinovode, jednako kao i za luke i marine; po tri postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš
provedeno je za energetske objekte (jedan za termoelektranu i dva za vjetroelektrane),
naftovode te za betonare; dva postupka provedena su za ži are i uzgajališta riba, a po
jedan postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš proveden je za zra nu luku Mali Lošinj,
akumulaciju Križ potok za regionalni vodovod Gorskog kotara, komunalno-servisnu
zonu Srdo i, sportsko-rekreacijski centar Dubina, skijalište Bijela kosa u sklopu
zimskog i planinskog centra Vrbovsko te plutaju u crpnu stanicu kod Punta.
Razine provedbe
Ve ina postupaka provedena je na državnoj razini, a samo etiri postupka provelo je
nadležno županijsko upravno tijelo.
Uskla enost zahvata s dokumentima prostornog ure enja
Neki su postupci provedeni za zahvate na poznatim, dokumentima prostornog ure enja
utvr enim lokacijama, a za dio zahvata proveden je postupak prethodne procjene
utjecaja na okoliš radi odabira najpovoljnije lokacije. Najpoznatiji takvi postupci bili su
provedeni radi odabira lokacije centralne županijske zone za gospodarenje otpadom i
terminala za ukapljeni prirodni plin.
Utjecaji na okoliš i ekološku mrežu
Studijama o utjecaju na okoliš analizirani su utjecaji na pojedine sastavnice okoliša i
pritisci na okoliš ovisno o vrsti zahvata, a s obzirom na vrste zahvata i obilježja lokacije
naj eš e su zastupljeni utjecaji zahvata na zrak, vode i more. Za naglasiti je, a što je i
razvidno iz pregledne tabele, da su u sklopu postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš
sagledavani i utjecaji na prirodnu baštinu, biološku i krajobraznu raznolikost, floru i
faunu, odnosno kasnije za ekološku mrežu. Nakon donošenja novih propisa iz podru ja
zaštite prirode 2007. godine – Zakona o zaštiti prirode i Uredbe o proglašenju
nacionalne ekološke mreže, na podru ju Primorsko-goranske županije provedeno je na
državnoj i županijskoj razini pedesetak postupaka ocjene o potrebi provedbe postupka
glavne ocjene zahvata za ekološku mrežu, od ega je samo za tri zahvata utvr eno da je
glavna ocjena potrebna. Ti su zahvati: višegodišnji nasad maslina i akumulacija vode za
isti nasad na podru ju Mali Lug kod jezera Njivice na otoku Krku i vjetroelektrana
Breze.12 Od prvih se dvaju zahvata za sada odustalo pa postupak nije ni pokrenut, a
postupak za vjetroelektranu Breze je uspješno dovršen.
12
Izvor podataka: neobjavljena dokumentacija, službeni materijal za Kolegij župana
Sudjelovanje javnosti
Javnost je o zahvatu bila obaviještena na na in koji je bio utvr en propisima, odnosno
odlukom stru nog povjerenstva, što je u pravilu obuhva alo objavu u lokalnim
novinama, a po potrebi i obavijesti putem lokalnog radija i televizije, te objave na
oglasnim plo ama, a kasnije i internetskim stranicama Županije i jedinice lokalne
samouprave na ijem je podru ju planiran zahvat. Gra ani, tijela jedinica lokalne
samouprave, pojedini poslovni subjekti, registrirane udruge ili skupine gra ana
sudjelovali su upisom u knjige primjedbi, nazo noš u, izravnim postavljanjem pitanja i
davanjem komentara i primjedbi tijekom javnog izlaganja te obra anjem nadležnim
tijelima u pisanom obliku putem redovne i elektroni ke pošte. U najve em broju
slu ajeva javnim izlaganjima i raspravi bio je nazo an mali broj sudionika, a bilo je i
slu ajeva gdje nije došao nitko od predstavnika šire javnosti (u slu aju postupaka
procjene utjecaja na okoliš sustava odvodnje otpadnih voda s ure ajima za
pro iš avanje na otoku Krku). Prema podacima nadležnih županijskih tijela koja su
sukladno propisima bila zadužena za koordinaciju javnog uvida, odnosno javne
rasprave, najve i interes javnosti izazvale su procjene utjecaja na okoliš sljede ih
zahvata: centralna zona za gospodarenje otpadom, projekt Družba Adria, LNG terminal
na otoku Krku, koking-postrojenje u sklopu INA Rafinerije nafte Rijeka na Urinju,
proširenje kapaciteta marine Punat te Jadranska autocesta, dionica Križiš e-Žuta Lokva.
U tim je slu ajevima javno izlaganje zbog brojnosti sudionika moralo biti održano u
ve im prostorima – gradskim vije nicama, itaonicama i društvenim domovima, a za
LNG terminal ak i u školskoj sportskoj dvorani u Omišlju. Od navedenih zahvata
jedino se za koking-postrojenje u sklopu INA Rafinerije nafte Rijeka na Urinju može
re i da su pod pritiskom javnosti – primarno Grada Bakra, morale biti izra ene dodatne
analize najpovoljnije lokacije pretovarne luke za petrol-koks temeljem kojih bi ta luka
trebala biti izgra ena na dijelu kostrenske obale južno od postrojenja, a ne u Bakarskom
zaljevu. Recentno je zahvat vjetroelektrane Fužine, iako na lokaciji odre enoj
op inskim prostornim planom izazvao toliko protivljenje javnosti da je održan
referendum o tom pitanju, koji me utim nije uspio jer mu nije pristupio dovoljan broj
stanovnika Op ine Fužine. Rezultati postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš pokazuju da
protivljenje javnosti u pravilu nije utjecalo na ocjenu prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš.
Od navedenih, za samo dva zahvata donesena je odluka da nisu prihvatljivi za okoliš
(Družba Adria i vjetroelektrana Fužine).
Savjetodavno stru no povjerenstvo
Savjetodavno stru no povjerenstvo imenovano je u najve em broju slu ajeva posebno
za svaki zahvat, osim za cestovne prometnice, u kojim je slu ajevima utemeljenost
studije o utjecaju na okoliš i prihvatljivost zahvata ocjenjivalo stalno stru no
povjerenstvo državne razine u kojemu Primorsko-goranska županija ima stalnu
predstavnicu.
Rezultat postupka - prihvatljivost zahvata za okoliš
Rezultat postupka za najve i dio zahvata (74 od 82, odnosno 90%) bio je pozitivan te su
izdana rješenja o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš uz provedbu mjera zaštite okoliša
utvr enih na temelju studije o utjecaju na okoliš te uz odgovaraju e pra enje stanja
okoliša. Negativno rješenje izdano je za etiri zahvata i to: za projekt plutaju e crpne
stanice u blizini Puntarske drage na otoku Krku (zahvat nije bio prihvatljiv za okoliš);
odlagalište neopasnog tehnološkog otpada na lokaciji Šoi i u sklopu INA Rafinerije
nafte na Urinju (zahvat nije bio sukladan dokumentu prostornog ure enja); projekt
Družba Adria (nije bila osigurana dorada studije o utjecaju na okoliš sukladno
primjedbama lanova savjetodavnog stru nog povjerenstva) te ži aru Skrad-Zeleni vir
(zahvat nije bio sukladan dokumentu prostornog ure enja). Recentno je savjetodavno
stru no povjerenstvo dalo negativno mišljenje na vjetroelektranu na podru ju Op ine
Fužine na lokaciji Zvirjak. Zahtjev za izdavanje rješenja u slu aju kamenoloma Voz na
otoku Krku odba en je jer nositelj zahvata nije u ostavljenom roku ispravio studiju
utjecaja na okoliš. Jedan je postupak zapo et i doveden skoro do kraja, ali je prekinut
radi izmjene dokumenata prostornog ure enja i to onaj za koking-postrojenje u sklopu
INA Rafinerije nafte Rijeka na Urinju.
Realizacija zahvata
Od 82 zahvata za koje je proveden postupak PUO, realizirano je (izgra eno je i u
funkciji je) 32 zahvata. Najve i zahvati, s najzna ajnijim utjecajima na okoliš nisu
realizirani, a od nekih se odustalo nakon dovršenog postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš
– primjer za to je odustajanje od realizacije LNG terminala na Krku tadašnjega
me unarodnog LNG konzorcija.
Pra enje stanja okoliša
Naj eš e propisani program pra enja stanja okoliša obuhva ao je pra enje stanja zraka,
voda, mora i buke. Prisutan je problem dostupnosti rezultata, odnosno dostave podataka
o pra enju stanja okoliša u skladu s propisanim rješenjem o prihvatljivosti zahvata za
okoliš. Na podru ju Primorsko-goranske županije najbolji primjer u tom smislu bilo je
dugogodišnje pra enje stanja okoliša DINE petrokemije u Omišlju na otoku Krku, koji
je nažalost nakon gotovo 20 godina provedbe obustavljen zajedno s proizvodnjom u toj
tvrtki. Sli an primjer dobre prakse su pra enja stanja okoliša INE Rafinerije nafte
Rijeka i, ranije – brodogradilišta „Viktor Lenac“.13 Za druge zahvate na županijskoj
razini nemamo uvida u provedbu i rezultate pra enja stanja okoliša. No, treba naglasiti
da rezultati op eg pra enja stanja okoliša koji redovito provodi Nastavni zavod za javno
zdravstvo Primorsko-goranske županije u odnosu na osnovne sastavnice okoliša – voda,
mora i zraka, pokazuju da je stanje tih sastavnica vrlo dobro. Zrak je u najve em dijelu
Županije I. kategorije, a niže kategorije samo u okruženju pojedinih industrijskih
pogona, primjerice u okruženju rafinerije nafte i termoelektrane na Urinju. Vode za pi e
su visoke kvalitete, osim na podru ju Gorskog kotara radi ega se tamo radi na sanaciji
postoje ih dionica vodoopskrbih sustava i na realizaciji budu eg regionalnog vodovoda.
More za kupanje je izvrsne kakvo e te je samo nekoliko to aka tijekom svih proteklih
sezona bilo neodgovaraju e za kupanje.
Zaklju ak
Na podru ju Primorsko-goranske županije u proteklih 20 godina provedeno je
osamdesetak postupaka procjene utjecaja na okoliš, od ega najve i broj za gra evine za
gospodarenje otpadom. Ve ina postupaka provedena je na državnoj razini i završila je
pozitivno, tj. zahvati su ocijenjeni prihvatljivim za okoliš uz primjenu propisanih mjera
zaštite i pra enja stanja okoliša. Unato injenici da svi zahvati za koje je izdano
rješenje o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš nisu i realizirani i da ne raspolažemo svim
podacima o provedbi pra enja stanja okoliša utvr enih rješenjima o prihvatljivosti
zahvata za okoliš, na temelju pra enja stanja osnovnih sastavnica okoliša i na temelju
službenih dokumenata zaštite okoliša, prije svega na temelju izvješ a o stanju okoliša
13
Autorica navedene primjere drži dobrom praksom prvenstveno zato što se pra enje
stanja okoliša propisano rješenjem o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš doista i provodilo,
a osim toga su se izvješ a o rezultatima pra enja stanja okoliša dostavljala ne samo
nadležnim institucijama nego i lokalnoj samoupravi – op inama na ijem podru ju su
zahvati djelovali, a one su osnovale povjerenstva koja su ih redovito razmatrala
Primorsko-goranske županije može se zaklju iti da su provedeni postupci bili
inkoviti, odnosno da realizirani zahvati uz primjenu propisanih mjera zaštite okoliša
nisu imali za posljedicu zna ajna pogoršanja postoje eg stanja okoliša.
Literatura
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša (Narodne novine broj 82/94 i 128/99)
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša (Narodne novine broj 110/07)
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš (Narodne novine broj 34/97 i 37/97)
Pravilnik o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš (Narodne novine broj 59/00, 136/04 i
85/06)
[5] Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (Narodne novine broj 64/08 i
67/09)
[6] Izvješ e o stanju okoliša Primorsko-goranske županije, 2003.
[7] Strategija zaštite okoliša Primorsko-goranske županije Primorsko-goranske
županije, 2005.
[8] Službena dokumentacija Upravnog odjela za graditeljstvo i zaštitu okoliša
Primorsko-goranske županije o provedenim postupcima procjene utjecaja na
okoliš 1993.-2013.
[9] Izvješ a Nastavnog zavoda za javno zdravstvo Primorsko-goranske županije o
ispitivanju kakvo e zraka, kakvo e mora i zdravstvene ispravnosti vode za pi e
1993.-2013.
[10]
rnjar M., Vahtar-Jurkovi K. (2003). Primorsko-goranska županija i
nužnost izrade strateške procjene utjecaja na okoliš za podru je Kvarnera.
Okrugli stol Važnost strateške procjene utjecaja na okoliš u upravljanju
prostorom i razvojem, 10. studenog 2003. : zbornik radova, ur. rnjar M.,
Primorsko-goranska županija: 5-16, Rijeka
[11]
Primorsko-goranska županija: 20 godina lokalne i regionalne
samouprave, ur. Horvat-Brazzoduro N., Primorsko-goranska županija, Rijeka,
2013.
[12]
www.pgz.hr
20 years of applying the procedure of the environmental impact
assessment in Primorsko-goranska County
Koraljka Vahtar-Jurkovi
County of Primorje-Gorski kotar, Adami eva 10, Rijeka, Croatia, ([email protected])
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of the procedures of environmental impact assessment in
Primorsko-goranska County in the last twenty years. It discusses the legal basis,
competences, types of actions, environmental impacts, monitoring of the state of the
environment, results of the application of procedures in relation to acceptability of the
actions for the environment and the realization of actions after finishing the assessment
procedures. The actions which caused the strongest reaction of the public are pointed
out, and it is discussed whether this affected the final result of the procedure. The
conclusion, based on the report on the state of the environment and monitoring results,
is that the realized actions did not result in significant damage to the current state of the
environment.
Keywords: environmental protection, instruments of environmental protection,
environmental impact assessment, Primorsko-goranska County
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment turned out to be one of the most effective instruments
in reaching the goals of environmental protection. Its application gives better results in
the protection of lives and health of people, protection of plants and animals, biological
and landscape diversity, protection of ecological stability, protection of quality of
particular elements of the environment, as well as the cultural and aesthetic values of
the landscape and preventing the pollution of the environment and major accidents that
involve dangerous substances. According to the sustainable development principle, all
the requirements of environmental protection must be included in preparation and
realization of activities in all areas of economic and social development and therefore,
many principles of environmental protection are applied in the procedure of
environmental impact assessment (principle of protection of natural resources,
biological diversity, landscape diversity, substitution principle, polluter pays principle,
the principle of information availability and public involvement), with the emphasis on
application of the prevention principle 14.
The obligation to assess the environmental impact was first introduced in the Act on
Physical Planning (Narodne novine, 54/80, 16/86, 18/89, 34/91, 61/91 and 59/93). It
enabled that the possible environmental impacts of particular interventions in particular
location are predicted and measures for protection are determined in the process of
14
Prevention principle prescribes that, in order to avoid the risks and dangers for the
environment, all preventive environmental protection measures must be applied in the
planning and realization of the intervention. That also includes the use of products,
equipment, production techniques and maintenance systems that are best for the
environment. Source: Environmental Protection Act (Narodne novine broj 110/07)
issuing permits for realization of new interventions in space. The procedure was
determined in the Regulation on Environmental Impact Study (Narodne novine, 14/84,
31/84 and 14/90), and was applied by the administrative bodies responsible for
application of physical planning documents in the former municipalities. 15
In the October 1994, the first Nature Protection Act in the Republic of Croatia was
passed. In order to enable the use of the prevention principle in the environmental
protection, the Act confirmed the application of the environmental impact assessment as
an important instrument of environmental protection. This procedure is more precisely
defined in the subordinate regulations: until 1997, the above mentioned Regulation on
Environmental Impact Study was in use. Afterwards, the Ordinance on Environmental
Impact Assessment (Narodne novine, 34/97 and 37/97) was passed, followed by
Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (Narodne novine, 59/00, 136/04 and
85/06), and the current Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (Narodne
novine, 64/08 and 67/09).
According to these regulations, the procedures of environmental impact assessment
were usually conducted on state level by the competent bodies of the Ministry of
Physical Planning, Construction and Housing, State Directorate for Environmental
Protection, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction
and Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection respectively.
In accordance with the regulations and depending on the size and importance of
intervention and its environmental impact, only a small number of procedures was
conducted on county level. 16 The Office for Physical Planning, Housing, Construction
and Environmental Protection, the former administrative body of the of the Primorskogoranska County, was the competent authority for the application of administrative
procedures in the area of environmental protection, including the environmental impact
assessment. From 2002 to 2008, these procedures were conducted by the State
Directorate in Primorsko-goranska County, Department of Spatial Planning and
Property and since 2008 Administrative Department for Civil Engineering and
Environmental Protection.
As a part of the environmental impact assessment procedure, the impact of interventions
on nature was considered. After the change of legislation in 2007, the procedure of
acceptability of the intervention for the ecological network has been applied
accordingly.
Materials and methods
The documentation of the former State Directorate in the Primorsko-goranska County
and the County Department for Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning, as well
as the County Administrative Department for Civil Engineering and Environmental
Protection – environmental impact studies, decisions on environmental acceptability of
15
rnjar, M., Vahtar-Jurkovi , K. Primorsko-goranska County and the importance of
conducting a strategic environmental assessment in the area of Kvarner, p.10.
16
In 1993, the new territorial organization of the Republic of Croatia was introduced. 21
counties were constituted, and the City of Zagreb as a separate county. The counties
consist of a large number of administrative units – cities and municipalities. Primorskogoranska County was constituted on 14 April 1993. Source: Primorsko-goranska
County: 20 years of local and regional government ed. N. Horvat-Brazzoduro,
Primorsko-goranska County, Rijeka, 2013, p 24.
the interventions and reports from the public submission and public discussion was
used. Also, Educational Institute for Public Health reports on the state of specific
elements of the environment and DINA Petrochemicals on the island of Krk, INA
Refinery Rijeka and Viktor Lenac Shipyard monitoring were used, as well as the
Primorsko-goranska County basic environmental protection documents – Strategy and
Environmental Protection Program of the Primorsko-goranska County and Report on
the state of the environment in the Primorsko-goranska County. Analysis, synthesis and
comparation methods were used.
Results and discussion
Data overview
Table 1 gives an overview of the applied environmental impact assessments of
interventions in the Primorsko-goranska County from 1993 to 2013.
Table 1. Overview of the applied environmental impact assessments of interventions in
the Primorsko-goranska County from 1993 to 2013
No.
1.
INTERVENTION
Shipyard «Viktor Lenac» - 1st
phase, previous study
Adria LNG terminal, Omišalj,
island of Krk (4 previous
studies)
Highway - sections Jurdanitunnel
arija-Lupoglav
Year
1993
RP
D
19931996
D
1994
D
JANAF, oil pipeline OmišaljUrinj
INA oil refinery Rijeka MHC/HDS plant,Urinj
1994
D
1995
D
6.
Quarry in Voz, island of Krk
1995
D
7.
Quarry Gri
Vrbovsko
–Hambarište,
1996
D
8.
Trunk road GMC-105 in
Rijeka
Quarry «Ri ko bilo» Novi
Vinodolski-Senj
1996
D
1996
D
Rubble exploitation KikovicaDrenovi vrh, Rijeka
1997
Working area expansion in
Shipyard«Viktor Lenac» in
Martinš ica
Building
for
storage,
processing and disposal of
municipal and non-hazardous
waste in the County (previous
EIA)
Gas pipeline Pula-Karlovac
1999
D
1999
2000
2.
3.
4.
5.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
M
Z, V, M, B
PZO
yes
R
yes
-
-
-
yes
no
M
yes
yes
Z, V, M, P,
K, S, O, B,
T
-
Z, V, T, B
yes
yes
-
yes
Z, V, T,
PB, K, B,
O, P, Fl,
Fa
P, K, S, V,
M, Z, B, T
Z, V, T,
PB, K, KB,
B, O, P,
Z, V, T,
PB, K, KB,
B, O, P,
K, P, T, M
B, remediation
and biological
remediation
Request
denied
yes
V, B
yes
yes
B,remediation
and biological
remediation
B, remediation
and biological
remediation
-
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
D
Z, V, M, T,
O, S, P, PB
-
-
no
D
Z, V, T,
Fa, KB, Š,
Revitalization
of vegetation,
yes
yes
D
U
Z, V, B,
M, K,P, O
Z, V, B,
M, K,P, O
P, V, T, Š,
DiL,
K,
PB, KB, B,
Z
M
V, B
yes
L, O, B
Floating pumping station
Punat, island of Krk
Reconstruction of thermal
power plant «Rijeka» in
Kostrena
Reservoir Križ Potok
Water source for regional
waterworks in Gorski kotar
Reconstruction of soy and
wheat terminal in the Port of
Rijeka
City of Krk bypass
Construction of the section of
road Zamost-Hrvatsko
Road D-100 Porozina-Mali
Lošinj, section Vransko jezero
Rubble
expliotation
inBrgu i-Klana
Connecting road from the
state road D-3 to Vrbovsko
2000
D
-
gas in case of
accident
-
2000
D
-
-
no
no
P, K, S, O,
PB, KB, V
-
yes
no
D
2001
D
P, O, B, Z
Z, B, O
yes
yes
2001
2001
D
D
-
yes
yes
yes
yes
2001
D
V
yes
yes
2001
D
P, K, V, B,
P, K, V, B,
DiL
P, K, V, B,
DiL
Z, V, Fa
Z, B, V
yes
no
2002
D
V, B
yes
yes
Reconstruction and expansion
of Marina Punat
Reconstruction of state road
D-100, Nerezine bypass
2002
D
P, V, T, Š,
Fa, DiL, K,
PB, KB, B,
Z
O, V
Waste waters
yes
no
2003
D
V, DiL, B
yes
yes
25.
Highway Rijeka-Rupa, section
Permani- Slovenian border
2003
D
DiL, B, T, Š
yes
no
26.
Sports and recreation centre
Dubina
Non-hazardous
production
waste landfill in Šoi i
Remediation of Prži Cres
landfill
Rubble
exploitation
in
Bojnak, Cres
Gas pipeline Ivana KTerminal Pula
Landfill remediationKalvarija
Mali Lošinj
Mariš inaBuilding
for
storage,
processing
and
disposal of municipal and
non-hazardous waste in the
County
Prži
Cres-Landfill
remediation
Airport reconstruction Mali
Lošinj
Sports and recreation centre
Dubina
Concrete plant Kukuljanovo
2003
D
T, Fa, V, Z
yes
no
2003
D
V, DiL, K,
P, Z, B, T,
Fl, Š, KB
V, DiL, K,
P ,B, T, O,
Š
V, O, P, K,
Fa, T, B
T, Z, V
Z, V
no
no
2003
D
Z, V
Z, V
yes
no
2004
D
Seismic effect
yes
yes
2004
D
P, V, Z, T,
Fa, B, K
P, M
-
yes
yes
2004
D
Z, V
Z, V
yes
no
2004
D
Z, V, M, T,
O, S, P, PB
Z, V
yes
no
2004
D
Z, V
Z, V
yes
no
2004
D
B
yes
no
2004
D
V, T
yes
no
2004
D
Z
yes
yes
Bijela kosa- winter and
mountain centreVrbovsko:ski
slope Bijela kosa-Pakal
Wastewater treatment plant,
City of Krk
2004
D
Z, V, Fl, Fa
yes
no
2004
D
P, K, T, V,
B
P, K, T, V,
Z
P, V, Fl, Š,
K, Z
V, Z, T, B,
K, Fa, Fl,
P, O
P, K, Fl, Š,
O, V, T
M, ŽZMD, V,
Z, B
yes
no
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
2000
no
no
39.
Adriatic highway, section
Križiš e -Žuta Lokva
2004
D
40.
Wastewater treatment plant
Malinska and Njivice
Wastewater treatment plant
Omišalj
Reconstruction of state road
D-8, section: Pasjak-Šapjane
2004
D
2004
D
2004
D
Construction of southern
roadway, highway RijekaZagreb, section KikovicaOštrovica
Družba Adria
Rubble
exploitation
in
Podbadanj
2004
D
2005
2005
D
46.
Opatija bypass
2005
D
47.
State road D-403 from
Škurinje to the port of Rijeka
Landfill remediation in Šoi i
Landfill
remediation
in
Peterkov Laz
Sorinj
Rab
–
Landfill
remediation
Sovi
Laz
–
Landfill
remediation
Communal
service
zone
Srdo i
Cableway Skrad - Zeleni Vir
Hydrocracking complex in
INA oil refinery Rijeka
Vrbovsko
–
Landfill
remediation
Expanding polystyrene plant
in DINA Petrochemicals,
Omišalj
City of Rab sewage system
2005
D
2006
2006
D
D
2006
D
2006
D
2006
Ž
2007
2007
Ž
D
2007
D
2008
D
2008
D
Wastewater treatment plant
Crikvenica
Reservoir reconstruction in
Omišalj terminal, Krk
2008
D
2008
D
Fish farm in Veli Bok bay,
Cres
Sewage system, Dobrinj
2008
D
2008
D
62.
Wastewater treatment plant,
Vrbnik
2008
Ž
63.
Gas pipeline Zlobin – Omišalj
DN 1000/100
2009
D
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
V, DiL, K,
P, Z, B, T,
Fl, Š, PB,
KB
P, K, Fl, Z,
O, V, T
P, K, Fl, Z,
O, T, Š, V,
V, DiL, K,
P, Z, B, T,
Š, KB, O
V, Fa, DiL,
KB, P, Š,
O
V, Š, Fa, B
yes
no
M, ŽZMD, V,
Z, B
M, ŽZMD, V,
Z, B
-
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
Killing
wildlife
yes
Z, T, V,
Fa, Fl, PB,
K
V, P, KB,
B, Fa, Fl,
T, K
V, S, Z, B,
P
T, Z, V
Z, T, V, B,
K, KB, PB
Z, T, V,
Fa, Fl, K
Z, T, V,
Fa, Fl, K
B, K, V, P,
O, KB, Z
Z, B, V, T,
O
Z, V, Fa,
Fl, Š, K
Z, V, T,
KB, P, K,
O, B
B, Z, T, M,
V, O, Fa,
Fl, KB, P,
K
P, V, B, K,
O, Z
V, T, O,
KB, K, B,
Z
on fish, M
Z, V, B
no
yes
no
yes
V, Fa, DiL, B
yes
no
V, B
yes
no
Z, V
Z, V
yes
yes
yes
no
Z, V, T
yes
yes
Z, V, T
yes
yes
V, Z, B
yes
no
Z, B, V
no
yes
no
yes
MP, OP, PV,
SO
Z,
V,
M,
health
yes
yes
yes
no
M, Z, B, V
yes
yes
B, Z, V, M
yes
no
V, KB, fire
protection
yes
no
ŽZMD
sediment
M, ŽZMD, V,
Z, B
yes
yes
yes
no
M,Z,B
yes
no
Z,B
yes
no
P, K, Fl, V,
L, T, O, Š,
Z, B,
V, T, B, Z,
Fa, Fl, Š,
KB, M, O
Š, agricul.,
L, R, P, O,
Z, B, V, T,
PB, KB
yes
Wind farm Breze
Reconstruction of the port of
Cres
Wastewater treatment plant
Cres
Gas pipeline Kukuljanovo –
Omišalj DN 500/100
2009
2009
D
D
2009
D
2009
D
68.
Landfill
„Osojnica“
remediation
2009
D
69.
Concrete plant in the zone R
27 Kukuljanovo
2009
D
70.
Wastewater treatment plant
Mali Lošinj
LNG terminal Krk
2009
D
2010
D
Expansion of concrete plant
in the zone R 27 Kukuljanovo
2010
D
73.
Rubble exploitation in Tresni
breg, Klana
2010
D
74.
Gas pipeline Zlobin –Rupa
DN 1000/100 bar
2011
D
75.
Coke plant in INA oil refinery
Rijeka
2011
D
76.
Wind farm Breze
2011
D
77.
Highway A8 –
Rogovi i- Matulji
2011
D
78.
Rubble exploitation in Garica
2011
D
79.
Expanding capacities of fish
farm in Veli Bok bay in Cres
„Marina Lovran“
2012
D
2012
D
81.
Cableway
Vojak)
2013
Ž
82.
Wind farm Fužine
2013
D
64.
65.
66.
67.
71.
72.
80.
U ka
section
(Medveja-
light poll.
KB, B, Z,
O, M, K,
B, Z, V, T,
K, P, O,
V, T, PB,
K, KB, Š,
DiL, Z, B,
O, T, light
poll.
Z, V, T, Fl,
Fa, D, K,
B,
zdravlje
ljudi
Z, V, T, Fl,
Fa, KB, P,
B, K, O
B, Z, V, T,
K, P, O
M, V, K,
Z, B, KB,
O, Fa
Z, V, T, Fl,
Fa, KB, P,
B, K, O
Z, V, T,
PB, K, KB,
B, O, P,
Z, V, T,
Fa, KB, Š,
L, O, B,
svjetl.
one iš .
Z, V, T, K,
S, KB, B,
O, P
Fl, Fa, K,
KB, T, B,
P, K, KB,
Š, D,V, Z,
B,
O
svjetl.one .
Z, V, T, Fl,
Fa, K, KB,
B, O, P
On fish, M
M,
PB,
KB, V, K
K,KB,Fa,F
l, DiL, V,
B, PB
Fl, Fa, K,
PB, T, B,
Š, DiL
ŽZMD, M, V
no
yes
no
yes
V,
yes
no
Z, B
yes
no
V, Z, MP
yes
no
B, V, Z,
yes
no
V,
benthic
communities
M, V, Z, B
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
B, V, Z
B, remediation
and biological
remediation
Revitalization
of vegetation,
gas in case of
accident
Z, V, M
Procedure
stopped
no
B, KB, T, Fa
yes
no
V, B
yes
no
Z, B
yes
yes
ŽZMD
sediment
M,V,PB
yes
yes
yes
no
PB, V, B
yes
no
B, Fl, Fa
no
no
Author: doc.dr.sc. Koraljka Vahtar-Jurkovi , 2013.
Data source: Official documents of the Primorsko-goranska County Administrative Department
for Civil Engineering and Environmental Protection
Legend:
GOD – year
RP – EIA level (D – state/Ž – county)
U – environmental impact according to decision on environmental acceptability of the
intervention (B – noise, DiL – game and hunting, Fa – fauna, Fl – flora, K – landscape, KB –
cultural heritage, M – sea, O – waste, P – space, PB – natural heritage, S – population, Š –
forests, T – land, V – water, Z – air, ŽZMD – community of organisms on the seabed)
M – monitoring (B– noise, DiL – game and hunting, Fa – fauna, Fl – flora, K – landscape, KB –
cultural heritage, M – sea, MP – meteorological circumstances, O – waste, OP –landfill gas, P –
space, PB – natural heritage, PV – water assessment, S – population, SO – landfill sinking, Š –
forest, T – land, V – water, Z – air)
PZO – environmental acceptability of an intervention
R –realization of intervention (built and in function)
Types of the intervention
This data shows that, according to the information available to the competent County
administrative body, in the last 20 years in Primorsko-goranska County, there were 82
procedures of environmental impact assessment: 13 procedures for buildings for waste
management (two for central waste management zone, nine for remediations of the
existing municipal landfills and two for the non-hazardous production waste landfill in
Šoi i, Municipality of Kostrena), 11 procedures for roads, nine procedures for
municipal sewage with wastewater treatment plant and exploitation of mineral resources
(quarries and gravel pits) respectively, six procedures for LNG terminal, five procedures
for industrial objects (shipyard, oil and petrochemical refinery), four procedures for gas
pipelines, ports and marinas respectively, three procedures for power plants (one for
thermal power plant and two for wind farms), oil pipelines and concrete plants
respectively, two procedures for cableways and fisheries respectively and one
environmental impact assessment procedure for Mali Lošinj Airport, one for Križ potok
reservoir for Gorski kotar regional waterworks one for communal service Zone Srdo i,
one for Sports and recreation centre Dubina, one for ski slope Bijela kosa at the Winter
and mountain centre Vrbovsko and one for floating pumping station near Punat.
Level of conduction
Most procedures were conducted at state level, only four were conducted by the
competent County body.
Coordination of interventions with spatial planning documents
Some procedures were applied for the known locations, defined in the physical planning
documents. For some interventions, the environmental impact assessment was done in
advance in order to determine the best location. The best known procedures of that kind
were applied in order to choose location for the central County zone for waste
management and for LNG terminal.
Environmental impact and ecological network impact
Environmental impact studies analysed impacts on specific elements of the environment
and environmental pressures depending on the type of the intervention. Considering the
types of interventions and characteristics of the location, the most frequent impacts are
on the air, water and sea. It needs to be pointed out (and it can be seen in the table) that
in the procedure of the environmental impact assessment, impacts on natural heritage,
biological and landscape diversity, flora and fauna, and ecological network were also
taken into account. After passing new acts on environmental protection in 2007 – the
Nature Protection Act and Regulation on Proclamation of the National Ecological
Network – in Primorsko-goranska County, there were approximately fifty procedures of
assessment of the need for conducting the procedure of main assessment of the
ecological network impact on state and county level. It was determined that three
interventions needed the main assessment: olive plantation and water reservoir for the
plantation in Mali Lug near Njivice lake on the island of Krk and wind farm Breze. 17
The first two interventions were abandoned, so the procedure was not conducted, and
the procedure for the Breze wind farm was successfully concluded.
Public participation
The public was informed of the interventions according to prescribed procedure and the
decision of the appointed committee. It usually consisted of an advertisement in the
local newspapers, information on the local radio and TV, if needed, information on
notice boards and on County and local government web pages. Citizens, local
government bodies, business representatives, organizations and groups of citizens
commented in writing and live, asked questions and gave their opinions during public
presentations and wrote and sent e-mails to administrative bodies. In most cases, public
presentations and discussions were poorly attended, and there were cases where no
representatives of the general public showed up (in case of environmental assessment
procedure of municipal sewage with wastewater treatment plant in Krk). According to
the County bodies responsible for the coordination of public access and public hearing
the greatest public interest was caused by the environmental impact assessments of the
following interventions: central waste management zone, Družba Adria project, LNG
terminal on the island of Krk, coke plant in the INA oil refinery Rijeka in Urinj,
expansion of the Marina Punat and Adriatic highway, Križiš e-Žuta Lokva section. In
those cases, the public presentations had to be moved to bigger venues: town halls,
libraries and community centres, and in case of LNG terminal even sports centre in
Omišalj. Of all the mentioned interventions, only for the coke plant in INA Oil Refinery
Rijeka in Urinj, additional analyses of the best transhipment port for petroleum coke had
to be made, under the pressure of the general public and the City of Bakar, and that port
should be built on a part of Kostrena coast, south of the plant, not in the bay of Bakar.
Recently, the wind farm project in Fužine, although included in the municipal spatial
plan, caused such public outcry that a referendum had to be held. However, it was
unsuccessful because not enough voters in the Fužine municipality voted. The results of
the environmental assessment procedures show that the opposition of the public does
not influence the environmental impact assessment in general. Of all the procedures
mentioned, only two were judged inacceptable for the environment (Družba Adria and
wind farm Fužine).
Professional advisory committee
Professional advisory committee was usually appointed specially for every intervention,
except for the roads, where the comprehensiveness of the environmental impact
assessment study and the acceptability of the intervention was judged by an established
committee on the state level in which Primorsko-goranska County has a representative.
Results of the procedures – acceptability of the interventions for the environment
Results of the procedures were mostly positive (74 of 82, or 90%) and decisions were
issued on the acceptability of the interventions for the environment with the application
of environmental protection measures determined according to the environmental
impact studies and with adequate monitoring of the state of the environment. Negative
opinion was issued for four interventions: the floating pumping station near the Punat
valley on the island of Krk (unacceptable for the environment), non-hazardous
17
Source: unpublished documentation for County Prefect's meeting
technological waste disposal site in Šoi i as a part of INA oil refinery in Urinj (not in
accordance with spatial planning document), Družba Adria project (the addition to the
environmental impact study in accordance with the requirements of the professional
advisory committee was not made) and cableway Skrad – Zeleni vir(not in accordance
with spatial planning document). Professional advisory committee recently gave a
negative opinion on the project of wind farm in location Zvirjak in Fužine. The request
for a decision on the case of quarry Voz on the island of Krk was rejected since the
environmental impact study was not corrected on time. One procedure was started and
almost finished, but it was cancelled because of the changes in the spatial planning
documents (coke plant in the INA oil refinery Rijeka in Urinj).
Realization of the interventions
32 interventions out of 81 for which the procedure was conducted, were realized (built
and in function). The biggest interventions with greatest environmental impact were not
realized. Some were dropped after the completion of the environmental impact
assessments – for example, the LNG terminal on the island of Krk.
Monitoring of the state of the environment
The most frequently prescribed mode of monitoring the state of the environment
included monitoring the state of the air, water, sea and noise. The problem of the
delivery of prescribed environmental monitoring data according to the decision on the
environmental acceptability of the intervention is present. The best example of
monitoring in Primorsko-goranska County was the long-term monitoring of DINA
Petrochemicals in Omišalj on the island of Krk, which was, regretfully, stopped after 20
years together with the production. Similar examples of good practice are the
monitoring of the state of the environment in INA oil refinery Rijeka and Viktor Lenac
Shipyard.18 For other interventions on county level we do not have the data on
application and results of monitoring. But it needs to be pointed out that the results of
general monitoring conducted regularly by the Educational Institute for Public Health of
the Primorsko-goranska County in relation to basic elements of the environment –
water, sea and air, shows that the state of those elements is very good. The air is mostly
of the 1st category, except around industrial sites, such as oil refinery and thermal
power plant. Drinking water is of the high quality, except in Gorski kotar and that is
why the existing waterworks are being repaired and new planned. The sea is also of the
highest quality, and only a few locations during previous seasons were unsuitable for
bathing.
Conclusion
In the last 20 years in Primorsko-goranska County more than 80 environmental
assessment procedures were applied, most of them related to waste management sites.
Most procedures were conducted at state level and concluded positively, i.e. the
interventions were judged acceptable for the environment with the application of
prescribed measures of protection and monitoring of the state of the environment.
Despite the fact that all the interventions that were judged acceptable were not realized
and that we do not have all the data on the application of monitoring prescribed by the
18
The author believes that these examples are good mostly because the monitoring of
the state of the environment prescribed by the ordinance on environmental acceptability
of an intervention was actually conducted. Also, the reports on the results of
environmental monitoring were sent not only to the competent institutions, but also to
the local government, including the committees that discussed them regularly.
decisions on environmental acceptability, on the grounds of monitoring the state of the
basic elements of the environment and official environmental protection reports, the
most important of which are Primorsko-goranska County report on the state of the
environment, it can be concluded that the applied procedures were successful and that
the realized interventions with the application of the prescribed measures for
environmental protection did not result in significant worsening of the current state of
the environment.
Literature
[1] Environmental Protection Act (Narodne novine, 82/94 and 128/99)
[2] Environmental Protection Act (Narodne novine, 110/07)
[3] Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (Narodne novine, 34/97 and
37/97)
[4] Ordinance on Environmental Impact Assessment (Narodne novine, 59/00,
136/04 and 85/06)
[5] Regulation on the Strategic Environmental Impact of Plans and Programmes
(Narodne novine, 64/08 and 67/09)
[6] Report on the state of the environment in Primorsko-goranska County, 2003.
[7] Environmental Protection Strategy of the Primorsko-goranska County, 2005.
[8] Official documents of the Primorsko-goranska County Administrative
Department for Civil Engineering and Environmental Protection on applied
procedures of environmental impact assessment 1993-2013
[9] Reports of the Primorsko-goranska County Educational Institute for Public
Health on the monitoring of the quality of air, sea and drinking water 1993-2013
[10]
rnjar M., Vahtar-Jurkovi K. (2003). Primorsko-goranska County and
the importance of conducting a strategic environmental assessment in the area of
Kvarner, Panel discussion The importance of strategic environmental impact
assessment in the managing of space and development, 10 November 2003:
Conference proceedings, ed. rnjar M., Primorsko-goranska County: 5-16,
Rijeka
[11]
Primorsko-goranska County: 20 years of local and regional government,
ed. Horvat-Brazzoduro N., Primorsko-goranska County, Rijeka, 2013
[12]
www.pgz.hr
Economic Analysis as Part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Comparison of Methodologies used in Croatia and the EU
Ines Rožani
Dvokut ECRO Ltd., Trnjanska 37, Zagreb, Croatia ([email protected])
Abstract
Economic Analysis methodology as a part of Environmental Impact Assessment, as
recommended by the Guidelines for "Cost-benefit analysis" of the Croatian Ministry of
Environment and Nature Protection, is in important aspects different from those
proposed under the EU Guidelines. In the calculation of economic benefits, such
analysis in Croatian case does include some items like taxes or transfer payments that,
contrary to EU methodology, have no economic effect, except the financial one. Thus,
in contrast with the EU Guidelines, calculations of economic benefits/costs regularly
include transfer payments like VAT on capital assets, net VAT paid in the fiscal year,
legal obligations arising from the settlement of proprietary rights, donations of various
funds, foreign exchange effects, inflation, often neglected gross labour costs that are
usually not transferred to "shadow prices" or corrected by conversion factors.
Exceptions in terms of indirect taxes are various fees that are actually treated as an
estimated cost of surveillance and protection of the environment, which basically ensure
that the level of negative impact on the environment is maintained in legally acceptable
limits. Given the fact that such fees are paid to the Croatian state budget (often lacking
transparent redistribution or direct compensatory effect that is proportional to estimated
damage) and following the EU approach, one should consider the reasoning behind
inclusion of such charges as economic benefits.
Key words: cost-benefit analysis, economic benefit, economic cost, shadow prices,
conversion factors
Introduction
Cost-benefit analysis (German: Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse) is a technique for specifying
and estimating total social costs and benefits regarding the implication of various
alternative directions of predictable actions economic projects might take. In the
European literature, such analysis is equated with the economic analysis, and its
methodology is defined by the European Commission Guidebook (EC Guidebook).
Opposing to the merely financial-economic analysis methods used to estimate
individual efficiency and financial sustainability of a project, this analysis examines
total social effects of a project. Therefore, this analytical tool is considered to be the
most suitable for the analysis of acceptability of some economic activity (a project) on
the individual projects level in the Republic of Croatia as the integral part of
environmental impact assessment 19, but also the necessary support to the decision19 Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act (OG 110/07), Regulation on
Environmental Impact Assessment (OG 64/08 and 67/09), Regulation Regulation on
making process in the environmental protection field. Nevertheless, a question if often
raised whether a specific project which is being analysed is of sufficient significance to
contribute to the development of social, i.e. economic effects also on the state level.
Environmental protection decision-making is considered to be a very delicate process
which includes public as well as business sectors, the government, but also the public
due to frequent lack of clear and objective criteria for estimation/assessment of positive
and negative effects an intervention may cause to the environment. Therefore, there is
often no possibility of sound measuring, i.e. the quantification of individual impacts in
sense of calculation of monetary benefits or costs of individual interventions or their
financial results.
Cost-benefit analysis is therefore used as one of the many optimization instruments in
the environmental impact assessment of an intervention which contributes to the finding
of more appropriate solutions and helps in reaching the decision on acceptability or nonacceptability of a project, before all when choosing the most suitable variant or deciding
on the alternatives. This tool excludes the clear financial flow of income, costs and the
very effect an individual project has for the investor, but includes financially
measurable and non-measurable elements of societal benefits and claims which show
whether a project can cause severe losses of social wealth, i.e. whether the project may
have unexpected and unwanted consequences which are higher than the estimated
benefits the implementation of the project might bear. The purpose of the economic
assessment is to determine the project's sustainability in terms of its societal benefits
and not merely from the financial point of view.
On the basis of measurable societal benefits and claims, the current economic net value
is calculated which, together with the assessment of financially non-measurable societal
benefits and claims, serves as the tool for assessment of the overall project's
acceptability.
Basic Assessment Principles of Pollution Effects on Environment and Society
One of the basic principles of the cost-benefit analysis is the Pareto's progress principle
which resides on assumptions that in today's modern society it is not possible to execute
any project without causing no adverse effects to anyone. In practical application of the
cost-benefit analysis tool, it is actually about the assessment of potential Pareto's
progress which assumes that investing in a project is viable if benefits to beneficiaries
outvalue the costs which the implementation of the project has caused to others.
Additional principle, adjacent to the Pareto's principle, is the "polluter pays" principle.
This principle strives for the reflection of overall production costs presented through the
price of a commodity or service, including all the resources used in their production.
Therefore, the utilization of air, water or soil for the emission, release or storage of
waste is considered equal to the utilization of resources like labour or materials. The
Information and Participation of the Public and Public Concerned in Environmental
Matters (OG 64/08), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is defined as a procedure
which assesses the impact of the intended intervention on the environment (soil, water,
sea, air, forests, climate, people, flora and fauna, landscape, material assets, cultural
heritage, possible and other) and determines the necessary environmental protection
measures in order to reduce these impacts to the least possible extent and preserve the
environment to the greatest possible extent.
lack of proper pricing for many natural resources which can be utilized in accordance
with the open access principle means that there is a danger of their over-utilization, but
also total depletion. Different states try to rectify the "polluter pays" principle through
the internalization of utilization or resources degradation costs to polluters.
The objective is to integrate utilization of the environment (including its ability of waste
assimilation) into the economic area through application of price signals and economic
instruments like pollution fees and environmental permits. Efficient international
application of this principle requires coordinated approach due to the fact that
environmental protection regulations can act as a source of trade deformations if some
countries subsidize private investments in pollution control while others don't 20.
The empirical determination of claims and their financial equivalents (costs of claims
caused by pollution) is far from exact, therefore real pollution prevention control policy
acts on the principle of exogenously determined "socially acceptable" pollution levels.
In principle, every pollution for which a unique price is paid for every additional unit of
waste that is being released in the environment (either through polluting fees per unit, or
via environmental permits/consents to a right of emission of a specific amount of waste
into the environment) shall achieve efficient allocation of internal polluting substances
control costs. The efficient allocation takes place at the lowest point of "pollution
removal" cost on which the overall commercial and production objectives of companies
shall be achieved (Pezzey, 1988) 21.
Standard interpretation of the "polluter pays" principle therefore requires for polluters to
pay for the managing of polluting substances release to an acceptable load, but not for
the ecological damage caused by such action. This approach therefore efficiently
provides polluters with a right to emit an acceptable level of pollutants without any
reimbursement. Broader comprehension of this principle assumes that polluters must
pay for costs of the induced damage as well as the costs control. Such interpretation
would grant an incentive-based charging for such damage, which charges a polluter for
the net amount on the basis of their acceptable polluting level per unit. The advantage of
such instrument is that it positively motivates the polluter's behaviour in longer terms
(research for more viable and environmentally more acceptable technologies).
Although this charging policy is widely applied throughout Europe, it is still used and
perceived mainly as the source of income and is not calibrated in order to achieve
specific environmental protection objectives. The revenues collected through this policy
are often "recycled" and returned in a form of incentives for covering capital costs of
installing new technologies for waste substances treatment.
20
In order to encourage the uniform application of the "polluter pays" principle, the
OECD Council has prescribed the principle of prohibition of subsidizing of the polluters
as the basic principle for pollution control for member countries since 1972.
Nevertheless, some countries strived for arguments that favour the quick drafting of
national programmes for pollution reduction which lead to certain exclusions form this
rule. Financial subsidies can be provided to a sector if this sector is already subject to
major economic problems, but for a shorter fixed term. This principle has also been
approved by the European Commission in 1975, which most accurately reflects the
fluctuations in environmental protection objectives of industrialized countries during the
1970ies and the 1980ies.
21
Economists generally claim that regulative instruments (as opposed to economic
instruments such as fees and permits) result in higher total pollution prevention control
costs for the same amount of pollutants emissions.
Methodology for Drafting the Economic Analysis Recommended by the CostBenefit Analysis Guidelines Issued by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature
Protection
In compliance with the economic analysis methodology as part of the environmental
impact assessment recommended by the "Cost-benefit analysis" guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection (RH Guidelines), in the first phase of
the environmental impact assessment procedure it is necessary to identify all impacts an
intervention can have on the environment and assess whether these impacts are relevant
or not. Afterwards, the identified significant impacts are related to the environmental
costs and benefits. The very process of identification and measuring of impacts is often
connected only with the so-called "valuably non-measurable" assessment methods.
Benefits achieved through individual projects and which compensate for the costs they
cause can be described as the type of costs and benefits which do not charge the investor
but rather broader or narrower social community and ever future generations. These are
also referred to as external costs and benefits.
Through legal regulations and by using economic instruments like utilization fees and
environmental load, a significant amount of the environmental protection expenses are
being transfered to the investor. The investor covers these costs during the realization of
an intervention. Such costs are called internalized costs.
Examples of economic instruments introduced into Croatian legislation are gas
emissions, waste deposition and space utilization as well as other internalized costs such
as procurement and operating of the environmental protection equipment costs. As
internalized costs, they are not that much a measure of utilization of the environment as
are economic instruments and in that sense the correlation between them and real
environmental damage is weaker than in case of economic instruments.
On the example of mineral resources mining contained within the RH Guidelines, the
modality in which recognized environmental impacts and costs are connected with the
benefits they cause was introduced22. Therefore, they are subject to the calculation of
the economic rate of return for specific projects. In that sense, the manner of recording
specific individual costs as internalized or external was determined, while individual
benefits were determined by the clear definition of categories which should be subject
to the calculation of external benefits a project may have to the general society.
In concordance with the stated RH Guidelines, the category of external benefits which
form the economic flow and are included in the calculation of the economic rate of
return includes all the taxes, contributions and fees to the project. These are regarded as
direct benefits which can be recorded by the valuably measurable indicators in sense of
income to the state and the local community. Their inclusion in the economic flow of
benefits is assumed through different fiscal fees, reimbursements, concessions, customs,
royalties, taxes on income generated in a fiscal year, VAT on capital assets needed for
the realization and operating of subjects, paid net VAT realized in a fiscal year,
employees' income taxes and also taxes and other legal obligations generated through
settlement of proprietary rights.
The RH Guidelines additionally define a whole set of indirect benefits which should
also be assessed in the acceptability decision, such as benefits from employment
opportunities regarding the realization and utilization of the intervention, benefits from
22
Rajkovi , D. (2010): „Smjernice za Cost-benefit analizu u sklopu Procjene utjecaja na
okoliš“ <http://puo.mzoip.hr/UserDocsImages/Prezentacija2_2009.pdf>, a table for
connecting the identified relevant environmental impacts and costs nad benefits within
the cost-benefit analysis on the example of mineral resources exploitation (Table 3.2.)
stimulation of other activities which can be presented by income raise of other
economic subjects and raised demand for their products or services in the realization
and utilization phase of the intervention (suppliers), and/or by creating new economic
activities.
In case of public investments and infrastructural objects financed by the society,
withheld profit from the intervention, reserve assets and dividends can also be included
in the benefits.
Methodology of the Economic Analysis Recommended by the EC Guidebook
The methodology of performing economic analysis recommended within the EC
Guidebook was prepared for large projects and its purpose is twofold. In the first place,
it has to show that the project is economically viable and that it contributes to the EU
regional policy objectives. Secondly, it has to prove that the contribution from Funds is
necessary in order to make the project financially sustainable. Based on these elements,
the proper level of aid is determined.
The goal of the cost-benefit analysis according to the EC Guidebook is also to identify
all possible effects and assign them certain monetary value in order to determine costs
and benefits of a project. Afterwards, the results are unified (net benefits) and
conclusions are delivered on whether the project is desired and should it be
implemented. Costs and benefits should be assessed on the incrementally basis,
considering the differences between the options with and without the project being
carried out.
Nevertheless, the economic assessment of a project should encompass the following:
- Conversion of financial prices into economic prices;
- Calculation of economic costs of a project;
- Assessment and evaluation of economic benefits.
The purpose of the economic assessment is to determine project's sustainability in terms
of its value for the society, and not from the merely financial point of view. This
approach insists on fiscal corrections, but also on shadow pricing23.
As stipulated in the Working document No. IV, indirect taxes (and benefits) which
mostly encompass VAT, but also subventions and transfer payments, are excluded from
the analysis.
The purpose of shadow pricing is to remove market disturbances from accounting
(financial) prices. Shadow prices are used as costs factors (and benefits factors, when
applicable). They can be used either by the application of a unique standard conversion
factor, or a more developed approach can be used at the sector level, or the cost's
components conversion factors approach can be applied. The latter requires detail
understanding of capital and usual (operational) project costs, including the composition
of costs (capital and operational) regarding qualified and non-qualified labour and
imported and domestic commodities. Such information is seldom available and
therefore, in the preparatory phase of the project, the assumptions used for such
delineation are considered to be highly subjective.
Project costs must include capital costs (including replacement costs) and increased
regular (operational) costs (not including the impacts on savings). Same can be obtained
23
Shadow price is hidden social marginal cost of a commodity. It is defined as the
amount at which the values of goal function will vary in regard to the change of one unit
inside the limitation value, i.e. this is the amount we are ready to pay for each additional
unit of a resource. It is not the original sale price but rather the price that has to be paid
in order to receive additional resources.
from the financial analysis with the application of conversion factors (if needed) and
adjustments due to fiscal corrections. Cost analysis for the last year of the project should
include (as negative value) the remaining value of the project's assets. The remaining
value can be determined as a linear ratio of the project's assessment period and the
expected economic (financial) duration of assets. Economic analysis of the remaining
value should be performed in the same way as when conducting the financial analysis.
There are no precise instructions on the types of benefits and quantification/nonquantification of benefits for all projects which require environmental impact
assessments. Nevertheless, according to international experience and the approach used
in most of the EU member states, there are three major economic benefits:
- savings from costs of resources for the user;
- environmental benefits;
- savings from costs of resources for the investor.
Additional economic benefits with infrastructure enhancement projects may appear, but
these are usually not quantified. These benefits include health benefits, multiple impacts
on the local economy as well as some other less tangible benefits for the environment.
Within the suggested assessment framework, the EC Guidebook suggests the following:
- Health benefits are not being quantified due to difficulties in determining a clear
causal connection
- Generally, within the regional economies' context, it is not expected that
individual projects will bear greater significance, and therefore it is expected that
any multiverse impacts during the implementation will be low. That is the
reason why this potential benefit is not being quantified at all.
Research of the Present Practice in Performing the Cost-Benefit Analysis in
Croatia
The methodology for drafting economic analysis in compliance with the RH Guidelines
varies significantly from those suggested in the EC Guidebook in several key
determinants. In the Croatian practice, such analyses include economic benefits
calculations of some categories of taxes or transfer payments which have no economic
effect except financial one, which is opposing to the EU methodology.
According to the RH Guidelines, the very definition of cost-benefit analysis states that it
is an assessment of a society's readiness to accept the amount of costs (damage) not only
on the environment but also in regard to the extent of damage on the environment
compared to benefits a project might bear to the society. Regarding that the
environmental impact assessment study of every intervention should present all benefits
and contingent costs (external costs and benefits), measurable and non-measurable, the
problem complicates more by the fact that some of those cannot be expressed in terms
of value. Due to differences among them, such benefits and costs can hardly be assessed
and thus unified, but rather presented by some other method - physical, scientifically
based, statistical or some other model for assessment of the intensity of the financially
non-measurable impacts.
This is the reason why cost categories of internalized and external environmental costs
are often misinterpreted and used as such in the cost-benefit analysis. As a matter of
fact, many of the environmental costs in Croatia have already been internalized by the
environmental protection economic instruments through the obligation of paying
various fees for the utilization or protection of the environment, either due to policy of
harmonizing the regulations with those of the EU or due to the increased environmental
consciousness on the emerging need for protection of the environment in Croatia (e.g.
gas emission fees, waste deposition and utilization of space, various procurement costs
and costs of the environmental protection equipment operation etc.). In addition, the
environmental protection instruments within the sustainable development framework
are mostly a financial burden, but also the motivation for the investors who are forced to
come out with more innovative and technologically acceptable means for the realization
of intervention that will utilize the environment to the least possible extent. Thus, part of
the environmental protection costs is transferred to the investor. In this particular
segment, the methodology prescribed by the RH Guidelines complies with the
methodology for conducting economic analysis from the EC Guidebook.
In that sense, a research has been conducted on a random pattern of 45 approved studies
on environmental impact assessment24 of individual interventions which have been
made in Croatia in the period April 2010 - June 2013, with the research topic based on
the assumption that, on the example of environmental impact assessments, most of the
cost-benefit analyses misinterpret individual cost and benefit categories and use them
wrongly by including them into the economic parameters calculations of specific
interventions, contrary to both methodological principles - Croatian as well as the EU
guidelines.
The results of this research are presented in picture 1.
Picture 1. The most frequent mistakes in drafting of the cost-benefit analyses contrary
to the methodology prescribed in the EC Guidebook
Source: Research and data processing of the author
Major mistakes which emerge when drafting the cost-benefit analyses as part of the
environmental impact assessment studies in Croatia are about either neglecting the
external costs within the analysis or about presenting the internalized environmental
costs (most often internalized by various economic instruments) within the cost-benefit
analysis as benefits. According to the environmental protection economic instruments
24
A random sample of 45 completed and approved EIAs in Croatia has been elaborated
by the research with the following interventions characteristics: 20 exploitation
interventions (14 quarries; 1 brick clay exploitation), 4 interventions in tourism sector
and 21 infrastructure interventions (3 gas pipelines, 4 nautical ports, 1 airport, 4 roads, 6
landfills, 3 renewable energy projects). Calculating of the optimal sample size depends
on the size of the acceptance of errors and is based on statistical calculations. Assuming
the 99% level of confidence and a sample error of +/-10%, the result indicates that the
representative sample of total population should be 45 (total population of 183 in total
EIAs accepted for a 3-year period). This proves the representativeness of this research.
definition, fees paid on the basis of legal regulations cannot be treated as benefits for the
society, but only as costs to the investor (since they are the consequence of
environmental load and cumulative impact on health and the socio-economic aspect of
the overall society) which is charged with the purpose of reducing the environmental
impact to acceptable, i.e. stipulated values.
The results clearly show that more than half of the prepared and approved cost-benefit
analyses in Croatia are not harmonized with the methodology proposed in the EC
Guidebook. Converting financial prices into economic prices is almost not present at all;
therefore the removal of market disturbances from accounting prices has not been
achieved at all. Indirect taxes (and benefits) which encompass VAT are quite often
included in the analysis, but also subventions and transfer payments which skew the
image of the real contribution of a project as opposed to damage it may have on the
concrete environment. Table 1 presents in more detail the elaboration of stated mistakes
in drafting of the cost-benefit analyses as integral parts of EIA studies in Croatia.
Table 1 Detailed elaboration of the stated mistakes in drafting of cost-benefit analyses
as integral parts of EIA studies in Croatia
Processed EIA studies from 2010 to 2013 (N=45)
PRESENTATION OF INTERNALIZED COSTS AS BENEFITS
28
Gas emission fees
22
Space utilization and/or protection fees
25
Waste disposal fees
13
Environmental protection equipment procurement and operation costs
24
Other environmental protection fees stipulated by legal documents
18
38
NEGLECTING OF EXTERNAL COSTS
(time savings, maintenance savings, increased non-fiscal income of
economy and population in settlements through which or in
vicinity of which a new road shall tread, indirect benefits through
employment of higher number of people etc.)
40
NEGLECTING OF FISCAL CORRECTIONS
(presentation of indirect tax effects and transfer payments as
benefits)
VAT on capital assets
33
Paid net VAT in the fiscal year
12
Legal obligations generated by settlement of proprietary rights
14
Donations from various funds
8
Foreign exchange effects
6
Inflation
6
Neglecting of gross labour costs value which was not transferred to
38
"shadow prices" or corrected by conversion factors
Not including the remaining project's assets values
39
Source: Research and data processing of the author
The research shows that Croatian practice, opposing to the EC Guidebook, includes
transfer payments like: VAT on capital assets, net VAT paid in a fiscal year, legal
obligations generated by settlement of proprietary rights, donations from various funds,
foreign exchange effects or inflation into the economic cost-benefit calculation, while at
the same time neglects gross labour costs value which was not transferred to "shadow
prices" or corrected by conversion factors.
Conclusion
The methodology for drafting the economic cost-benefit analysis as an integral part of
environmental impact assessment recommended by the Cost-benefit Analysis
Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection vary from
those suggested within the EC Guidebook in several major determinants. Croatian
practice of performing such analyses include some categories of taxes or transfer
payments wich have no economic effect, except the financial one, into the calculation of
economic benefits, which is contrary to the EU methodology.
Results of the research conducted in the period 2010 - 2013 on the sample of 45 EIAs
show that more than half of conducted and approved cost-benefit analyses in Croatia is
not harmonized with the methodology suggested within the EC Guidebook.
Conversion of financial prices into economic prices is almost not present at all, and
therefore the removal of market disturbances from accounting prices has not been
achieved at all. Additionally, in contrast to the EC Guidebook, economic cost-benefit
calculations include transfer payments like: capital assets VAT, paid net VAT in a fiscal
year, legal obligations arising from the settlement of proprietary rights, donations from
various funds, foreign exchange effects, inflation, while at the same time they neglect
gross labour costs value which was not transferred to "shadow prices" or corrected by
conversion factors.
The fact that investors are filling the state budget strives for the future theoretical
treatment of such financial effects as benefits for the social community, but regarding
the fact that they are the result of utilization of the environment (environmental load),
takeover of space and change of use but also the impact on human health and contingent
other economic activities are regarded as costs. On the other hand, this part of collected
means in form of benefits which are generated through the utilization phase of an
intervention is not used for environmental protection entirely.
Moreover, given the fact that such fees are paid to the Croatian state budget, often
lacking transparent redistribution or direct efficient compensatory effect proportional to
the estimated damage, the justification of including such fees into the calculation of
future economic cost-benefit analysis in Croatia should be reconsidered with more
scrutiny.
Literature
[1] Regional policy of the EC “Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment
Projects”,
July
2008
edition
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.
pdf
[2] Atkinson, G., 2006, Environmental valuation and benefits transfer, in Florio, M.
(ed), 2007a.
[3] Boardman, A.E., 2006, Cost-Benefit Analysis: concept and practice, 3rd edition;
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
[4] Campbell, H. F., Brown, R.P.C., 2003, Benefit-cost analysis. Financial and
economic appraisal using spreadsheets, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(UK).
[5] Europska Komisija (2008) Regionalna politika EK “Vodi za analizu troškova i
koristi
za
ve e
projekte”
izdanje
iz
2008.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/cost/guide2008_en.
pdf
[6] OECD (1992) Environment and Economics: A survey of OECD Work, OECD
Paris.
[7] Rajkovi , D. (2010) Smjernice za Cost-benefit analizu u sklopu Procjene
utjecaja na okoliš, http://puo.mzoip.hr/UserDocsImages/Prezentacija2_2009.pdf
[8] World Bank, 2003, A Review of the Valuation of Environmental Costs and
Benefits in World Bank Projects, Paper No 94, Environment Department Papers,
World Bank, Washington D.C.
Application of modern geological-geophysical exploration in making
expert base for Study about impact on environment
Glišo Raškovi
1
1
, Željka Ostrež 1
GEOS d.o.o., Istarska 56, 52 210 Rovinj, Republika Hrvatska ([email protected])
Abstract
The goal of geological and geophysical exploration in the area of civil engineering,
hydrogeological exploration, eco-projects, mineral raw-material exploration and other
types of exploration is to determine (as precise as possible) geological composition of
underground, its structural assembly, and special characteristic depending on the goal of
exploration.
Explored locality must be covered with dense net of exact data in order to make
interpretation of gathered data as close as possible to the actual situation in
underground. Combination of classical (usually more expensive) and modern
geological-geophysical (usually cheaper) methods of exploration guarantees most
quality results.
Key words: exploration, geological, geophysics, environment, studies
Introduction
For more than twenty years, company GEOS d.o.o. from Rovinj is executing complex
exploration in all areas of geology, mining, civil engineering and other areas and in
doing that it has developed high quality and acceptable approach to exploration
combining classical and geophysical methods in the ration which guarantees most
quality results with the most acceptable financial effect of execution of that exploration
and realisation of projects for which those explorations were done.
Such approach has emerged from results analysis and disadvantage of classic
exploration methods (drilling, digging exploration dig outs and others) with which one
gets vertical line and dot data about underground and terrain on which the works are
executed. In most cases, interpolations that are used in the areas between two boreholes
or dig outs are not correct or exact.
There are many examples for deviation between incorrectly interpreted relations in
underground (made on the basis of data gathered only by drilling and digging
explorational dig outs) and actual conditions in underground and everyone that works in
this field meets daily with problems of that kind of deviation and repairs that must be
executed in order to align projected and actual relations in the structure of underground.
That specially refers to the large and expensive eco – projects (construction of new or
remediation of existing waste depots, determination of place and scale of pollution of
underground waters and underground by leakage of pollutant) and projects that are done
with the aim of using renewable energy sources (hydro power plants, water reservoirs,
wind farms and others).
Consequences of low-quality executed explorations in such projects can have
unforeseeable effects on environment, underground, underground waters, eco – systems
and similar.
When planning and execution of modern methods of exploration one must start from (at
least) following settings:
- exploration program must be adjusted to geological characteristics of
surrounding and explorated terrain
- scale and spatial layout of exploration works and choice of exploration methods
must be planned depending on exploration aims, set standards and
characteristics of future intervention.
That what specially contributes to the quality of exploration is the choice of most
adequate equipment, geologist trained for use of that equipment in solving geological
problems and his/hers knowledge in interpretation of gained results.
Basic characteristics of such equipment are its portability, application in all conditions
with possibility to execute survey in all directions (up – down, horizontally forward,
down – up, from the side – forward), speed of execution and acceptable financial effects
of its use. Greatest value in quality of exploration results with such equipment and
procedures is quality of expert training (mainly geologist) which, in the phase of data
gathering use macroscopic observation of terrain on which geophysical survey is
executed, combining obtained physical values (images of georadar survey, resistance
from geoelectrical survey, recording of seismic waves) with changes visible on the
terrain on which exploration is executed.
Significance and results of choosing the most modern methods and procedures of
geological survey in eco – projects and projects for construction of objects for
application of renewable energy sources will be shortly commented on only several
(from many hundreds) examples from practice.
Exploration with the aim of choosing most convenient locations for construction of
depot for waste materials
In determining and projecting of place for construction of new waste depots, beside
morphologic and spatial parameters, it is important to have as accurate as possible
information about geological structure and hydrogeological characteristics of terrain and
underground and also about possibility of existence of cavernous systems or caverns in
underground.
It is from crucial importance (already in preliminary screening phase) in choosing the
most convenient location for construction of waste depots to get the most exact data in
order to avoid any further unnecessary spending of money for execution of complete
exploration programs on locations that could be unacceptable for that use from the view
point of environment protection and specially protection of underground waters which
are used for water supply.
Such approach is obligatory especially in karst terrain and terrains with developed
fissure permeability and numerous cave systems through which underground drinking
water can flow.
Most often occurrence of large caves is registered in karst terrains.
Biggest problem in exploration of such localities is the fact that fissure-cavernous
systems and caves are not noticeable on the terrain surface or its peak parts are
"opening" in lower or greater depths.
On many localities caverns are precisely registered by using only georadar survey as it
is shown on following pictures:
Picture 1. Great cave system which is visible only at the depth of more than 10 m (left –
on georadar profile, right – in nature)
Picture 2. Great cave system discovered by georadar survey (left) and visible on one of
ten recorded georadar profiles (right)
Effects that prevented further spending of larger financial resources for detailed
exploration of completely unacceptable locations for construction of waste depot are
visible in one of many programs of exploration executed in karst terrain (with
application of georadar survey in preliminary screening and detailed phase of
exploration).
Exploration of terrain for construction of waste depot for communal waste in karst
terrain
In conceptual design is – based on valorisation of spatial elements (suitable distance
from largest settlements), suitable morphologic conditions for construction of waste
depot (indentation in the form of sinkhole), lack of surface water flows and having no
information about flows of underground waters – determined potential location as the
most suitable for construction of communal waste depot.
Georadar survey with the aim of confirmation or rejection of potential location for
construction of waste depot (chosen in above described way) have been ordered and
executed already in preliminary screening phase.
In following graphical display have been separated relevant elements of exploration
procedure and obtained results:
In the karst terrain on one of Adriatic islands has been determined indentation in the
form of sinkhole (marked with yellow interrupted line) as a suitable place for
construction of future waste depot. The whole array of georadar profiles has been
surveyed across locality from which only one (route of georadar profile 1 – 1' shown in
black colour) is marked in this display for better visiblity:
Route of georadar
profile 1 – 1'
1
1'
Contour of
exploration locality
Picture 3. Ortophoto display of exploration locality with location of georadar profile 1–
1'
Geological profile is constructed on the basis of analysis of the data gathered on
georadar profile.
Picture 4. Georadar profile 1 – 1' (left) and geological profile 1 – 1' (right)
Numerous caves have been found in the course of speleological exploration in the
surrounding area and actual appearance of one of many caves is displayed in following
draft:
243
Picture 5. One of the caves found in immediate surrounding of exploration locality
By detailed analysis of hydrogeological characteristics of underground and tracing with
dye (that has been executed in sixties of the 20th century) it has been additionally
determined that the locality is situated on the route of the flow of the underground water
which appears in the form of the spring on the coastline.
With minimum financial resources has been very exactly determined in that way that on
this locality can not be and must not be constructed any type of depot even in the case
that its bottom is to be ensured and protected from penetration of polluted liquids deep
into the underground.
This kind of exploration has been executed on several dozens of locations with similar
or same problematics.
Exploration of the position and degree of pollution of the underground with waste
materials (oil derivates and mineral oils)
Within the industrial area of larger industrial plant, oil fuel tank has been damaged and
in that accident more than 285 tons of extremely hazardous pollutant has leaked into the
underground.
With great quality has been determined the position of the strongest leakage of the oil
fuel and the area of pollution spreading by using very extensive exploration program in
which most significant place had georadar and geoelectrical survey and in that way has
been obtained quality base for the design of the remediation project.
More than 2 500 m of geophysical profiles has been surveyed – from that 1 500 m of
georadar profiles and 1 200 m of geoelectrical profiles.
Obtained results have been checked with drilling of five explorational boreholes,
digging of one big dig out and laboratory testing executed on more than twenty soil and
water samples.
Exploration program has been financed from EU funds and exploration results have
been accepted by several foreign auditors and publicly commended for its quality and
exactness.
The area that has been covered with exploration is shown on following ortophoto
clipping (source DGU, www. geoportal.hr):
Picture 6. Locality on which extensive exploration has been executed
Positions of the strongest leakage of the oil fuel and its penetration by depth have been
determined with georadar survey. Following "image" has been obtained on one of the
georadar profiles:
Position of the
strongest
leakage of the
oil fuel
Picture 7. Georadar survey with continuous pulling technique (left) and georadar profile
crossing over the position of oil fuel leakage (right)
The strongest zones of soil contamination caused by leakage of oil fuel and/or mineral
oils that leaked from damaged sewage system for gathering and removal of those
materials (painted by dark blue colour) have been marked by geoelectrical survey.
Interpretation made according to the specific resistance of the underground is visible on
one of the geoelectrical profiles:
Picture 8. One of the geoelectrical profiles with marked zones of the strongest soil
contamination by oil fuel and mineral oils leakage
The model of strongest pollution and its migration in space and by depth is made as a
final result of exploration and analysis:
Picture 9. Migration of pollution in space and by depth
Exploration in construction of objects for application of renewable energy sources
Significance and worth of application of modern methods of exploration in most often
executed engineering-geological and hydrogeological exploration is reflected in its
application in very difficult conditions of execution (terrain and localities for future
construction that are inaccesible for classic equipment) and possibility of survey in all
directions.
That primarily refers to the engineering-geological exploration in construction of smallscale hydro-electric power plants, large hydro-electric power plant accummulations,
survey executed in tunnels or from water surfaces when position of damage and loss of
great quantities of water must be determined, terrain for construction of antenna polls
for transmitters of all types and purposes.
Terrains on such localities and objects are very hard and inaccesible for use of any type
of classic exploration methods.
On such terrains is most often applied georadar, geoelectrical and seismic survey in
which is possible to gather most important data about geological structure of foundation
soil for construction, condition of executed foundations and objects and other.
With georadar survey done on one location for construction of small-scale hydroelectric power plant, it has been completely and exactly determined (in space and by
depth) all important data about geological structure of soil. It was possible (on the base
of that data) to give very precise recommendations for choice of foundation and
calculation (based on experience) of bearing capacity and possible settling of foundation
soil.
Surface weathered layer –
weathered shale in alteration with
clay and humus material
Zone of weathered shale, near
the surface mixed with clay
material
Fissure
system
Compact shale, less
tectonically damaged
Picture 10. Interpretation of one georadar profile surveyed in the scope of engineeringgeological exploration for foundations of engine room of the small-scale hydro-electric
power plant
Creek
Underground flow
of the creek
Picture 11. Geoelectrical survey executed for the construction of one small-scale hydroelectric power plant with determined underground ("hidden") creek flow
Conclusion
Company GEOS d.o.o. has in its twenty-three years long history executed more than six
hundred different projects using combination of classic and modern methods and
procedures of exploration. Results of that exploration have been checked in almost
hundred percent by concrete interventions (construction, remediation and similar
construction interventions). Numerous investors are regularly coming back to our
company with new requests pleased with work executed in previous phases.
Part of our experiences and achievements can be found in more detail on our web pages
at www.geos.hr or geos.hr and also in our catalogues. Company is almost regularly
present on theme fairs in Croatia and abroad.
Literature
[1] A. P. Annan Ground Penetrating Radar – Principles, Procedures & Applications,
Sensors & Software Inc., Mississauga, Canada, 2003
[2] Brezigar, A.; Tomši , B. Georadar – visokolo ljiva geofizikalna elektromagnetna
naprava
[3] Štern, J. & Raškovi , G. Geologija br. 37, 38, Ljubljana, str. 437 – 458, 1994/1995
[4] Arhiva izvještaja tvrtke GEOS d.o.o. Rovinj Više od 1 000 projekata o istraživanjima u
kojima su korištene geofizi ke metode istraživanja (georadarsko, seizmi ko i
geoelektri no snimanje), period od 1990 – 2013 godine
Usporedba studija o utjecaju na okoliš za uzgajališta tuna s obzirom
na programe pra enja
Anita Gulam¹, Tatjana Bakran-Petricioli²
1
Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, Republike Austrije 14, Zagreb, Hrvatska
([email protected])
2
Prirodoslovno-matemati ki fakultet, Biološki Odsjek, Rooseveltov trg 6, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Sažetak
Marikultura kao dio akvakulture koja se odvija u morskom okolišu u Hrvatskoj ima
dugu tradiciju. Procjenom utjecaja na okoliš utvr uju se, opisuju i ocjenjuju utjecaji
namjeravanog zahvata. Da bi se procijenio utjecaj uzgajališta tune potrebno je detaljno
opisati postoje e stanje potencijalne lokacije i podru je utjecaja zahvata. U ovom radu
uspore eno je šest studija o utjecaju na okoliš za uzgajališta tuna te je utvr eno kako su
isti ili razli iti modeli procijenili utjecaj. Analizirano je kako su razli iti programi
pra enja dokumentirali pojedine parametre utjecaja. Na temelju provedene analize
predložena je optimizacija programa pra enja za uzgajališta tuna.
Klju ne rije i: uzgajališta tuna, studija o utjecaju na okoliš, procjena utjecaja na okoliš,
program pra enja stanja okoliša, parametri utjecaja
Uvod
Marikultura kao dio akvakulture koja se odvija u morskom okolišu u Hrvatskoj ima
dugu tradiciju, a na podru ju Mediterana ak i pionirsku ulogu. Uzgoj ribe posljednjih
nekoliko desetlje a u stalnom je porastu i predstavlja najbrže rastu i sektor u
proizvodnji hrane u svijetu (Katavi , 2004).
Tuna je jedna od najzna ajnijih vrsta riba u podru ju ribarstva zbog mase i duljine, a
posebice zbog vrlo kvalitetnog mesa odnosno visoke tržišne cijene. S uzgojem tune u
Hrvatskoj zapo elo se koncem devedesetih godina i do danas je na Jadranu
uspostavljeno osam uzgajališta tuna.
Uzgoj tuna u našem moru zapo eo je inicijativom nekolicine entuzijasta, ali i uz stru nu
i nov anu potporu naših iseljenika iz Australije i Novog Zelanda. Pokusna proizvodnja
1996. godine dosegla je simboli nih 39 tona tuna (Kali tuna, otok Iž) namijenjenih
japanskom „sushi“ i „sashimi“ tržištu (Katavi i Vodopija, 2001).
Planiranje i kasnije korištenje pojedinih uzgajališta tuna u Hrvatskoj bilo je popra eno
zabrinutoš u i otporom postoje ih ili potencijalnih korisnika u prostoru, posebice
lokalnog stanovništva i nevladinih udruga. Treba posebno naglasiti da se u javnosti
utjecaj uzgajališta tuna doživljava kao izrazito nepovoljan i neprihvatljiv za okoliš što
nije dovoljno argumentirano kao ni znanstveno dokazano. Takav pristup ometa daljnji
razvoj što upu uje na potrebu odgovornijeg djelovanja šire društvene zajednice s ciljem
održivog razvoja sektora marikulture, dakle, njegova razvoja uz odgovoran odnos prema
okolišu.
Neosporno je da marikultura, kao i svaka druga ljudska aktivnost na kopnu i u moru,
utje e na okoliš. No, utjecaj marikulture ograni en je u vremenu i prostoru. S obzirom
da je Jadran oligotrofno more ono može na odre enim mjestima prihvatiti pove anu
koli inu hranjivih soli koje su posljedica marikulture. Treba jasno re i da je trenutno u
Hrvatskoj utjecaj marikulture na prirodni okoliš malen, pogotovo ako se usporedi s
utjecajem izgradnje u obalnom podru ju.
Identifikacija i izbor pogodnih obalnih lokacija za uzgoj kriti ni su za tehni ku,
ekonomsku i ekološku uspješnost marikulture, a i u cjelini sektora kao takvog. Ocjena
povoljnosti lokacije polazi od razumijevanja specifi nih potreba odre ene vrste koja se
uzgaja, kao i zadovoljenja temeljnih tehni kih pretpostavki koje su presudne za
sigurnost instalacija i kvalitetno upravljanje projektom (Katavi , 2003).
Procjenom utjecaja na okoliš, kao instrumentom zaštite okoliša, utvr uju se, opisuju i
ocjenjuju utjecaji planiranog zahvata na okoliš, temeljem Zakona o zaštiti okoliša (NN
110/07) i Uredbe o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08 i 67/09), a postupak je
u nadležnosti Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode. U postupku procjene utvr uju se
utjecaji planiranog zahvata, te se propisuju odgovaraju e mjere zaštite okoliša i program
pra enja stanja okoliša. Za sva uzgajališta tune kojima e biti posve ena pažnja u ovom
radu proveden je postupak procjene.
Studija o utjecaju na okoliš (SUO) je stru na podloga koja obuhva a sve potrebne
podatke, dokumentaciju, obrazloženja i opise u tekstualnom i grafi kom obliku,
prijedlog ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata i mjere zaštite okoliša u odnosu na zahvat te
program pra enja stanja okoliša. Na temelju studije provodi se procjena utjecaja zahvata
na okoliš.
Da bi se procijenio utjecaj uzgajališta tune potrebno je detaljno utvrditi i opisati okoliš
odnosno postoje e stanje potencijalne lokacije i podru je utjecaja zahvata. Dakle,
postupak procjene je jedan od instrumenata zaštite okoliša kojim se procjenjuju mogu i
zna ajni utjecaji planiranih zahvata na okoliš. Stvaran utjecaj može se utvrditi tek nakon
provo enja programa pra enja okoliša, uz poštivanje propisanih mjera zaštite okoliša.
Usporedbom stanja okoliša na lokaciji uzgajališta sa stanjem prije njegova po etka rada
te programom pra enja možemo imati jasan uvid u stvarno stanje lokacije odnosno
možemo vjerodostojno utvrditi utjecaj rada uzgajališta za odre eno vremensko
razdoblje.
Postupci procjene utjecaja na okoliš za uzgajališta tuna u Republici Hrvatskoj
Prilogom I Uredbe o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš propisano je da se procjena
provodi obvezno za uzgajalište ribe koje se nalazi do 1 Nm izvan zašti enog obalnog
pojasa (ZOP), a proizvodnje ve e od 700 t/god te za uzgajališta ribe na udaljenosti ve oj
od 1 Nm izvan ZOP-a, a proizvodnje ve e od 3 500 t/god. Uzgajališta plave ribe
zabranjena su u podru ju ZOP-a. Dosadašnjim propisima iz podru ja procjene bila je
propisana obveza postupka za sva uzgajališta ribe proizvodnje 50 t/god i ve e.
U razdoblju od 1998. do 2006. godine proveden je postupak procjene za 9 uzgajališta
tuna.
Utjecaj ribogojilišta na okoliš
Svaki zahvat na moru i kopnu utje e na okoliš pa tako i marikultura. Jadran je
oligotrofno, slabo produktivno more kojeg karakteriziraju niske koncentracije hranjivih
tvari i biomase fitoplanktona. Zbog toga bi bilo mogu e da sam ekosustav Jadrana
prihvati odre enu pove anu koli inu hranjivih soli. Utjecaj uzgajališta na okoliš
odre uje se kvalitativnom procjenom tvari koje se emitiraju u okoliš. Emitirane tvari
koje utje u na okoliš naj eš e su prirodni metaboli ki produkti, nepojedena hrana, te
tvari koje se unose veterinarskim i zootehni kim mjerama. Emisije tvari koje su
posljedica hranjenja uklju uju nepojedenu hranu, feces, dušik, ugljik-dioksid i fosfor.
Posljednjih nekoliko godina provedena su zna ajnija istraživanja o utjecaju uzgajališta
tuna na okoliš. Utjecaj uzgajališta sagledan je s više aspekata uklju uju i utjecaj na
primarnu produkciju i plankton, morske cvjetnice, kemizam mora, kemijski sastav
sedimenta i dr.
Eutrofikacija je proces oboga ivanja morskog okoliša hranjivim tvarima što dovodi do
intenzivnijeg razvoja fitoplanktona. Pove anje biomase fitoplanktona u odre enim
uvjetima može biti izrazitije pri emu dolazi do smanjenja intenziteta svjetlosti u
dubljim slojevima i onemogu avanja fotosinteze. U dubljim slojevima uslijed ve e
gusto e fitoplanktona esto dolazi do hipoksije, a mogu se stvoriti ak i anaerobni
uvjeti.
U intenzivnijem uzgoju nutrijenti u foti kom sloju pove avaju fitoplanktonsku
produkciju. No, zbog smanjenja intenziteta svjetlosti u dubljim slojevima fitoplantonska
produkcija bit e sve manja. Promjene u trofi kom sustavu na lokaciji uzgajališta ne
ekuju se u podru jima koja karakteriziraju izmjene vodenih masa (Beveride, 1996).
Istraživanja utjecaja uzgajališta tuna na okoliš potvrdila su da je njihov utjecaj na stupac
vode zanemariv (Wu, 1995).
Novija istraživanja utvrdila su da podru je Mediterana bolje apsorbira hranjive tvari u
odnosu na Baltik ili Sjeverno more te se kao posljedica druga ijeg sastava organizama u
trofi koj piramidi ne uspije razviti ve a koli ina fitoplanktona (Wassman, 2003).
Dosadašnja istraživanja pokazala su da je najzna ajniji utjecaj ribogojilišta na sediment
i sastav bentosa. Neka istraživanja utvrdila su prisutnost crnog anoksi nog površinskog
sloja na dnu ispod ribogojilišta (Hall i sur., 1990). Debljina i kemijski sastav sedimenta
razlikovali su se u odnosu na udaljenost od uzgajališta i sezonu kada su uzeti uzorci.
Pove avanjem udaljenosti od uzgajališta, kao i tijekom zimskog razdoblja debljina
organskog sloja sedimenta zna ajno se smanjivala (Karakassis i sur., 1998).
Nakupljanje suvišne hrane i izmeta u obliku estica ima za posljedicu organsko
optere enje sedimenta (Karakassis i sur., 2001).
Vezzulli i sur. (2008) proveli su istraživanja na uzgajalištu tuna u Sjeverozapadnoj
Italiji (Vibo Marina). Lokacija zahvata nalazi se 700 metara od obale s prosje nom
dubinom od 45 metara i prosje nom brzinom struja od 6 cm s-1. Analizirani parametri
bentosa na lokaciji zahvata (npr. niži redoks-potencijal, viša produkcija bakterija,
promjene u sastavu nematoda) razlikovali su se u odnosu na kontrolnu postaju.
Rezultati istraživanja utjecaja uzgajališta na naselja morske cvjetnice Posidonia
oceanica ukazuju da je on zna ajan, a o ituje se u degradaciji odnosno potpunom
nestanku biocenoze posidonije u slu aju kada je uzgajalište smješteno iznad naselja
(Pergent-Martini i sur., 2006). Nakon prestanka rada uzgajališta livade morske cvjetnice
mogu propadati tijekom idu e tri godine (Delgado i sur., 1999). Kao razlozi zna ajnog
utjecaja navodi se mineralizacija nataložene organske tvari, pove ana koncentracija
hranjivih tvari koje utje u na intenzivniji rast fitoplanktona, što u kona nici dovodi do
smanjenja intenziteta svjetlosti koja je potrebna za fotosintetske procese morskih
cvjetnica.
Materijali i metode
Studije o utjecaju na okoliš (SUO) uzete u obzir u ovom istraživanju – opis lokacija
a)
Uzgajalište tuna u uvali Mala Luka kod otoka Drvenik Veli
Uvala Mala Luka nalazi se na sjeverozapadnoj strani otoka Drvenik Veli. Ukupna
površina uvale, zajedno s djelomi no usporednom uvalom Kriva a, procjenjuje se na
oko 180 000 m², s najvišom dubinom od 40 m na ulazu.
b)
Uzgajalište tuna u akvatoriju otoka Klude
Uzgajalište tune smješteno je u obalnom akvatoriju otoka Klude i komunicira s
otvorenim morem preko Drveni kog kanala. Dubina mora na lokaciji iznosi od 40 do 50
m.
c)
Uzgajalište tune kod oto a Oruda
Uzgajalište tune smješteno je u akvatoriju oto a Oruda, izme u otoka Oruda i
Drvenika Velog. Otoci Drvenik Mali, Drvenik Veli, Orud i Šolta pripadaju
južnojadranskom oto nom podru ju. Najve a dubina izme u Drvenika Velog i Oruda je
oko pedesetak m, a širina kanala je 800 m.
d)
Uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom
Srednji kanal gdje se nalazi uzgajalište smješten je izme u otoka Ugljana i Iža. Širina
kanala je izme u dva i tri kilometra. Dubine dna kanala u najve em dijelu su izme u 60
i 70 m. Najve a dubina u podru ju Srednjeg kanala iznosi 71 m i nalazi se jugozapadno
od lokacije uzgajališta. Samo uzgajalište smješteno je uz otok Ugljan.
e)
Uzgajalište tuna kod oto a Gira
Lokacija za uzgoj tuna Gira smještena je 500 m sjeverozapadno od oto a Gira, u
sjeveroisto nom dijelu Murterskog mora na podru ju op ine Pakoštane u Zadarskoj
županiji. Površina zatražene koncesije je 490 000 m2 .
f)
Uzgajalište atlantske tune na lokaciji Zverinac
Lokacija uzgajališta nalazi se uz sjeveroisto nu obalu otoka Zverinca u Tunskom
kanalu. Tunski kanal je smješten izme u otoka Tuna velog i Zverinca. Dubine kanala u
središnjem dijelu iznose od 60 do 75 m.
Usporedba studija o utjecaju na okoliš (SUO) i propisanog pra enja stanja okoliša
a) Predvi anje utjecaja modelima za razli ita uzgajališta tuna
Kako bi se procijenio utjecaj uzgajališta tuna na okoliš potrebno je dati kvalitativnu i
kvantitativnu procjenu tvari koje zahvat emitira u okoliš. Emitirane tvari koje utje u na
okoliš naj eš e su prirodni metaboli ki produkti, nepojedena hrana, te tvari koje se
unose veterinarskim i zootehni kim mjerama. Emisije tvari koje su posljedica hranjenja
i mogu utjecati na okoliš uklju uju nepojedenu hranu, feces, dušik, ugljik-dioksid i
fosfor.
Pri utvr ivanju utjecaja uzgajališta na okoliš odgovaraju im modelom predvi a se
disperzija i taloženje tvari na promatranoj lokaciji te utjecaj na životne zajednice
morskog dna.
Provedena je usporedba SUO te je odre eno kako su isti ili razli iti modeli procijenili
utjecaj. Korišteni su isti parametri utjecaja (emisija dušika, fosfora, ugljika, potrošnja
kisika, životne zajednice morskog dna i dr.) za razli ite studije, odnosno razli ita
uzgajališta tuna.
b) Pra enje stanja okoliša (monitoring)
Uspore eno je kako su razli iti programi pra enja dokumentirali pojedine parametre
utjecaja za razli ita uzgajališta tuna.
Nakon provedenog postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš (PUO), Ministarstvo zaštite
okoliša i prirode je propisalo program pra enja stanja okoliša.
Obra eni su podaci programa pra enja stanja okoliša za uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji
Kluda koje je provedeno u razdoblju od 2003. do 2008. godine i za uzgajalište tuna na
lokaciji pod Mr inom provedeno u razdoblju od 2006. do 2009. godine.
c) Usporedba SUO i odgovaraju ih programa pra enja stanja okoliša
Provedena je usporedba dviju SUO za uzgajališta tuna na lokaciji Kluda i Mr ina te je
odre eno kako su pripadaju i programi pra enja stanja okoliša dokumentirali stvaran
utjecaj. Na osnovu podataka iz programa pra enja ocjenjeno je da li su u SUO
odgovaraju e procijenjeni utjecaji na okoliš. Na osnovu usporedbe predložena je
optimizacija programa pra enja stanja okoliša za uzgajališta tuna.
Rezultati i rasprava
Promatraju i razdoblje od 1999. do 2006. godine kvaliteta SUO bitno je porasla. SUO
danas vrlo kvalitetno i detaljno opisuju lokaciju zahvata i opis utjecajnog podru ja.
Prema Pravilniku o kriterijima o pogodnosti dijelova pomorskog dobra za uzgoj riba i
drugih morskih organizama, pogodnom lokacijom predlaže se ona na kojoj na dnu nema
livada morskih cvjetnica ili su na sigurnoj udaljenosti koju odre uje SUO.
Lokacije za uzgajališta tuna za koje su provedeni postupci PUO i izdana rješenja o
prihvatljivosti zahvata na okoliš, te koje su analizirane u ovom radu ocjenjene su
pogodnim za ve inu propisanih parametara (dubina, izloženost, strujanja, trofija,
fitobentos i dr.).
Tijekom godina mijenjali su se parametri na temelju kojih se opisuje postoje e stanje
okoliša i procjenjuje utjecaj tunogojilišta na okoliš. Primjerice SUO iz 1999. (Ecoina,
1999) nije sadržavala analizu fitoplanktona istraživanog podru ja kao ni analizu
klorofila a. Tako er u SUO iz 1999. utvr ivana je radioaktivnost sedimenta što tijekom
naredih godina nije bio slu aj (Ecoina, 1999). SUO iz 2002. (IOR, 2002) sadrži
detaljniji opis zahvata i tehnologije uzgoja odnosno temeljne tehnološke parametre za
procjenu emisije u okoliš, što se zadržalo do danas.
Tako er, u SUO iz 2002. koristi se matemati ki model za procjenu utjecaja izlu evina
tuna i nepojedene hrane (IOR, 2002). Matemati ki modeli korišteni za procjenu utjecaja
tunogojilišta na okoliš tijekom godina su se razvijali što je doprinijelo kvalitetnijoj
procjeni utjecaja tunogojilišta na okoliš. U svrhu predvi anja disperzijskog potencijala u
SUO iz 2006. (Oikon, 2006) korišten je model KK3D (Jusup i sur., 2007), koji se
temelji na pra enju estica pomo u stohasti kih diferencijalnih jednadžbi.
Kako bi se smanjio utjecaj uzgajališta tuna na okoliš i osigurala održiva proizvodnja s
minimalnim utjecajem na okoliš klju an je odabir lokacije. Prilikom ocjene pogodnosti
lokacije u SUO danas se posebna pažnja posve uje morskoj cvjetnici Posidonia
oceanica.
Programi pra enja na lokacijama Kluda i Mr ina uklju ivali su jednake parametre: a)
fizikalne - temperatura, salinitet, gusto a, boja i prozirnost mora, b) kemijske - otopljeni
kisik, zasi enje kisikom i otopljene hranjive soli, c) biološke - klorofil a, d) analizu
sedimenta - ukupni organski ugljik, ukupni dušik i ukupni fosfor te d) ronila kobiološki pregled.
Analiza podataka mjerenih u stupcu vode u tim programima pokazala je da su
vrijednosti bile približno jednake na mjerenim i na referentnoj postaji na obje lokacije
uzgajališta tuna. Nisu utvr ene zna ajne promjene što pokazuje da parametri stupca
vode nisu odgovaraju i parametri stanja jer ovise o trenutnoj dinamici mora i mogu biti
izrazito promjenjivi. Dostupni podaci analize sedimenta na obje lokacije nisu bili
dostatni da bi se utvrdile promjene i ocijenio utjecaj uzgajališta.
Izmjerene vrijednosti klorofila a na lokaciji uzgajališta Kluda bile su niske i sli ne na
svim trima mjernim postajama, te se može zaklju iti da uzgajalište nije utjecalo na
vrijednosti navedenog parametra. Na svim postajama vrijednosti su bile ve e u
površinskom sloju vodenog stupca. Prema provedenim istraživanjima utvr eno je da u
isto nom Sredozemlju pove ana koncentracija nutrijenata uzrokuje pove anje primarne
produkcije, odnosno biomase fitoplanktona u roku od 3 do 8 dana, što ovisi o godišnjem
dobu (Pitta, 1996). Tako er utvr eno je da ne postoji linearna ovisnost pove anja
koncentracije nutrijenata i biomase planktona. U slu ajevima kada su koncentracije
nutrijenata bile pove ane 32 puta, primarna produkcija se pove ala za neznatnih 3.5
puta (Owiatt i sur., 1986). Istraživanja provedena u Sredozemlju pokazala su slabu
povezanost unosa nutrijenata na uzgajalištima riba i koncentracije klorofila a u okolnom
moru (Karakassis i sur., 2001; Katavi , 2003).
Biološko–ronila ki pregled na lokaciji Kluda obuhvatio je ronjenje ispod kaveza,
pregled kaveza i obale. Utjecaj masne mrlje na mediolitoral bio je izraženiji po etkom
rada uzgajališta. Prelaskom na ishranu sa srdelom umjesto haringe takav utjecaj više
nije utvr en. Po etkom rada uzgajališta, na dnu ispod kaveza zabilježene su bakterije
roda Beggiatoa, dok idu ih godina pra enja bakterija više nije zabilježena. Stanje
bentoskih zajednica je u skladu s utjecajem procijenjenim u SUO. Na vrstom dnu
razvijene su: biocenoza supralitoralnih stijena, biocenoza mediolitoralnih stijena,
biocenoza infralitoralnih algi, elementi koraligenske biocenoze. Na sedimentnom dnu
zabilježene su: biocenoza morske cvjetnice Posidonia oceanica i biocenoza obalnih
detriti nih dna. Naselje morske cvjetnice Posidonia oceanica bilo je ošte eno, a utjecaj
na nju nije na odgovaraju i na in procijenjen u SUO.
Biološko-ronila kim pregledom na dnu ispod kaveza na lokaciji uzgajališta Mr ina
utvr eno je da su svi uo eni organizmi (zmija e Ophiotrix fragilis, trpovi Holothuria
tubulosa, Ocnus planci, Parastichopus regalis, mekani koralji Alcyonium palmatum,
veliki mahovnjaci, rakovi, stap ari i dr.) bili zabilježeni i prije po etka rada uzgajališta,
te se može zaklju iti da utjecaj na navedene vrste nije zna ajan. S radom uzgajališta
može se povezati prisutnost ježinaca Paracentrotus lividus koji ne obitavaju na ve im
dubinama i pretpostavlja se da su pali na dno s uzgajališta. Zabilježen je i ve i broj
velikih zvjezda a Astropecten aurantiacus. Tako er, zabilježeni su i kosturi riba kojima
se hrani tuna kao i prazne ljušture dagnji palih s instalacija uzgajališta. Zajednice pod
uzgajalištima tuna su se promijenile na taj na in da sada mogu procesirati pove anu
koli inu organske tvari.
Nisu zabilježene naslage bakterija Beggiatoa kao ni crni dijelovi dna promijenjeni
uslijed djelovanja bakterija (Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, 2007). Može se zaklju iti
da unos nutrijenata nije prelazio prihvatni kapacitet istraživanog podru ja emu su
doprinijele promjene u bentosu ispod uzgajališta: bentoski organizmi su uspješnije
prera ivali organsku tvar iz uzgajališta.
Ronila ko-biološkim pregledom na lokaciji Mr ina u promatranom razdoblju nisu
utvr ene zna ajne masne mrlje na podru ju mediolitoralnih zajednica. Zabilježen je
bujan obraštaj na kavezima, ali bez utjecaja na okoliš (Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar,
2008a). Biološkim pregledom mediolitorala uo eno je nekoliko svijetlih pruga masti,
koje su prekrivale manji dio od tisu itog dijela obale te se zaklju ilo da je utjecaj na
zajednice mediolitorala malen. Obraštaj na kavezima bio je bujan i u njemu su
prevladavale zelene alge Ulva lactuca, crvene nitaste alge, crveni mahovnjaci i mla
dagnje (Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, 2008b). Prisutnost zelene alge Ulva lactuca
ukazuje na pove anje organskog optere enja uslijed rada uzgajališta.
U razdoblju od studenog 2008. do travnja 2009. vrijednosti termohalinih parametara
bile su uobi ajene za godišnje doba i jednake na svim mjernim postajama. Lagano
pove anje zabilježeno je u travnju 2009. na dubinama 5 i 10 m, što je vjerojatno bilo
posljedica prirodnih procesa jer se ne može povezati s radom uzgajališta budu i da je u
tom razdoblju hranjenje tuna bilo smanjeno.
Analiza programa pra enja pokazala je da mjerenja parametara u stupcu morske vode
nisu uvijek odgovaraju i pokazatelj stanja. Biološko-ronila ki pregled se pokazao kao
odgovaraju i pokazatelj utjecaja rada uzgajališta i svakako bi trebao biti dio daljnjih
programa pra enja.
Program pra enja stanja okoliša je klju an element postupka procjene posebice za ve e
projekte ija aktivnost može utjecati na okoliš (João, 2002).
Iz rezultata programa pra enja na lokaciji Kluda može se utvrditi da je u SUO na
djelomi no odgovaraju i na in procijenjen utjecaj uzgajališta na okoliš. Stanje
bentoskih zajednica u skladu je s utjecajem koji je procijenjen u SUO, izuzev utjecaja
na naselje morske cvjetnice Posidonia oceanica koji je zna ajan i o ituje se u
ošte enom naselju.
Tako er, iz rezultata programa pra enja na lokaciji Mr ina može se utvrditi da je u
SUO na odgovaraju i na in procijenjen utjecaj uzgajališta na vodeni stupac. Utjecaj na
bentos ispod uzgajališnih instalacija je utvr en: zabilježene su nove vrste i zajednica se
u tom smislu promijenila da može procesirati ve e koli ine organske tvari. Zato nije
utvr en utjecaj na vitalnost bentosa, a sveukupni utjecaj bio je manji u odnosu na onaj
procijenjen SUO (Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, 2008b).
Primarna produkcija u Mediteranu a tako i u Jadranu limitirana je fosforom za razliku
od primjerice Atlantika gdje je limitirana dušikom (Krom i sur. 1991). Utjecaj emisije
dušika i fosfora s uzgajališta tuna nema ve eg utjecaja na vodeni stupac. Utjecaj na
sediment i biocenoze na dnu je lokalan i ograni en u prostoru.
Zaklju ak
Razvoj SUO kao i programa pra enja stanja okoliša za tunogojilišta u periodu od 1999.2006. pridonijeli su unaprje enju regulative RH i utjecali su na bolju kvalitetu SUO i
postupka PUO u cijelosti.
Tijekom godina SUO su detaljnije i metodološki primjerenije analizirale procjenu
emisija tvari u okoliš, disperziju i taloženje izlu evina na dno, utjecaj na fitobentos
posebice na livade morskih cvjetnica i dr. Matemati ki modeli korišteni za procjenu
utjecaja tunogojilišta tijekom godina su se razvijali što je doprinijelo kvalitetnijoj
procjeni utjecaja na okoliš.
Provedena istraživanja u vezi s utjecajem tunogojilišta na morsku cvjetnicu posidoniju
pokazala su da su njena naselja izuzetno osjetljiva na pove ani unos hranjivih tvari s
uzgajališta. Rezultati provedenih istraživanja, kao i pra enje rada postoje ih uzgajališta,
pridonijela su unaprije enu kvalitete SUO posebice u dijelu utjecaja uzgajališta na
naselja navedene morske cvjetnice.
Analiza programa pra enja pokazala je da mjerenja parametara u stupcu morske vode
nisu uvijek odgovaraju i pokazatelj stanja.
Biološko-ronila kim pregledom u okviru programa pra enja stanja okoliša utvr en je
utjecaj na naselje morske cvjetnice Posidonia oceanica na lokaciji uzgajališta tuna što
nije bilo odgovaraju e procijenjeno u SUO zbog ograni enosti matemati kog modela i
neuklju ivanja u razmatranje specifi nosti podru ja. Biološko-ronila ki pregled
pokazao se kao odgovaraju i parametar kojim se utvr uje utjecaj rada uzgajališta i
svakako bi trebao biti dio daljnjih programa pra enja.
Dostupni podaci analize sedimenta na obje lokacije nisu bili dostatni da bi se utvrdile
promjene, ocijenio utjecaj uzgajališta i provela odgovaraju a kvantitativna usporedba
programa pra enja.
Uloga ovlaštene tvrtke za izradu SUO ili za provedbu programa pra enja trebala bi biti i
u edukaciji nositelja zahvata u odnosu na pitanja zaštite okoliša i provedbu mjera zaštite
okoliša.
Postupak procjene je instrument zaštite okoliša kojim se procjenjuju mogu i zna ajni
utjecaji planiranih zahvata na okoliš dok se stvaran utjecaj može utvrditi tek nakon
provo enja programa pra enja okoliša. Rezultati programa pra enja za svako pojedino
uzgajalište trebali bi biti analizirani i korišteni pri izradi SUO, kako bi nove spoznaje i
rezultati pridonijeli daljnjem razvoju postupka PUO.
Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša propisano je da se rezultati programa pra enja stanja okoliša,
za zahvate za koje je proveden postupak PUO, trebaju dostavljati Agenciji za zaštitu
okoliša koja osigurava dostupnost podataka javnosti. Uvidom u podatke o programima
pra enja javnost e ubudu e biti upoznata sa stvarno utvr enim utjecajima uzgajališta
tuna na okoliš koji su lokalnog karaktera i kratkotrajni su. Na taj na in umanjit e se
prisutan otpor i zabrinutost javnosti, utvrdit e se stvaran utjecaj što e pridonijeti
daljnjem održivom razvoju marikulture.
Kako bi se poboljšala kvaliteta SUO i smanjio utjecaj tunogojilišta na okoliš preporu a
se analizirati i me uutjecaj s ostalim gospodarskim sektorima kao što su primjerice
nauti ki turizam, pomorski promet, zaštita voda i dr. Tako er, potrebno je uzeti u obzir i
kumulativni utjecaj odnosno analizirati i me uutjecaj s postoje im uzgajalištima u
utjecajnom podru ju.
Literatura
[1] Beveridge, M. (1996). Cage Aquaculture, Second Edition. Fishery News Books
Oxford, 346 str.
[2] Delgado, O., Ruiz, J., Perez, M., Romero, J. i Ballestreros, E. (1999). Effects of
fish farming on seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) in a Mediterranean bay: seagrass
decline after loading cessation. Oceanologica Acta, 22: 109-117.
[3] Ecoina d.o.o., (1999). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš uzgajališta tuna u uvali Mala
Luka kod otoka Drvenik Veli.
[4] Hall, P. O. J., Anderson, L. G., Holby, O., Kollberg, S., Samuelsson, M. O.
(1990). Chemical fluxes and mass balances in a marine fish cage farm. I.
Carbon. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 61: 61-73.
[5] Institut za oceanografiju i ribarstvo Split, (2002). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš
uzgajalište tuna u akvatoriju otoka Kluda.
[6] João, E. (2002). How to scale affects environmental impact assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 4: 287-306.
[7] Jusup, M., Ge ek, S., Legovi , T. (2007). Impact of aquacultures on the marine
ecosystem: Modelling benthic nutrient loading over variable depth. Ecological
modelling, 200: 459-466.
[8] Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M., Hatziyanni, E. (1998). Seasonal variability in
sediment profiles beneath fish farm cages in the Mediterranean. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 184: 205-218.
[9] Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M., Hatziyanni and Pitta, P. (2001). Diel variation of
nutrients and chlorophyll a in sea bream and sea bass cages in the
Mediterranean. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 10: 278-283.
[10]
Katavi , I. (2003). U inci kaveznih uzgajališta na morski okoliš.
Ribarstvo, 61(4): 175-194.
[11]
Katavi , I. (2004). Strateške smjernice za razvitak Hrvatske marikulture.
Naše more, 51 (1-2): 6-11.
[12]
Katavi , I., Vodopija, T. (2001). Razvojne mogu nosti marikulture u
Republici Hrvatskoj. Ribarstvo, 59(2): 71-84.
[13]
Krom, M. D., Kress, N., Brenner, S., Gordon, L. I. (1991). Phosphorus
limitation of primary productivity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Limnology
and Oceanography, 36: 424-432.
[14]
Oikon d.o.o., (2003). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš uzgajalište tuna kod
oto a Oruda.
[15]
Oikon d.o.o., (2004). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš uzgajalište tuna na
lokaciji pod Mr inom.
[16]
Oikon d.o.o, (2005). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš uzgajalište tuna u
akvatoriju uzgajalište atlantske tune, otok Gira.
[17]
Oikon d.o.o., (2006). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš uzgajalište atlantske
tune Zverinac.
[18]
Oikon d.o.o., (2009). Pregled pra enja stanja okoliša (monitoring) za
uzgajalište na lokaciji kod otoka Kluda.
[19]
Owiatt, C. A., Keller, A. A., Sampou, P. A., Beatty, L. L. (1986).
Patterns of productivity during eutrophication: a mesocosm experiment. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 28: 69-80.
[20]
Pergent-Martini, C., Boudouresque, C.F., Pasqualini, V., Pergent, G.
(2006). Impact of fish farming facilities on Posidonia oceanica meadows: a
review. Marine Ecology, 27: 310-319.
[21]
Pitta, P. (1996). Dynamics of the plankton community in sea bream
(Sparus aurata) rearing mesocosms. Doktorska disertacija, University of Crete,
Heraklion.
[22]
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08, 67/09).
[23]
Vezzulli, L., Moreno, M., Marin V., Pezzati, E., Bartoli, M., Fabiano, M.
(2008). Organic waste impact of capture-based Atlantic bluefin tuna aquaculture
at an exposed site in the Mediterranean Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, 78: 369-384.
[24]
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša (NN 110/07)
[25]
Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, (2009). Pra enje stanja okoliša za
uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom za razdoblje: studeni 2008-travanj
2009.
[26]
Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, (2008). Pra enje stanja okoliša za
uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom za razdoblje: svibanj-listopad 2008.
[27]
Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, (2008). Pra enje stanja okoliša za
uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom za razdoblje: studeni 2007-travanj
2008.
[28]
Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, (2007). Pra enje stanja okoliša za
uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom za razdoblje: listopad 2006-travanj
2007.
[29]
Zavod za javno zdravstvo Zadar, (2007). Pra enje stanja okoliša za
uzgajalište tuna na lokaciji pod Mr inom za razdoblje: lipanj-rujan 2006.
[30]
Wassmann, P. (2003). Eutrophication effects on phytoplankton and
thresholds of environmental sustainability. The Croatian Norwegian Workshop
on Aquaculture, Coastal Management and Environmental Impact, 1.-5. 10.
2003., Vodice, Hrvatska (Sažetak).
[31]
Wu, R.S.S., 1995: The environmental impact of marine fish culture:
Towards a sustainable future, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 31, 159-166.
Environmental Impact Assessments for Linear Infrastructural
Objects: Instrument to Achieve Harmonization between
Developmental Plans and Environment or to Stop Progress?
Vanja Satinovi 1, Daniela Klai Jan ijev1, Željko Koren1
1
Oikon Ltd. – Institute for Applied Ecology, Trg senjskih uskoka 1-2, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
To achieve design solutions of high quality, especially in projects of linear
infrastructural projects, the cooperation between designers and EIS developers from the
earliest start of design activities is important, although it was not common recently.
Projects that do not comply with county physical plans result in failure to start the
procedure for obtaining the location permit. Also, results of analyses of alternative
solutions due to not widely known methods of comparison of alternative solutions are
often not very well accepted by EIA participants. Also, the new practice shows that
requirements from competent authorities are more and more demanding, precisely more
detailed technical data and descriptions as well as data whose collecting is not possible
without long-term and expensive field researches. Lack of strategic documentations,
especially strategic assessments of county physical plans, often represents a problem
during defining the priority projects and during assessments of cumulative effects.
Experiences from project solutions and EISs for objects of linear infrastructure show
that the realization of new infrastructure projects is strongly connected with important
issues which could finally result in significant extension of realization deadlines, from
originally expected.
Key words: linear infrastructure, environmental impact assessment, physical plan,
analyses of alternative solutions
Abbreviations:
EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS – Environmental Impact Study
SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment
Introduction
According to the Environmental Protection Act (OG No. 80/13), and the Regulation on
EIA (OG No. 64/08, 67/09), the EIS serves as the basis for a detailed and
comprehensive understanding of the environment in the area of impact, taking into
account the value of its existing and planned facilities. Based on the assessment of the
current state the impact of the planned project on the environment is evaluated and
measures and requirements, that reserve impact within allowed limits, are proposed
(measures and requirements that environment can accept without major changes and
consequences). The study assesses the impact of the planned project on the environment
based on the identification and examination of all possible adverse effects on the
different components of the environment during the preparation, construction, use and
maintenance, and termination of operations.
Linear infrastructure (road and railways infrastructure, the main high pressure gas
pipelines, oil pipelines, transmission lines, artificial waterways, etc.) are among the
biggest consumers of land, whose construction and operation have a significant impact
on the environment in various ways. Environmental impact of these facilities during the
construction or reconstruction can be characterized as predominantly negative, but short
in duration, while the impact of the operation of these facilities, mainly related to the
sociological aspect of the environment can be generally regarded as positive and longterm. Building a linear infrastructure such as the highways, roads, railways and power
lines significantly changes and impacts the environment on which it spreads. On the
other hand, the environmental impact of facilities such as oil and gas pipelines, may be
considered less significant mainly due to the fact that these objects were mostly (except
for point objects) placed underground, at depths no greater than 2 meters.
The documentation that serves as the basis for EIS of linear infrastructure are physical
plans of all levels, strategic assessment of spatial plans and sectorial plans and programs
as well as conceptual designs or designs. Physical planning documents and strategic
assessments describe linear objects as planned corridors. Conceptual and preliminary
designs include general technical information of the planned route and construction of
facilities.
Experiences described in this abstract evolve from drafting many EIS-es of line
infrastructure projects that were financed by the companies Hrvatske autoceste Ltd.,
Hrvatske ceste Ltd., Hrvatske željeznice - HŽ infrastruktura Ltd., Hrvatska
elektroprivreda – Operator prijenosnog sustava Ltd. and Plinacro Ltd.
Problems occurring during the EIA procedure for projects of linear infrastructure
Compliance with physical plans
Based on Croatian planning and strategic documents (Strategy and Program of Physical
Planning, Energy Strategy and the Transport Development Strategy) the development of
linear infrastructure of importance to the country is planned. In accordance with those
the county physical plans are developed, and then the plans of lower level. As the EIA
procedure depends on the compliance with the spatial plans, the first problem that could
be encountered is partial (e.g. induced in the graphic but not in the text of the plan), or
even a complete mismatch with the spatial plan. During the development of conceptual
design the designers are obligated to comply with the limits prescribed therein. Despite
the fact that during the design phase the route of the linear infrastructure is led in
planned corridors, often for various reasons the route exceeds beyond planned corridor.
Reasons may be of technical (e.g., achieving the minimum radius of curvature) or
financial (e.g. relocation of the route for lover construction costs) nature. These are the
conditions that are primarily set for designers. During the EIA procedure it is possible to
encounter additional reasons why the route has to move beyond the planned corridor. It
is not unusual that even during the final stage of the process (making decisions about
the acceptability of the project), as a result of the harmonization of spatial plans of
lower with higher level plan, requests for changes in the route appear. These
requirements result in delays and sometimes occur after the completion of the EIA
process.
To achieve design solutions of high quality, the cooperation between designers and EIS
developers from the earliest start of design activities is important, although it was not
common recently. Such cooperation could result either in minor modifications of the
route or in alternative solutions which could exit the area defined by the physical plan.
Until recently, the physical planning documentations were passed without preceding
environmental analyses that are common in developing the EIS. Usually, planned
activities are older than few decades while surrounding areas and activities have been
changed, it is necessary to plan route corridors out of the areas defined, in order to reach
optimum between cost, benefits and environmental effects. Also, planned activities
according to physical plans could overlap with route corridors which were optimized
during detailed project elaborations as it is the case with roads, pipelines etc. It all leads
to long-term numerous modifications of route or/and revisions in physical plans. This
way of design and cooperation usually cause much greater efforts as well as significant
extension of deadlines planned by developers together with prescribed duration of the
EIA process. In case of linear infrastructural projects of very long length it is common
that physical plans wait till optimized design solutions evolve from EIS, to be adopted.
Design of the objects of traffic infrastructure mainly highways implies important
question of financial priority, the determination of locations for wildlife overpasses.
Using longitudinal profile, positions of settlements, rivers, proper habitats etc. the most
acceptable location could be determined. The greatest problem concerning positioning
of wildlife overpasses lays in future organization of activities in the area, when the road
has to be built in two phases due to the fact that foreseen traffic increase cause
construction of the second track only when it becomes feasible. Namely, physical plans
do not have option to “conserve” or mark locations except in case of road junctions, so
there is a possibility of constructing the object in vicinity of the wildlife overpass that
could cause adverse effect on animal crossings which also cause additional loss of
money due to the fact that overpass no longer has its purpose.
Confirmation on compliance with the spatial planning documents is a precondition for
the EIA procedure. Although linear infrastructural projects are often not fully in
accordance with the spatial planning documents, these projects are of importance for the
Republic of Croatia (and decisions are made about making changes and amendments to
the county plans), and the Ministry of Construction and Spatial planning is able to issue
an opinion that for this projects the EIA procedure can start, but it is not possible to start
the process of issuing building permits or even issuing the decision on environmental
acceptability until the adoption of amendments to the county plan. Such status results in
a delay of the EIA procedure after the end of the expert committee to the adoption of a
county spatial plan. Following the adoption of the county plan, within 30 days the EIA
procedure must restarted (continued). Therefore, obtaining the confirmation on
compliance with the spatial planning documents as a basic prerequisite for initiating the
EIA procedure can significantly complicate the realization of the project. As the spatial
planning is a basic tool in protecting the physical environment, any prompt action or
skipping a hierarchical sequence could lead to significant long-term consequences.
Lack of SEA documents
Obligation to conduct strategic environmental assessment (SEA) exists for last five
years so until today there are only a few of them conducted. The strategic environmental
assessment of county physical plans has specific importance for further project
planning. SEA study assesses and describes significant impacts of planned activities
(objectives) on the environment, mutually and cumulative together with existing
activities. SEA study of county physical plans, through the cooperation of planners and
SEA practitioners, could define priorities during planning having in mind the aspect of
potential environmental impact, as well as propose and analyze alternatives including
their spatial and conceptual opportunities. Except strategic environmental assessment of
county physical plans, the conduction of strategic environmental assessment of sectorial
plans and programs is of great importance. Related to projects of linear infrastructure,
those are plans and programs from the sectors of traffic and energy. SEA study of
sectorial plan or program could determine potential spatial conflicts and obstacles at
proper time, so by proposing and analyzing of alternatives some of which include
significant conceptual changes, the result could be a solution of high quality. Also,
through early stages in SEA process it is possible to eliminate potential mismatches in
relation to significant environmental aspects (for example Ecological Network / Natura
2000 areas) as well as in relation to developmental concepts. The results of SEA should
help different stakeholders make their positions closer and also give guidelines for
further activities. That is one of the possible ways to speed up phases which follow in
designing of the projects also referring to the phase of environmental impact
assessment.
Alternatives of the routes
The finally accepted conceptual design is a result of analyze of alternatives that evolved
from the process of meeting the requirements given in county and municipal physical
plans as well as caused by the morphology of the terrain, approaching of the route to the
existing network etc. Alternative solutions of the routes of linear infrastructural objects
that are analyzed in EIA studies more often comprise modifications of one proposed
route rather than two or more different routes significantly separated in the area. Due to
the fact that results of the comparison of such modifications of proposed route often
show negligible distinctions, the quality of such results of used comparison methods and
methods per se, could be doubtful. Therefore, the best solution could be to solve
situations when lot of modifications of proposed route exists, through the cooperation of
planers and SEA practitioners at early stage that precedes environmental impact
assessment. Therefore, the phases that precede EIS should elaborate the analysis of
alternatives which are slightly separated through the area of spreading including the
cooperation of planners and EIS developers. On the other hand, in previous EIS-es of
linear infrastructural objects the comparative analyses of proper alternatives were done
rarely. Some examples of the analyses of alternative routes were A1-highway,
international high pressure pipelines from the Republic of Croatia to the Republic of
Slovenia and from the Republic of Croatia to the Republic of Montenegro as well as
alternatives of transmission lines.
One of the reasons for that lays in developer’s decision to propose simpler and quicker
solution meaning only one variant that has to be analyzed in study consequently
avoiding potential extensions of deadlines and other uncertainties during the
environmental impact assessment process. Even though this is legitimate from their
position, it often leads in opposite direction, into prolongation of the EIA procedure.
The experience in developing the EIA for two variants of linear infrastructural object
(main high pressure pipeline), one terrestrial and another subsea, also opened the
question of credibility of results not only because of the different type of terrain but
from the reason of adequacy of applied method of multicriterial analysis. The analysis
evaluated environmental, technical, financial and safety criteria. Whether the terrestrial
or subsea variant was concerned, the result of analysis of comparison of environmental
aspects showed similarities unlike the results of comparison of technical, financial or
safety aspects which showed significant differences between alternatives. Also, related
to mentioned reasons as well as due to the fact that methods of comparison are not yet
widespread and well known, often the results were not very well accepted among
participants in EIA process (e.g. members of the expert committee, public).
Additional requirements during EIA procedure
Each type of linear infrastructure has specific requirements during design phases and if
no cooperation between designers and environmental experts exist, many of them
become noticed just during the EIA process. In that case, new changes of the route are
possible which brings additional delays of project deadlines. Expert committee advises
of problems with conceptual design solutions in relation to environmental conditions
and if necessary proposes alternatives in order to achieve optimum of the route that
would need no further mitigation measures. In practice, vice versa is more common,
when stringent environmental protection measures act in order to prevent changes of the
route which could prolong deadlines. Despite the fact that protection measures increase
project costs, they are usually of lower price than the selection of new variant.
EIS, as well as the demands of expert committee that decides on the acceptability of the
project, are continuously improving. Possible impacts need to be reviewed more
detailed and more accurate, especially in the context of cumulative effects. Therefore,
during the EIA procedure, information and level of detail that are requested are not in
the scope of the conceptual design, which is the most common basis for EIS. Indeed, the
details that are usually elaborated in the main or even the detailed design are requested.
It is, of course, good from the view of environmental protection and potential problems
are recognized faster and then resolved, but in the limits of preliminary design and EIS
there is not enough data. The solution to such problems often requires some sort of
previous research - measuring, modeling, environmental monitoring or additional data
from difficult to access sources. Also, one of the requirements during the EIA
procedure, is a request by the expert committee members on the need to develop
comprehensive research which, since it is a great linear object (sometimes longer than
100 km), imply a significant period of time and financial resources to implement, and
generally this kind of research should be done in the later stages of the project
implementation. These additional requirements are impossible to fit into the time and
financial frame of the EIS as well in the duration of the EIA procedure. An example of
the need for additional research often occurs in relation to aspects of the analysis of the
current state of cultural and historical heritage in the area of the route itself and in the
area of potential impact. Such studies require long and costly field work. Also during
contacts with the public, that is more and more included in the participation in defining
the final route and during the public hearing, an increased number of complaints is
received that are being considered, and if it determines that they are based, are then
entered in further modifications of EIS.
Conclusion
Duration of phases of the EIA procedure is prescribed by the Regulation on
environmental impact assessment (OG No. 64/08, 67/09). The expert committee and the
EIS developers try to keep those terms. But in order to produce studies of high quality,
often longer periods than originally planned and additional costs are necessary. There
are numerous reasons for this fact but the most delay generating are the immature routes
that become analysed in EISs, in terms of their acceptability for different stakeholders
based on available information that require intensive investigations or even design of
new routes. This effect can be reduced on different ways but the most effective is close
cooperation of environmental experts with the design team (often also physical planning
experts) from the early stage of the project, independent from the formal steps that have
to be followed in course of a project life cycle.
Despite these problems, the EIA procedure should not be seen as progress stop due to
the fact that the EIA procedure is aimed to detect as early as possible the potential
significant environmental effects and to propose mitigation measures rather than
complicate or even stop the projects.
Literature
[1] Environmental Protection Act (OG No. 80/13)
[2] Environmental Resources Management Ltd. and Oikon Ltd. (2007). Guidelines
for conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment process
[3] Environmental Resources Management Ltd. and Oikon Ltd. (2007). Technical
guidelines for developing the Environmental Impact Study
[4] European Commission Directorate General Transport, European Co-operation in
the Field of Scientific and Technical Research (2000). COST 341 Habitat
Fragmentation due to Transportation Infrastructure
[5] Regulation on environmental impact assessment (OG No. 64/08, 67/09)
Postupak procene uticaja na životnu sredinu u projektima autoputeva
na “Koridoru X”
Igor Radovi 1, Dušan Mijuk1
1
Koridori Srbije, Kralja Petra 21, 11000 Beograd, Srbija ([email protected])
Sažetak
Postupak procene uticaja na životnu sredinu sproveden je za sve projekte autoputnih
deonica na “Koridoru X” u Republici Srbiji. Procedura procene uticaja na životnu
sredinu je definisana Zakonom o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu, kao i nizom
podzakonskih akata a celokupna regulativa iz oblasti zaštite životne sredine u
potpunosti je usaglašena sa evropskom EIA Direktivom.
Za svaku od deset autoputnih deonica izra en je centralni dokument – Studija o proceni
uticaja i obezbe eno je u eš e zainteresovane javnosti tokom procesa izrade i odobrenja
Studije. Pribavljeni su uslovi institucija nadležnih za poslove zaštite prirode, spomenika
kulture i vodoprivrede. Mere zaštite životne sredine i monitoring programi su postali
sastavni deo Glavnih projekata. Predmet posebne pažnje su bile aktivnosti na zaštiti
kulturnih dobara.
Klju ne rije i: Koridor X, EIA Direktiva, Studija o proceni uticaja
Uvod
Postupak procene uticaja projekata izgradnje autoputeva na životnu sredinu u Republici
Srbiji definisan je Zakonom o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu ("Službeni glasnik RS",
br. 135/2004, 36/2009), kao i prate im podzakonskim aktima. Saglasno evropskoj EIA
Direktivi (85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC i 2009/31/EC), Vlada Republike Srbije
je propisala listu projekata za koje je obavezna procena uticaja kao i listu projekata za
koje se može zahtevati procena uticaja. Projekti autoputeva spadaju u grupu projekata
koja može imati zna ajne uticaje na životnu sredinu, i za njih je postupak procene uticaja
obavezan. Uloga nosioca projekta izgradnje autoputnih deonica na Koridoru X poverena
je prvobitno Javnom Preduze u „Putevi Srbije“, a u implementacionoj fazi projekata je
izvršen prenos nadležnosti za upravljanje izgradnjom autooputeva na „Koridore Srbije“.
U okviru procedure izra ene su Studije o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu i obezbe eno
je u eš e zainteresovanih organa, organizacija i javnosti u postupku. Pozitivno
okon anje postupka procene uticaja i izdavanje saglasnosti nadležnog organa
(Minisarstvo energetike, razvoja i zaštite životne sredine) na Studije o proceni uticaja bili
su klju ni preduslovi koji su „Koridori Srbije“ morali ispuniti u postupku dobijanja
odobrenja za izgradnju predmetnih autoputnih deonica.
Procena uticaja deonica autoputa E-75 Niš- granica BJRM i E-80 Niš – granica
Bugarske na životnu sredinu sprovedena je sa ciljem da se prikupe podaci i predvide
štetni uticaji ovih projekata na život i zdravlje ljudi, floru i faunu, zemljište, vodu,
vazduh, klimu i pejzaž, materijalna i kulturna dobra i uzajamno delovanje ovih inilaca,
kao i utvrde i predlože mere kojima se štetni uticaji mogu spre iti, smanjiti ili otkloniti.
Uvažavaju i injenicu da je procena uticaja za projekte autoputeva obavezna, postupak
je sproveden pred nadležnim organom u dve faze. U prvoj fazi odre en je obim i sadržaj
za svaku od Studija o proceni uticaja. Naredna faza je podrazumevala postupak
odlu ivanja o davanju saglasnosti na studiju o proceni uticaja.
Zahtev za odre ivanje obima i sadržaja Studija o proceni uticaja projekata
izgradnje autoputeva na Koridoru X na životnu sredinu
Prva aktivnost u ovoj fazi procene uticaja je prikupljanje podataka i izradu Zahteva za
odre ivanje obima i sadržaja Studija o proceni uticaja. Taj posao podrazumevao je dosta
terenskog rada, rekognosciranja terena, utvr ivanje prisustva zašti enih ili osetljivih
biljnih i životinjskih vrsta, zašti enih prirodnih i kulturnih dobara u okruženjima
projektnih deonica kao i analizu namene površina u neposrednom okruženju trase
budu ih autoputeva. Posebna pažnja data je uticajima izgradnje na socijalno okruženje i
utvr ivanju stambenih i poslovnih lokacija u zoni eksproprijacije puta.
Zahteve za odre ivanje obima i sadržaja izradile su, tokom rada na idejnim projektima
predmetnih autoputnih deonica, dve najkapacitetnije projektne ku e u Republici Srbiji
(Institut za puteve i Saobra ajni institut CIP), koriste i bogato iskustvo ste eno u
procesu projektovanja autoputnih deonica u Republici Srbiji. Naravno, rad na izradi
zahteva je podrazumevao i direktnu komunikaciju sa ustanovama nadležnim za poslove
zaštite prirode i zaštite spomenika kulture, bez ijih uslova bi prakti no bilo nemogu e
sagledati osetljivost okruženja projekata u smislu uticaja na prirodna staništa i kulturno
nasle e u Republici Srbiji. Osim ovih institucija, za potrebe projekta pribavljeni su i
uslovi drugih nadležnih ustanova od kojih se izdvajaju uslovi nadležnih vodoprivrednih
preduze a koji su pomogli da se na najbolji na in sagledaju zahtevi projekta u vezi sa
tretmanom otpadnih oteklih voda sa kolovoza budu ih saobra ajnih deonica na
Koridoru X.
Izra eni zahtevi za odre ivanje obima i sadržaja su bili uniformni u pogledu sadržaja i
sadržali su podatke o nosiocu projekta, opis projekta, prikaz glavnih alternativa koje su
razmatrane, opis inilaca životne sredine koji su mogli biti izloženi uticajima projekata,
opis mogu ih zna ajnih štetnih uticaja projekta, opis mera predvi enih u cilju
spre avanja, smanjenja i otklanjanja zna ajnih štenih uticaja kao i netehni ki rezime
podataka.
Odlu ivanje nadležnog organa o podnesenim zahtevima
Po prijemu zahteva za odre ivanje obima i sadržaja nadležni organ je obavestio
zainteresovane organe i organizacije i javnost o podnetom zahtevu. Oglasi su
objavljivani u najtiražnijim dnevnim novinama u Srbiji – listu „Politika“ kao i na web
stranici nosioca projekta. Zainteresovani organi i organizacije i zainteresovana javnost
su mogli dostaviti nadležnom organu svoja mišljenja o podnetim zahtevima.
Nadležno Ministarstvo je po okon anom uvidu javnosti u podnete zahteve donelo odluku
o sadržaju i obimu studija o proceni uticaja, uzimanjem u obzir mišljenja
zainteresovanih organa i organizacija i zainteresovane javnosti, a nosilac projekta je
pristupio izradi Studija o proceni uticaja za svaku pojedina nu deonicu na autoputevima
E-75 i E-80 na Koridoru X. Zainteresovana javnost je po donošenju ove odluke o istoj
bila obaveštena novim oglašavanjem u sredstvima javnog informisanja i putem oglasa
na web stranici nosioca projekta.
Izrada Studija o proceni uticaja autoputnih deonica na Koridoru X na životnu
sredinu
Nakon utvr enog obima i sadržaja studija, stru njaci angažovani u Odeljenjima za
zaštitu životne sredine pri Institutu za puteve i Saobra ajnom institutu CIP su otpo eli
rad na izradi Studija o proceni uticaja predmetnih autoputnih deonica na životnu
sredinu. Studije su izra ene kao sastavni deo Idejnog projekta za svaku pojedina nu
deonicu autoputa. Po etna aktivnost za sve projekte je bio izlazak stru njaka na teren i
sprovedeno je detaljno rekognosciranje terena, kao dopuna aktivnosti preduzetih u toku
pripreme zahteva za obim i sadržaj studija o proceni uticaja. Po obavljenim terenskim
istraživanjima, u narednim mesecima se radilo na usaglašavanju projektom predvi enih
rešenja sa zahtevima zaštite životne sredine, odnosno prirodnog i socijalnog okruženja
projekata. U tesnoj saradnji sa projektantima trase, ispoštovana su sva prostorna
ograni enja i izbegnute kolizije projektnog rešenja sa uslovima zaštite životne sredine.
Studije o proceni uticaja su izra ivane u uniformnom formatu i sadržale su slede a
poglavlja: podatke o nosiocu projekta, opis lokacije na kojoj se planira izvo enje
projekta, opis projekta, prikaz glavnih alternativa koje je nosilac projekta razmatrao,
prikaz stanja životne sredine na lokaciji i bližoj okolini (mikro i makro lokacija), opis
mogu ih zna ajnih uticaja projekta na životnu sredinu, procenu uticaja na životnu
sredinu u slu aju udesa, opis mera predvi enih u cilju spre avanja, smanjenja i, gde je
to mogu e, otklanjanja svakog zna ajnijeg štetnog uticaja na životnu sredinu, program
pra enja uticaja na životnu sredinu i netehni ki kra i prikaz podataka. Kao prilog u
okviru svake od studija dati su i pribavljeni uslovi i saglasnosti drugih nadležnih
organa i organizacija.
Po okon anju rada na izradi studija, nosilac projekta je podneo zahtev za davanje
saglasnosti na Studije nadležnom ministarstvu, zajedno sa studijom o proceni uticaja.
Rad na izradi Studija je trajao više meseci, ali nije prekora en zakonom definisan rok od
godinu dana.
Javni uvid, prezentacija i rasprava o studiji o proceni uticaja
Posebno važno mesto u postupku procene uticaja autoputnih projekata na životnu
sredinu ima javni uvid koji podrazumeva prezentaciju Studija zainteresovanoj javnosti i
raspravu o istoj. Obezbe enje javnog uvida se postiže na više na ina: dostavom Studija
lokalnim samoupravama na ijoj su teritoriji planirana izgradnja predmetnih autoputnih
deonica, oglašavanjem u dnevnim novinama i pozivom da javnost izvrši uvid u Studije
u prostorijama nosioca projekta, odnosno u prostorijama nadležnog ministarstva.
Kona no, na zahtev me unarodno finansiranih institucija koje su uklju ene u
finansiranje predmetnih autoputnih deonica (WB, EBRD i EIB) Studije su bile
skenirane i postavljene na web stranicu nosioca projekta.
Javna prezentacija Studija je bila organizovana u prostorijama lokalnih samouprava na
ijoj se teritoriji pripremala gradnja autoputnih deonica na Koridoru X. Organi lokalne
samouprave zaduženi za pitanja zaštite životne sredine bili su u obavezi da informišu
javnost na lokalu o datumu javne prezentacije kao i o mestu gde se može izvršiti uvid u
predmetne Studije.
Period javnog uvida nikada nije bio kra i od 20 dana, a posebnim zahtevima Banaka
esto je bio produžavan i na nekoliko meseci. Kao odgovorni upravlja projekata
izgradnje predmetnih autoputnih deonica, „Koridori Srbije“ su organizovali posebne
javne konsultacije sa temom predstoje e eksproprijacije, na kojima su od strane pravne
službe zainteresovanim gra anima prezentovani Okvirna politika raseljavanja i Akcioni
planovi raseljavanja koji su od strane „Koridora Srbije“ pripremljeni za potrebe
predmetnih projekata.
Tehni ka komisija za pregled studija o proceni uticaja
Po završenim javnim raspravama, na osnovu iznesenih mišljenja zainteresovanih
organa i organizacija i zainteresovane javnosti, nadležno minist arst vo je
dostavilo nosiocu projekta pregled mišljenja, sa predlozima za izmene i dopune studija
o proceni uticaja. Nakon rada na otklanjanju primedbi zainteresovane javnosti,
izmenjene i dopunjene Studije su ponovo predate nadležnom organu, a potom su od
strane ministarstva date na pregled i odobrenje tehni koj komisiji.
Tehni ku komisiju za pregled Studija formiralo je ministarstvo, uklju uju i stru njake
iz predmetnih oblasti. Predsednik tehni ke komisije je imenovan iz reda zaposlenih iu
ministarstvu a za lanove tehni ke komisije su bila imenovana lica sa visokom
stru nom spremom odgovaraju e struke. Tehni ka komisija je ispitala dostavljene
studije o proceni uticaja i ocenila podobnost predvi enih mera za spre avanje,
smanjenje i otklanjanje mogu ih štetnih uticaja projekta na stanje životne sredine na
lokaciji i bližoj okolini, u toku izvo enja projekta, rada projekta, u slu aju udesa i po
prestanku rada projekta. Nakon okon anja posla na popravci Studija saglasno
primedbama tehni ke komisije, obra iva je finalnu verziju studija predavao nadležnom
organu na saglasnost.
Odlu ivanje o davanju saglasnosti na studiju o proceni uticaja
Nadležno ministarstvo donelo je odluku o davanju saglasnosti na s v e studije o
proceni uticaja izra ene za predmetne autoputne deonice. Odluka ministarsva je
donesena na osnovu sprovedenog postupka i izveštaja tehni ke komisije i dostavljena je
nosiocu projekta. Odlukom o davanju saglasnosti na studiju o proceni uticaja utvr eni
su naro ito uslovi i mere sa spre avanje, smanjenje i otklanjanje štetnih uticaja na
životnu sredinu.
Procedurom donošenja rešenja o saglasnosti nadležnog organa na studije o proceni
uticaja za projekt autoputeva E-75 i E-80 na Koridoru X okon an je postupak procene
uticaja istih na životnu sredinu. Iako se u pravnoj terminologiji ova kona na odluka
ministarstva naziva Rešenjem o saglasnosti na Studiju o proceni uticaja, u
me unarodnoj terminologiji se esto naziva i kona nom dozvolom u smislu zaštite
životne sredine na projektu (Final Environmental Approval).
Po donesenoj odluci o davanju saglasnosti na studiju o proceni uticaja, nadležni organ je
obezbedio da putem javnog oglašavanja u sredstvima javnog informisanja
zainteresovani organi i organizacije i javnost budu obavešteni o sadržini odluke,
glavnim razlozima na kojima se odluka zasniva i najvažnijim merama koje je nosilac
projekta dužan da preduzima u cilju spre avanja, smanjenja ili otklanjanja štetnih
uticaja. Odluka se smatra kona nom. Protiv odluke nije bio niko od predstavnika
zainteresovane javnosti, uz napomenu da bi u tom slu aju morao biti pokrenut upravni
spor, saglasno važe oj zakonskoj regulativi u Republici Srbiji.
Glavni projekat zaštite životne sredine
Nakon sprovedenog postupka procene uticaja projekata autoputnih deonica na životnu
sredinu, pristupilo se izradi Glavnih projekata autoputeva. Kao sastavni delovi
projekata, a na osnovu verifikovanih Studija o proceni uticaja, izra eni su i glavni
projekti zaštite životne sredine. Ovim projektnim štivom precizno su razra ena
projektna rešenja u vezi sa merama zaštite životne sredine, prevashodno konstrukcije za
zaštitu od buke i postrojenja za prihvat i pre iš avanje otpadnih oteklih voda sa
kolovoza. Osim gra evinskih mera zaštite, kao sastavni deo projekta su izra eni i
Planovi upravljanja zaštitom životne sredine (Environmental Management Plans)
kojima se bliže definišu obaveze „Koridora Srbije“, izvo a radova i nadzornih organa
u vezi sa zahtevima zaštite životne sredine, socijalnog okruženja kao i bezbednosti i
zdravlja na radu svih u esnika u realizaciji projekta. Centralni deo Planova upravljanja
zaštitom životne sredine predstavljaju plan ublažavanja negativnih uticaja projekata na
životnu sredinu (mitigation plan) i program pra enja parametara stanja životne sredine u
okruženju projekta (monitoring plan).
Rasprava
Procena uticaja za projekte autoputeva sprovedena je pred nadležnim organom u dve
faze. U prvoj fazi odre en je obim i sadržaj za svaku od Studija o proceni uticaja. Druga
faza podrazumevala je postupak odlu ivanja o davanju saglasnosti na studiju o proceni
uticaja.
U fazi odre ivanja obima i sadržaja za svaku od Studija o proceni uticaja poštovana je
zakonom propisana procedura i službeno su kontaktirane nadležne institucije i
pribavljeni su uslovi koji su pomogli da se na najbolji na in sagledaju zahtevi projekta.
Kao posebno važni i projektno relevantni uslovi izdvajaju se oni pribavljeni od strane
nadležnih Zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture, Zavoda za zaštitu prirode Srbije i
vodoprivrednih preduze a. Ovim uslovima definisane su i konkretne aktivnosti na
terenu u vezi sa zaštitom kulturnog nasle a, prirodnih vrednosti i površinskih i
podzemnih vodotokova. Kao logi an nastavak usledile su aktivnosti na usvajanju
projektnih rešenja koja su strogo trasirana izvan zona zašti enih prirodnih i kulturnih
dobara, propisan je obim i rok za izvršenje zaštitnih arheoloških iskopavanja pre
po etka zemljanih radova i projektovana su postrojenja za prihvat i pre iš avanje voda
sa kolovoza.
Javnost uglavnom nije imala primedbi na tekst Zahteva za odre ivanje obima i sadržaja
Studije o proceni uticaja projekta izgradnje autopetva na Koridoru X na životnu sredinu,
ali ostaje utisak da se i tada, a esto i danas javnost nije na pravi na in i u dovoljnoj
meri uklju ila u proceduru i da su odre eni problemi koji su se pojavljivali kasnije, u
implementacionoj fazi projekat mogli preventivno rešavati ve u ovoj fazi procene
uticaja. Ovo se napominje sa razlogom da se iskustva koja su ste ena kroz sprovo enje
EIA procedure za autoputne projekte u Republici Srbiji iskoriste u cilju boljeg odziva
javnosti za sve budu e autoputne projekte, kako u Republici Srbiji tako i u regionu.
Tokom realizacije projekata bilo je mogu e uo iti i direktne posledice nedovoljnog
uklju ivanja javnosti u fazi sprovo enja postupka procene uticaja. Naime, odre eni broj
gra ana je naknadno, na razli ite na ine pokušavao da uti e na ve definisana projektna
rešenja, posebno u delu koji se odnosi na eksproprijaciju vlasništva, koja nesumnjivo
jeste jedan od najizraženijih socijalnih uticaja ovakvih projekata. Dodatna pitanja i
nedoumice javnosti bile su u vezi sa trasama servisnih saobra ajnica, osiguranjem
pristupa poljoprivrednom zemljištu, i rešenjima saobra ajne i peša ke komunikacije sa
jedne na drugu stranu autoputa. Posebno interesantni su komentari na predloženi
prostorni položaj i visinu zidova za zaštitu od buke u zonama pojedinih naselja i
suštinsko ne shvatanje potrebe za izgradnjom istih.
U fazi kada je nadležno Ministarstvo po okon anom uvidu javnosi donelo odluku o
sadržaju i obmu studija o proceni uticaja, uzimanjem ubzir mišljenja zainteresovanih
organa i organizacija i zainteresovane javnosti javnost je o ovoj odluci bila obaveštena
novim oglašavanjem u sredstvima javnog informisanja i putem oglasa na web stranici
nosioca projekta ali treba ista i da i u ovoj fazi javnosti nije bilo zna ajnijeg odziva niti
eventualnih žalbi protiv donesene odluke.
Nakon utvr enog obima i sadržaja studija, otpo eo je rad na izradi Studija o proceni
uticaja predmetnih autoputnih deonica na životnu sredinu.
Posebno se vodilo ra una o izbegavanju zašti enih prirodnih i kulturnih dobara kao
podru ja za razvoj projektnih rešenja. Pitanja odvodnjavanja kolovoza su rešavana uz
puno poštovanje zahteva za pre iš avanje i tretman otpadnih oteklih voda sa kolovoza.
U naseljenim mestima se posebna pažnja obratila na problem saobra ajne buke i u tom
smislu na bukom ugroženim lokacijama projektom su predvi ena tehni ka rešenja –
konstrukcije za zaštitu od buke uz projektovane autoputne pravce. Ne žele i da posebno
izdvajamo zna aj bilo kog uticaja projekta u odnosu na ostale negativne uticaje, ipak
treba napomenuti da je poseban napor uložen u definisanje potencijalno ugroženih
kulturnih dobara, odre ivanje njihovog zna aja i prostornog položaja u odnosu na trasu
autoputa kao i procenu obima budu ih aktivnosti na zaštitnim arheološkim
iskopavanjima koja uvek prate realizaciju ovakvih infrastrukturnih projekata. Od
velikog je zna aja bilo uspostaviti tesnu saradnju sa nadležnim ustanovama i analizirati
troškove koji e kasnije pratiti rad na zaštitnim iskopavanjima, posebno uvažavaju i
injenicu da se radi o dugotrajnim i veoma skupim aktivnostima.
U postupku procene uticaja autoputnih projekata na životnu sredinu izvešen je nakon
toga javni uvid koji je podrazumevao prezentaciju Studija zainteresovanoj javnosti i
raspravu o istoj. Kroz proces javnog uvida uspostavljena je odli na saradnja nosioca
projekta sa organima lokalne samouprave i ona traje do današnjih dana. Ta saradnja
umnogome doprinosi blagovremenom uo avanju i rešavanju problema koji se u vezi sa
uticajima projekta na životnu sredinu javljaju danas, u implementacionoj fazi projekata.
Javne rasprave su održane na lokalu, po okon anju perioda javnog uvida i uglavnom
nije bilo ve ih primedbi na projektom predvi ena rešenja i prezentovane mere zaštite
životne sredine. Utisak je da je stanovništvo koje je dolazilo na javne konsultacije bilo
najve im delom zainteresovano za otkupnu cenu zemljišta u postupku eksproprijacije a
manjim delom za uticaje projekta na prirodno i socijalno okruženje. Odziv gra ana je
bio relativno skroman.
Po završenim javnim raspravama, na osnovu iznesenih mišljenja zainteresovanih organa
i organizacija i zainteresovane javnosti, nadležno ministarstvo je dostavilo nosiocu
projekta pregled mišljenja, sa predlozima za izmene i dopune studija o proceni uticaja.
Nakon rada na otklanjanju primedbi zainteresovane javnosti, izmenjene i dopunjene
Studije su ponovo predate nadležnom organu, a potom su od strane ministarstva date na
pregled i odobrenje tehni koj komisiji. Kod rada s tehni kom komisijom naj eš e se
dešavalo da tehni ka komisija ima primedbe na dostavljene Studije i bio je est slu aj
da se organizuju zajedni ki sastanci sa predstavnicima ministarstva i obra iva em
Studija na kojima su diskutovana projektom predvi ena rešenja, davana pojašnjenja u
vezi sa merama zaštite životne sredine i analizirani potencijalni nedostaci izra enih
Studija. U slu ajevima kada su bili uo eni ozbiljni propusti ili nedostaci Studija, iste su
bile vra ene na doradu i unapre enje. Ubrzanju postupka procene svakako bi pridonelo
da institucije koje su dale prethodne uslove angažuju iste ljude kao lanove Tehni ke
komisije, radi izbjegavanja nepotrebnog praznog hoda i nanovog usuglašavanja oko ve
dogovorenih varijanti i rešenja.
Zaklju ak
Ovaj rad je napravljen sa ciljem da se pojasni na in kako se u Republici Srbiji sprovodi
postupak procene uticaja na životnu sredinu u procesu planiranja, projektovanja i
izgradnje autoputeva. Radom su prikazani mehanizmi procene uticaja, kao i iskustva
ste ena tokom sprovo enja postupka kao i u implementacionoj fazi projekata.
Autori ovog rada su pokušali i da skrenu pažnju na uo ene probleme u vezi sa zakonom
definisanom EIA procedurom sa ciljem da se upravlja ima budu ih autoputnih
projekata olakša rad na implementaciji zahteva zaštite životne sredine tokom realizacije
istih u zemlji ili regionu.
Postupak procene uticaja projekata autoputnih deonica na Koridoru X u Republici Srbiji
je uspešno okon an pred nadležnim ministarstvom. U svemu je ispoštovana zakonom
predvi ena procedura i u projekte su ugra eni svi zahtevi u vezi sa merama zaštite
životne sredine i prate im monitoring aktivnostima. Svakodnevne aktivnosti koje se
danas, tokom izgradnje ovih deonica preduzimaju od strane izvo a radova i nadzornih
organa u cilju ispunjenja projektom definisanih zahteva zaštite životne sredine mogu se
smatrati potvrdom korektno sprovedene procedure.
Opšti je utisak da je procedura doprinela da se ublaže negativni uticaji projekata na
prirodno i socijalno okruženje, uz napomenu da je relativno skroman odziv javnog
mnjenja tokom procene uticaja bio proizvod nedovoljne edukacije gra ana o mogu im
mehanizmima kojima se može uticati na razvoj projektnih rešenja.
Iskustvo ste eno u sprovo enju postupka procene uticaja nas u i da je svest gra ana o
potencijalnim problemima koji mogu nastati usled neblagovremenog uo avanja štetnih
uticaja projekata na neposredno okruženje još uvek na relativno niskom nivou. Jasno je
da je potrebno još dosta rada na edukaciji stanovništva u vezi sa ovom problematikom.
Ipak, kao pozitivno treba izdvojiti da se kroz danas uspostavljene školske programe
mladi naraštaji upoznaju sa narastaju im zahtevima u vezi sa održivim razvojem
ove anstva, zna aju prirodnih resursa i dramati nim posledicama koje ovekove
aktivnosti nanose prirodnom i društvenom okruženju. To sve uliva nadu da e se budu e
generacije aktivnije baviti ovom problematikom i imati zna ajno ve e u eš e u
postupku uklju enja javnosti kako u infrastrukturne tako i druge projekte koji mogu
imati zna ajne posledice na životnu sredinu. Tako e je važno ista i da odgovorno
društvo mora da konstantno unapre uje mehanizme koji e pomo i stanovništvu da
shvati da postoje instrumenti kojima se može uticati na razvoj projektnih rešenja, te da
se isti mogu i moraju koristiti tokom postupka procene uticaja ovakvih projekata na
životnu sredinu.
Literatura
[1] Studije o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu autoputa E-75 Grabovnica –
Levosoje
[2] Studije o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu autoputa E-80 Niš – Dimitrovrad
[3] Zakon o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu (Sl.Gl.RS 135/04, 36/09)
[4] Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine (Sl.Gl.RS 135/04, 36/09)
[5] European EIA Directive (85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC i 2009/31/EC)
[6] Uredba o utvr ivanju liste projekata za koje je obavezna procena uticaja i liste
projekata za koje se može zahtevati procena uticaja (Sl.Gl.RS 65/08)
[7] Zakon o zaštiti prirode (Sl.Gl.RS 36/09)
[8] Zakon o kulturnim dobrima (Sl.Gl.RS 71/94)
[9] Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji (Sl.Gl.RS 72/09)
Planiranje trasa magistralnih plinovoda uz primjenu kriterija
uvanja okoliša
Vanja Skopljak Štuli 1, Iva Jureti 1 , Hrvoje Krhen1
1
Plinacro, Savska cesta 88a, Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Sažetak
Prilikom planiranja trasa magistralnih plinovoda nailazimo na razli ite probleme
tehni ke prirode (projektiranje i sigurnost plinovoda) te razli ita ograni enja u prostoru:
prostorno planska ograni enja, konfiguracija terena, vrsta terena (kopno-more),
krajobraz, posebno zašti ena podru ja, itd.
Plinacro u suradnji s izra iva ima Studije o utjecaju na okoliš, prilikom planiranja trase
magistralnog plinovoda tj. kod izrade idejne trase, pokušava prona i najbolje mogu e
rješenje vezano uz prostor i okoliš. U prvoj fazi projektiranja naj eš e se razmatra više
varijantnih rješenja trase plinovoda. Op enito, prilikom projektiranja plinovoda
pokušavaju se pratiti infrastrukturni linijski objekti (prometnice, dalekovodi, i sl.) radi
racionalnog korištenja prostora. Tako er, ukoliko je mogu e, biraju se ravni arski
predjeli iz više razloga: sigurnost plinovoda, jednostavnost izgradnje bez dodatnog
uništavanja okoliša, vra anje okoliša (krajobraza) u prvobitno stanje nakon izgradnje.
Kod projektiranja te kasnije prilikom izgradnje plinovoda primjenjuju se najrelevantniji
ekološki kriteriji, koriste se postoje i infrastrukturni koridori koliko god je to mogu e,
uvažavaju se mjere zašite okoliša propisane Studijom o utjecaju na okoliš, a sve u cilju
racionalnog korištenja prostora i o uvanja okoliša.
Klju ne rije i: magistralni plinovodi, planiranje, projektiranje, Studija o utjecaju na
okoliš
Uvod
Obavljaju i energetsku djelatnost transporta plina kao svoju osnovnu djelatnost,
operator plinskoga transportnog sustava Republike Hrvatske Plinacro d.o.o. jam i
sigurnu, pouzdanu i kvalitetnu dopremu prirodnog plina od ulaza u plinski transportni
sustav na podru ju Republike Hrvatske do primopredajnih mjerno-redukcijskih stanica
distributera plina te izravnih i povlaštenih kupaca. Plinacro upravlja razvojem,
izgradnjom, održavanjem i nadzorom cijeloga transportnog sustava, kao i svim ostalim
poslovima koji su nužni za tehni ko funkcioniranje sustava.
Plinacro u svom poslovanju postupa prema na elima održivog razvoja i promi e
„suživot s prirodom“. Društveno je odgovorna tvrtka u kojoj se svakodnevno
unapre uje sustav kvalitete poslovanja te vodi stalna briga o sigurnosti i zaštiti okoliša
kojima se pridaje iznimna važnost. Plinacro je i tvrtka koja prednja i u promoviranju i
primjeni modernih tehnologija i alternativnih goriva s kojima se najmanje one iš uje
okoliš. Uz uspješno obavljanje osnovne djelatnosti, a to je transport prirodnog plina,
Plinacro intenzivno razvija i gradi infrastrukturu kojom e omogu iti dugoro nu i
stabilnu opskrbu naše zemlje prirodnim plinom.
Temeljni dokumenti koji daju smjernice za razvoj plinskoga transportnog sustava su
Strategija i program prostornog ure enja Republike Hrvatske. Planiranje koridora
plinovoda zapo inje u Plinacrou formiranjem timova stru njaka koji kona no definiraju
idejne trase budu ih magistralnih plinovoda. Nakon definiranja idejne trase plinovoda
pristupa se procjeni utjecaja na okoliš koja prethodi isho enju lokacijskih i gra evinskih
dozvola. Prilikom planiranja, projektiranja te gra enja magistralnih plinovoda velika
pažnja pridaje se racionalnom korištenju prostora te o uvanju okoliša i kulturnog
naslje a. Plinovodi se ukapaju u zemlju prvenstveno radi sigurnosti tj. time je
mogu nost njihova ošte enja minimalna i minimalno se narušava izgled okoliša. Kod
izgradnje plinovoda vodi se i dnevnik o ekološkoj uskla enosti u koji se svakodnevno
unose zapažanja s trase i zatim po potrebi dostavljaju nadležnim ustanovama.
Slika 1. Plinski transportni sustav RH
Planiranje koridora magistralnog plinovoda
Kod izrade plana razvoja plinske transportne mreže RH, kojim se definiraju po etne i
završne to ke plinovoda, formiraju se timovi koji e korištenjem svih dostupnih
prostornih podataka, kartografskih i prostorno planskih podloga kreirati prve idejne
trase plinovoda. Plinski transportni sustav Republike Hrvatske organiziran je u tri
kategorije: osnovni (nacionalni) plinski transportni sustav, tranzitni plinski transportni
sustav i interkonekcije tako da prilikom planiranja i projektiranja razlikujemo i namjenu
pojedinog magistralnog plinovoda. Po usvajanju plana razvoja plinske transportne
mreže RH koridori idejnih trasa dostavljaju se županijama, gradovima i op inama s
prijedlogom da se isti uvrste u prostorne planove. Izradi Studije o utjecaju na okoliš
prethodi izrada Elaborata o uskla enosti predložene trase magistralnog plinovoda s
prostorno-planskom dokumentacijom, te se analiziraju dijelovi trase potencijalno
zna ajnog utjecaja na okoliš. U skladu s rezultatima ovih analiza, ukoliko se ukaže
potreba, trasa se korigira (ovisno o mogu nostima). Ova dokumentacija trebala bi
skratiti trajanje postupka procjene i predvidjeti mogu e probleme. Potvrda nadležnog
tijela o uskla enosti zahvata s prostorno-planskom dokumentacijom preduvjet je za
pokretanje zahtjeva za procjenu utjecaja zahvata na okoliš.
Podaci koji se koriste kod projektiranja trase plinovoda
Prije svega potrebno je prikupiti sve potrebne podloge kako bi se pristupilo definiranju
trase. Ovdje se vodimo pravilom iz sitnijeg u krupnije mjerilo kartografskih i drugih
podloga. Korisni ki programi koji se koriste u svrhu planiranja i projektiranja trase su
standardni alati kao što su Autodesk i ArcGIS.
Podaci koje koristimo prilikom planiranja trase su sljede i:
- Službene državne karte i podaci topografske izmjere:
o Detaljna topografska karta mj. 1:200 000 (DTK200)
o Detaljna topografska karta mj. 1:100 000 (DTK100)
-
-
-
o Detaljna topografska karta mj. 1:25 000 (DTK25)
o Digitalni model reljefa (DMR)
o Hrvatska osnovna karta (HOK) mj. 1:5000
o Digitalna ortofoto karta (DOF) mj.1:5000
Katastarski podaci
Digitalna ortofoto karta (DOF) mj. 1:1000 – izradu ovih karata naru ujemo
prema potrebi
Prostorni planovi:
o Strategija prostornog ure enja Republike Hrvatske
o Program prostornog ure enja Republike Hrvatske
o Županijski prostorni planovi, mj. 1:100 000
o Prostorni planovi gradova i op ina, mj. 1:25000
o Prostorni planovi podru ja posebnih obilježja, mj. od 1:100 000 – 1:25
000
o Gra evinska podru ja naselja iz gradskih i op inskih prostornih planova,
mj. 1:5000
o Generalni urbanisti ki planovi (GUP), mj. 1:10 000 i/ili 1:5000
o Urbanisti ki planovi ure enja (UPU), mj. 1:5000 ili 1:2000 ili 1:1000
o Detaljni planovi ure enja (DPU), mj. 1:1000 ili 1:500
Ako se ukaže potreba rade se i detaljnija istraživanja, geodetske izmjere te se
izra uju razli iti elaborati, kao npr.: studija trase, elaborat uskla enosti s
prostorno-planskom dokumentacijom, geološki elaborat, hidrografska izmjera
podmorja i rijeka, i dr.
Tako er, neizostavan je izlazak na teren i obilazak lokacije trase.
Slika 2. Digitalni ortofoto
Osnovni principi (kriteriji) projektiranja plinovoda
Op enito, potrebno je povezati po etnu i završnu to ku plinovoda. Iz više razloga,
poželjno je da ta trasa bude što je mogu e kra a. Naravno, podrazumijeva se da ta trasa
mora biti što prihvatljivija za okoliš. Nakon definiranja po etne i završne to ke
plinovoda pristupa se konzumiranju razli itih kartografskih podloga te prostornih
planova traže i optimalno rješenje kako sa strane sigurnosti plinovoda tako i sa strane
zaštite okoliša.
Poželjno je da se trasa plinovoda polaže u ravni arskim podru jima, kako zbog
sigurnosti i tehni ke izvodljivosti, tako i zbog o uvanja prirodnog krajobraza. U
podru jima gdje to nije mogu e, plinovod se postavlja okomito na slojnice (zbog
sigurnosti), a ne usporedno sa slojnicom zbog potencijalnih erozija i klizišta.
Pokušavaju se pratiti postoje i infrastrukturni koridori (autoceste, dalekovodi, i sl.)
ukoliko je to mogu e, a da se zadovolji uvjet sigurnosti plinovoda. Izbjegavaju se
zašti ena podru ja te gra evinska podru ja. Prilikom projektiranja uzimaju se u obzir
uvjeti koje propisuje „Pravilnik o tehni kim uvjetima i normativima za siguran transport
teku ih i plinovitih ugljikovodika magistralnim naftovodima i plinovodima te
naftovodima i plinovodima za me unarodni transport“ (Sl. list, br. 26/85).
Korištenjem svih dostupnih podloga i metoda dolazi se do prijedloga idejne trase
plinovoda s kojom se kre e u postupak Procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš.
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš
Zakoni i pravilnici
Izgradnja magistralnog plinovoda je zahvat u prostoru koji podliježe Procjeni utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš na temelju lanka 78. stavka 3. Zakona o zaštiti okoliša (NN 80/13) i
odredbe to ke 29. Prilog I Uredbe o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08 i
67/09).
Procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš prethodi Obvezni postupak prema Pravilniku o
ocjeni prihvatljivosti plana, programa i zahvata za ekološku mrežu (NN 118/09) za
zahvate koji podliježu PUO, tj. potrebno je provesti prethodnu ocjenu prihvatljivosti
zahvata za ekološku mrežu na temelju lanka 29. Zakona o zaštiti prirode (NN 80/13).
Ukoliko se dobije mišljenje o obvezi provedbe postupka Glavne ocjene, poglavlje
glavne ocjene o utjecaju na ekološku mrežu ini sastavni dio studije o utjecaju na
okoliš. Po dobivenom Rješenju o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš, koje izdaje
Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode, pristupa se isho enju lokacijske te gra evinske
dozvole. Lokacijska i gra evinska dozvola su upravni akti koji se izdaju na temelju
zakona i propisa koji reguliraju prostorno ure enje i gradnju te u skladu s dokumentima
prostornog ure enja i posebnim propisima.
Izrada Studije o utjecaju na okoliš i suradnja Plinacroa s izra iva ima SUO
Na temelju Plana razvoja, izgradnje i modernizacije plinskoga transportnog sustava u
Republici Hrvatskoj, Plinacro je od 2002. godine do danas izgradio približno 1120 km
magistralnih plinovoda (25 magistralnih plinovoda s odvojnim plinovodima). Za sve te
projekte provedena je procjena utjecaja zahvata na okoliš. Osim za do sada izgra ene,
procjene utjecaja na okoliš provedene su za još približno 720 km magistralnih plinovoda
(17 magistralnih plinovoda s odvojnim plinovodima).
Postupak procjene pokre e se u ranoj fazi izrade projekta na temelju idejne trase ( esto
u nekoliko varijanti) izra ene od strane stru njaka u Plinacrou te osnovnih tehni kotehnoloških karakteristika plinovoda. U Plinacrou se izra uju projektni zadaci, tj.
specifikacije za pokretanje postupka javne nabave kojim se izabiru ovlaštene tvrtke koje
sudjeluju u postupku Procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš te izra uju Studiju utjecaja na
okoliš. Po uvo enju u posao odabranih izvo a po inje suradnja timova stru njaka iz
Plinacroa i izra iva a Studije utjecaja na okoliš. Ta procedura uklju uje sljede e
aktivnosti:
- Dobavljaju se izvaci iz Državnog zavoda za zaštitu prirode o podru jima
ekološke mreže kroz koje ili u blizini kojih prolazi trasa plinovoda;
- Ishode se mišljenja od nadležnog ministarstva u svezi provo enja ocjene
prihvatljivosti zahvata za prirodu/ekološku mrežu te postupanje sukladno tom
mišljenju. To podrazumijeva izradu poglavlja o prihvatljivosti planiranog
zahvata za prirodu/ekološku mrežu i provo enje postupka Procjene utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš te Glavne ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata za prirodu/ekološku
mrežu u sklopu Studije utjecaja na okoliš ukoliko je to potrebno;
-
Izra uju se Elaborati uskla enosti trase s važe om prostorno-planskom
dokumentacijom;
- Izra uju se ostali elaborati, dokumenti i sl. potrebni za isho enje ostalih
mišljenja, o itovanja nadležnih tijela propisanih zakonom potrebnih za
pokretanje procjene utjecaja na okoliš;
- Uvažavaju se primjedbe i zahtjevi, kako lanova stru nog povjerenstva koje
provodi procjenu tako i ostalih sudionika u procjeni i Plinacroa (to se odnosi na
opseg i detalje obrade zahvata uklju uju i i dodatna varijantna rješenja,
korekcije trase i lokacije nadzemnih objekata);
- Prikupljaju se razli iti podaci, istraživanja, mjerenja i analize (npr. geološki
elaborati, hidrografske studije, studije izvodljivosti trase…);
- Provodi se informiranje javnosti kroz javne uvide i izlaganja u gradovima i
op inama u kojima stru no povjerenstvo nadležnog tijela procijeni da je
potrebno;
- Obilaze se trase i osobito lokacije nekih kriti nih to aka zajedno sa
predstavnicima Plinacroa te se kontinuirano održavaju sastanci i
korespondencija izme u izvoditelja usluge i lanova timova iz Plinacroa.
Ove procedure i aktivnosti izmjene i dopune dokumentacije te uskla ivanje trasa sa
zahtjevima sudionika u postupku, traju sve dok se ne zadovolje svi uvjeti za izdavanje
pozitivnog rješenja nadležnog ministarstva koje potvr uje da je zahvat prihvatljiv za
okoliš. Potrebno je zadovoljiti i ciljeve o uvanja i cjelovitost podru ja ekološke mreže,
uz primjenu zakonom propisanih i rješenjem utvr enih mjera zaštite okoliša i provedbe
pra enja stanja okoliša.
Izrada Studije o utjecaju na okoliš na primjeru magistralnog plinovoda
Budu i da je svaki zahvat u prostoru specifi an, bilo da se radi o tehni kim i
tehnološkim karakteristikama plinovoda ili se radi o podru ju kroz koje plinovod
prolazi, teško je dati op eniti prikaz svih provedenih Studija o utjecaju na okoliš za sve
plinovode koje su u posljednjih desetak godine provedene od strane Plinacroa. Iz tog
razloga ovdje je odabran jedan ogledni primjer Studije za magistralni plinovod koji je
zahtjevan kako s tehnološke i tehni ke strane projektiranja i izgradnje plinovoda
(problemati an teren koji obuhva a kopno, more i deltu Neretve) tako i zbog prolaska
kroz podru je Ekološke mreže RH. Tako er, u Studiji su detaljno obra ena tri
varijantna rješenja plinovoda.
Op enito o izradi Studije o utjecaju na okoliš za MP Plo e-Dubrovnik
Planirani magistralni plinovod Plo e-Dubrovnik DN 1000/75 bar nalazi se na podru ju
Dubrova ko-neretvanske županije. Po etna to ka plinovoda planirana je u P /MRS
Plo e na podru ju Op ine Pojezerje, a završna na podru ju Grada Dubrovnika. Iz vora
Plo e planirana su tri varijantna pravca prema Dubrovniku. Ukupna duljina Varijante A
(Var A) je 103 194 m, duljina varijante B (Var B) je 100 971 m, a duljina varijante C
(Var C) je 88 390 m. U sklopu procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš izra ena je studija
trase, izra en je geološki elaborat za kopneni dio varijantnih trasa, a za podmorski dio je
izra ena „Studija hidrografsko-geološko-magnetometrijske izmjere“ i „Studija
izvodljivosti plinovoda za koridor podmorskih dionica plinovoda: hidrografska izmjera i
geološka istraživanja“.
Izrada Studije zapo ela je u rujnu 2010.g. Zahtjev za pokretanje postupka utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš podnesen je u travnju 2011.g. Cijeli postupak procjene trajao je oko
godinu dana. Rješenje o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš doneseno je u ožujku 2012.g.
U Studiji o utjecaju na okoliš za izgradnju magistralnog plinovoda Plo e - Dubrovnik
DN 1000/75 bar napravljena je višekriterijska analiza varijanti A, B i C magistralnog
plinovoda, koja je obuhva ala detaljan opis kriterija (okoliš, priroda, te sigurnosni,
tehni ki i ekonomski kriteriji) za sve tri varijante. Bodovanje je obavljeno prema
navedenim kriterijima te je varijanta A dobila 3,15 bodova, varijanta B 2,92 boda i
varijanta C 2,89 boda iz ega proizlazi da je varijanta A povoljnija od varijante B i nešto
povoljnija od varijante C.
Varijanta C ocijenjena je kao najnepovoljnija zbog toga što prelazi preko delte rijeke
Neretve koja je geomehani ki nestabilan teren pjeskovito glinovitih sedimenata debljine
preko 80 m, stoga tijekom korištenja plinovoda može do i do ošte enja. Tako er,
nepovoljan faktor je i prisutnost zaštitnog pojasa naseljenih zgrada te prolazak kroz
podru je Ekološke mreže RH. Što se ti e varijante B, ona je ocjenjena neprihvatljivom
prvenstveno zbog toga što prolazi lu kim podru jem pod upravom Lu ke uprave Plo e
koja navodi nemogu nost prolaska trase tim podru jem zbog izgra ene i planirane lu ke
infrastrukture. Iz svih navedenih razloga, kao i rezultata višekriterijske analize varijanti,
varijanta A magistralnog plinovoda Plo e-Dubrovnik predložena je kao prihvatljiva za
okoliš.
Slika 3. Magistralni plinovod Plo e – Dubrovnik – varijante A, B i C
Primjeri izmjena trase i propisanih mjera zaštite za MP Plo e-Dubrovnik
Uvala Osobjava na poluotoku Pelješcu
Prvi prijedlog trase plinovoda pri izlasku iz Neretvanskog kanala na poluotok Pelješac
bio je na lokaciji uvale Osobjava. Nakon obilaska terena s komisijom u postupku
procjene, zaklju eno je da e izmještanje trase 250 metara sjeverozapadno od uvale
imati znatno manje utjecaja na krajobraz. Tako er, položaj ulaska trase ne e utjecati na
ribolov brodovima ko arima jer je na podru ju kuda prolazi plinovod zabranjeno
ribarenje pridnenom ko om.
Slika 4. Uvala Osobjava
Herpetološki rezervat u Majkovima
Trasa planiranog plinovoda zadire u podru je ekološke mreže HR2000947 Gornji
Majkovi – lokve, koje su jedan od tri evidentirana nalazišta rije ne kornja e (Mauremys
rivulata) koja je i cilj o uvanja ovog podru ja ekološke mreže. Trasa plinovoda prolazi
na udaljenosti cca 1 km južno od mo varnog podru ja tj. staništa kornja a, pa nije za
ekivati zna ajan utjecaj na rije nu kornja u nakon izgradnje plinovoda.
Propisanim mjerama ublažavanja štetnih posljedica zahvata na ekološku mrežu utvr ena
je obveza zaštite rije ne kornja e tijekom izgradnje na na in da se izgradnja plinovoda
na ovom podru ju odvija izvan sezone gnijež enja rije ne kornja e.
Zna ajan krajobraz Rijeka Dubrova ka
Trasa planiranog plinovoda prelazi preko zna ajnog krajobraza Rijeka Dubrova ka koja
je geomorfološki jako zahtjevan teren što se ti e izgradnje plinovoda. Iskop rova i
uklanjanje vegetacije uzrokovao bi u zoni radnog pojasa izravne promjene u stanišnim
uvjetima i vizualnim obilježjima promatranog podru ja kao što su vizualna izloženost
padina, strmina terena i krško podru je. Osim toga, narušila bi se cjelovitost i kulturni
integritet evidentiranog kulturnog dobra „Starog dubrova kog vodovoda“ iz 15. st.
Uz zadovoljavaju e tehni ko rješenje prolaska i o uvanja cjelovitosti i kulturnog
integriteta „Starog dubrova kog vodovoda“, zahvat e uz provo enje svih studijom
propisanih mjera, u fazi izgradnje biti prihvatljiv. Prolaz ispod Rijeke Dubrova ke i
Starog dubrova kog vodovoda izvest e se kombiniranjem horizontalnog bušenja i
mikrotuneliranja uz obavezan arheološki nadzor.
Slika 5. Rijeka Dubrova ka
Zaklju ak
Da je mogu e pomiriti naoko dva suprotstavljena stajališta - zahtjeve za ubrzanom
izgradnjom plinovoda te istodobno o uvanje okoliša i kulturnog naslje a vidljivo je i iz
brojnih dosadašnjih projekata Plinacroa. Jedan od prvih preduvjeta za ostvarenje tog
cilja je dosljedno poštivanje zakonom propisanih procedura i temeljem zakona
donesenih rješenja.
Prilikom planiranja koridora plinovoda koriste se najkvalitetnije mogu e dostupne
podloge (karte, geološke i geodetske podloge), korisni ki programi za planiranje,
projektiranje i analiziranje, razne studije i izmjere. Kroz Postupak procjene utjecaja
zahvata na okoliš obi no se razmatra više varijantnih rješenja, a da bi se odabrala
najpovoljnija trasa, uzimaju se obzir razni parametri: prije svega parametar sigurnosti, a
zatim tehni ki, ekološki, tehni ki, ekonomski i dr. Prilikom izgradnje plinovoda
kompetentni stru njaci koriste se suvremenim tehnologijama u cilju što brže i
kvalitetnije izgradnje sa što manje narušavanja krajobraza. U uvjetima normalnog rada i
funkcioniranja plinskoga transportnog sustava ne dolazi do ispuštanja prirodnog plina u
atmosferu, no kada se radi o zaštiti okoliša i sigurnosti, ništa se ne prepušta slu aju.
Plinski transportni sustav opremljen je sigurnosnim ure ajima koji alarmiraju i
spre avaju i najmanje štetne posljedice za ljude, objekte i okoliš.
Primjenom mjera propisanih u Rješenju o prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš kod izgradnje
te primjenom kriterija održivog razvoja u svakodnevnom poslovanju, tvrtka Plinacro
nastoji se profilirati kao tvrtka koja promovira i unapre uje ekološku svijest u
društvenoj zajednici.
Literatura
[1] http://www.plinacro.hr/
[2] Pravilnik o tehni kim uvjetima i normativima za siguran transport teku ih i
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
plinovitih ugljikovodika magistralnim naftovodima i plinovodima te
naftovodima i plinovodima za me unarodni transport“ (Sl. list, br. 26/85)
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša (NN 80/13)
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08 i 67/09)
Zakon o zaštiti prirode (NN 80/13)
Zakon o prostornom ure enju i gradnji (NN 76/07, 38/09, 55/11, 90/11, 50/12,
55/12)
[7] Studija o utjecaju na okoliš „Izgradnja magistralnog plinovoda Plo e-Dubrovnik
DN 1000/75 bar“, izra ena od strane tvrtke Oikon d.o.o. u suradnji s partnerima:
Dvokut ECRO d.o.o., IGH d.d., Ekonerg d.o.o., u Zagrebu, prosinac 2011.g.
[8] Rješenje o prihvatljivosti zahvata magistralnog plinovoda Plo e-Dubrovnik DN
1000/75 bar za okoliš, Klasa: UP/I 351-03/11-02/23, izdano 5. ožujka 2012.g. od
strane Ministarstva zaštite prirode i okoliša
Planning the route of the main gas pipelines using the criteria of
environmental protection
Vanja Skopljak Štuli 1, Iva Jureti 1 , Hrvoje Krhen1
1
Plinacro, Savska cesta 88a, Zagreb, Croatia ([email protected])
Abstract
While planning the route of the main gas pipelines we face different problems of
technical nature (designing and gas pipeline security) as well as different restrictions in
a space; physical planning restrictions, ground configuration, terrain type (land-sea),
landscape, protected areas, etc.
In the process of planning the route of the main gas pipelines, that is drawing up
preliminary route Plinacro in cooperation with the contractor of the Environmental
Impact Study tries to find the best possible solution regarding the space and
environment. In the first phase of designing usually more solutions regarding gas
pipeline route are being considered. In generally, designing of a gas pipeline tends to
follow infrastructural line facilities (routes, power transmission lines, etc.) due to
rational use of space. In addition, where possible low land regions are selected for more
reasons; gas pipeline security, simplicity of construction without additional destruction
of environment, restoring the environment (landscape) in its original condition after
construction.
When designing and later during the construction of the pipeline most relevant
ecological criteria are applied, whenever possible the existing infrastructure corridors
are used, and the measures stipulated by the Environmental Impact Study are applied
and all for the purpose of rational land use and environmental protection.
Keywords: main gas pipelines, planning, designing, Environmental Impact Study
Introduction
By carrying out energy activity of gas transmission as its main activity, the gas
transmission system operator in the Republic of Croatia, Plinacro Ltd., guaranties safe,
reliable and quality natural gas transmission from the entry point in the gas transmission
system on the Croatian territory to the off-take measuring-reduction stations of gas
distributers, as well as to direct and privileged buyers. Plinacro manages development,
construction, maintainance and supervision of the entire gas transmission system, as
well as all other activities necessary for the technical functioning of the system.
Plinacro operates in compliance with the principles of sustainable development and
promotes “coexistence with nature”. Plinacro is a socially responsible company which
has continuously been improving the business quality system, paying particular
attention to safety and environmental protection. It is a company which is the leader in
promoting and implementation of modern technologies and alternative fuels which have
the minimum negative impact on the environment. Along with a successful performance
of its basic activity, natural gas transmission, Plinacro is intensively developing and
constructiong infrastructure which will provide long-term and stabile supply of our
country with natural gas.
Basic documents giving directions for development of the gas transmission system are
the Strategy and programme of physical planning in the Republic of Croatia. Planning
of the gas pipeline corridor in Plinacro begins with forming of expert teams who in the
end define preliminary routes of the future main gas pipelines. After the preliminary
route of the gas pipeline is defined begins environmental impact assessment which
precedes procedure of obtaining location and building permits. During planning,
designing and construction of the main gas pipelines great attention is paid to rational
use of space as well as protection of environment and cultural heritage. Gas pipelines
are buried into the ground primarily for safety reasons, acctualy by doing so possibility
of them being damages is reduced to minimum as well as possibility of altering
landscape appearance. During gas pipeline construction, a register of environmental
compliance which consists of the day-by –day comments from the route is kept and then
if necessary delivered to the competent institutions.
Picture 1. Gas transmission system of the Republic of Croatia
Planning the route of the main gas pipeline
At drawing up a plan of development of the gas transmission system in the Republic of
Croatia, which defines starting and end points of the gas pipeline, the teams are formed
which will create the first prerliminary routes of the gas pipeline by using all available
data on physical planning as well as cartographic and physical planning supporting
documents. Gas transmission system in the Republic of Croatia has been organized in
three cathegories: basic (national) gas transmission system, transit gas transmission
system and interconnections, so that in the process of planning and designing we
distinguish the purpose of a particular main gas pipeline. After plan of development of
the gas transmission system in the Republic of Croatia is accepted, the corridors of
preliminary routes are delivered to the counties, towns and municipialities with a
suggestion that they should be included into the physical plans. Before creating
Environmental Impact Study is made Elaborate on harmonization proposed pipeline
route with physical planning documents and analyzed parts of the route potentially
significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the results of these analyzes, if
necessary, the alignment is corrected (depending on possibilities). This documentation
should shorten the duration of the evaluation process and predict potential problems.
Confirmation by the competent institution on compliance of the intervention with the
physical-planning documents is a precondition for submitting a request for carrying out
environmental impact assessment.
Data used in designing of a gas pipeline route
First of all it is necessary to collect all necessary supporting documents in order to begin
with route defining. Here we are guided by rule from smaller to larger scale maps and
other supporting documents. User programmes used for the purpose of planning and
designing a route are standard tools such as Autodesk and ArcGIS.
Data we are using in route planning are the foolowing:
- Official state maps and data on topographic measurements:
o Detailed topographic map in scale of 1:200 000 (DTK200)
o Detailed topographic map in scale of 1:100 000 (DTK100)
o Detailed topographic map in scale of 1:25 000 (DTK25)
o Digital relief model (DMR)
o Basic map of Croatia (HOK) in scale of 1:5000
o Digital ortophoto (DOF) in scale of 1:5000
- Cadastrial data
- Digital ortophoto (DOF) in scale of 1:1000 – we order production of these maps
as necessary
- Spatial plans:
o Strategy of physical planning in the Republic of Croatia
o Programme of physical planning in the Republic of Croatia
o Spatial plans of counties in scale of 1:100 000
o Spatial plans of towns and municipalities in scale of 1:25000
o Spatial plans of areas with special features in scale of 1:100 000 – 1:25
000
o Construction areas of settlements from spatial plans of towns and
municipalities in scale of 1:5000
o Master urban development plans (GUP) in scale of 1:10 000 and/or
1:5000
o Urban development plans of landscaping (UPU) in scale of 1:5000 or
1:2000 or 1:1000
o Detailed plans of landscaping (DPU) in scale of 1:1000 or 1:500
- When necessary, more detailed research; geodetic measurements are conducted
as well as varios studies, such as a study of the route, a study of compliance with
physical planning documents, a geological survey, hidrographic survey of sea
bed and rivers, etc.
- Also, field trips and visits to the gas pipeline route location are nonomissable.
Picture 2. Digital ortophoto
Basic principles (criteria) of gas pipeline designing
In general, it is necessary to connect the starting and the end gas pipeline points. It is
desirable for the route to be as short as possible for more reasons. Naturaly it has to be
as environmentaly friendy as possible. After the starting and the end points of the gas
pipeline are defined begins the process of finding an optimal solution in regards of both
gas pipeline security and environmental protection by using verios cartograpfic
supporting documents and spatial plans.
It is desirable that the gas pipeline route is laid in the lowland areas due to both safety
issues and technical feasibility as well as due to preservation of natural landscape. In the
areas where it is not possible, gas pipeline is laid horizontally to isohypses (for safety
reasons), and not parallel with them due to potential erosions and land-slides.Where it is
possible we always try to follow the existing infrastructural corridors (highways, power
transmission lines, and etc.) if gas pipeline safety issues can be met. Protected areas and
construction areas are omitted. During designing the rules determined by the “By-Laws
on technical terms and conditions and norms for a safe transportation of liquid and
gaseous hydrocarbon through main oil and gas pipelines and through oil and gas
pipelines for international transportation (Official Paper no. 28/85)” are taken into
consideration.
By using all available supporting documents and methods a draft preliminary gas
pipeline route is drawn up and based on it begins a procedure of drawing up
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Laws and By-laws
Construction of the main gas pipelines is an intervention in space which is a subject to
Environmental Impact Assessment based on Article 78 Paragraph 3 Environmental
Protection Act (OG 80/13) and provision of clause 29. Attachement I to the Regulation
on Environmental Impact Assessment (OG 64/08 and 67/09).
Prior to conducting the Environmental Impact Assessment is obligation of conducting
the Regulation on Assessment for plans, programs and projects for the ecological
network (OG 118/09) for projects which are subject to EIA, ie it is necessary to
implement the previous impact assessment for the ecological network based on Article
29 Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13). When was obtained a opinion of obligation to
carry out the Main assessment, the chapter of the Main assessment on the impact on the
ecological network is an integral part of the Study on the impact on the environment.
Upon received Decision on environmental acceptance of the intervention, issued by the
Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection starts the procedure of obtaining
location and building permit. Location and building permits are administrative acts that
are issued on the basis of laws and regulations governing the physical planning and
construction and in accordance with the physical planning documents and special
regulations.
Drawing up Environmental Impact Study and cooperation of Plinacro with the EIS
contractors
Based on the Plan of Development, Construction and Modernization of the Gas
Transmission System in the Republic of Croatia, from 2002 till now Plinacro
constructed nearly 1120 km of the main gas pipelines (25 main gas pipelines with
brancehes). Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out for all these projects. In
addition to so far constructed, the environmental impact assessment carried out for
another approximately 720 km main gas pipelines (17 main gas pipelines with
brancehes).
The assessment procedure is initiated in an early phase of drawing up a design, based on
the preliminary route (very often in a few variants) drawn up by Plinacro´s experts and
basic technical-technological characteristics of the gas pipeline. In Plinacro, project
tasks are drawn up, that is specifications for initiating public procurement procedure by
which authorised companies, which are carring out the procedure of Environmental
Impact Assessment and sometimes Environmental Impact Studies, are selected. The
cooperation of Plinacro expert teams and Environmental Impact Study contractors
begins after the selected contractor is introduced into work. This procedure includes
following activities:
- Excerpts are gathered from the State institute for nature protection on areas of
ecological network through which or in the vincinity of which passes a gas
pipeline route;
- Opinions of the competent ministries are obtained in relation to carring out
evaluation of environmental acceptance of the intervention for the
nature/ecological network and acting in compliance with that opinion. This
includes drawing up a chapter on acceptance of the planned intervention for the
nature/ecological network and carrying out procedure of Environmental Impact
Assessment and Main evaluation of environmental acceptance of the
intervention for the nature/ecological network within the Environmental Impact
Study;
- Study on the compliance of the route with the valid physical planning documents
is drawn up;
- Other studies, documents and alike necessary for obtaining other opinions,
statements by competent authorities determined by the Law necessary for
initiating a procedure of Environmental Impact Assessment are drawn up;
- All comments and requests of the members of the Expert Committee carring out
the assessment as well as of all other participants in the assessment and Plinacro
(this refers to the scope and detailes of intervention processing, including and
additional variant solutions, corrections of the route and location of the overhead
facilities) are taken into account;
- Different data, research, measurements and analysis (for example geological
survey, hidrographic studies, route feasibility studies…) are geathered;
- Public is being informed through public insights and presentations in the towns
and municipalities where it is necessary, in the opinion of the competent body´s
commission;
- The routes and especially locations of some critical points are visited together
with the representatives of Plinacro. Meetings between the contractors and
Plinacro´s team members are held regulary.
These procedures and activities of amending documents as well as complaying the
routes with requests of participants in the procedure last until all conditions are met for
issuing a positive decision by the competent ministry, which confirms that the
intervention is environmentaly acceptable. It is necessary to meet the goals of
preservation and integrity of the ecological network area with application of, by the law
prescribed and by a decision determined measures of environmental protection and
monitoring of environmental status.
Drawing up Environmental Impact Study on the example of the main gas pipeline
Since each project of gas pipeline is very specific, whether because of the technical and
technological characteristics of the pipeline or because of the area through which the
pipeline passes, it is difficult to give a general view of all Environmental Impact Studies
of all pipelines that are in the last ten years conducted by Plinacro. For this reason, here
is selected one example of Study for pipeline which was demanding because of
technological and technical aspects of design and construction of the pipeline
(problematic terrain that includes land, sea and Neretva delta) and because of passing
through the area of Ecological Network. Also, in the study are discussed three
alternative solutions of pipeline routes.
General information about the EIS for the main gas pipeline Plo e-Dubrovnik
The planned main gas pipeline Plo e-Dubrovnik DN 1000/75 bar is located on the
territory of Dubrovnik-Neretva County. Starting point of the gas pipeline is anticipated
in gas node/measuring-reduction station Plo e on the territory of Pojezerje municipality,
and the end point on the territory of Dubrovnik town. From the node Plo e three variant
routes towards Dubrovnik have been anticipated. Total length of the variant A (Var A)
is 103 194 m, the length of the variant B (Var B) is 100 971 m, and the length of the
variant C (Var C) is 88 390 m. Study of the route and geological survey has been drawn
up within the Environmental Impact Assessment for the onshore section of alternative
routes. Study of the hidrographic-geological-magnetometric measurements and
“Feasibility Study for the corridor of offshore sections of the gas pipeline: hidrografic
measurement and geological explorations”.
The Study began in September 2010. The request to start the process for environmental
impact was submitted in April 2011. The entire evaluation process lasted about one
year. Decision on environmental acceptability was adopted in March 2012.
In the Environmental Impact Study for the construction of the main gas pipeline Plo e Dubrovnik DN 1000/75 bar, a multicriterial analysis of the variants A, B and C of the
main gas pipeline, which includes detailed description of the criteria (environment,
nature as well as safety, technical and economical criteria) for all three variants was
made. The scoring was carried out based on the mentioned criteria; variant A scored
3,15 points, variant B 2,92 points and variant C 2,89 points from which we can draw a
conclusion that the variant A is more suitable than variant B and slightly more suitable
than variant C.
The varijant C has been evaluated as the least suitable one because it crosses delta of the
river Neretva which is, in the geomechanical point of view, unstable terrain made of
sandy clayey sediments thick more than 80 m. Therefore, some damage can occure
during use of the gas pipeline. In addition, unfavourable factor is also protected area of
inhabited settlements and passing of the gas pipeline through the area of the Croatian
ecological network. As for the variant B, it was evaluated as unacceptable primarily
because it passes through the port area which is under control of the port authority Plo e
which stated that it is impossible for the route to pass through that area due to
constructed and planned port infrastructure. Due to above mentioned reasons, as well as
the results of multicriteria analysis of the variants, the variant A of the main gas pipeline
Plo e-Dubrovnik has been proposed as environmentaly acceptable.
Picture 3. Main gas pipeline Plo e – Dubrovnik – variants A, B and C
Examples of modification of a route and stipulated protection measures
Osobjava bay on the Pelješac peninsula
The first proposal of the gas pipeline route on the exit from the Neretva channel to the
Pelješac peninsula was on the location of Osobjava bay. After the terrain was visited
with the commission during the assessment procedure, it was concluded that shifting the
route 250 meters north-west from the bay will have significantly less influence to the
landscape. In addition, position of the route entry will not have any influence on the
trawling since in the area through which the gas pipeline passes fishing by trawl-boats is
forbidden.
Picture 4. Osobjava Bay
Herpetological natur reserve in Majkovi
The route of the planned gas pipeline penetrates into the area of the ecological network
HR2000947 Gornji Majkovi – Lokve, which is one of the three registered finding sites
of aquatic turtle (Mauremys rivulata) which is also the aim of preserving this area of the
ecological network. At the distance of ca 1 km the route of the gas pipeline passes
southern of the swamp area, that is turtle´s habitat, so there should be no significant
influences on the aquatic turtle after construction of the gas pipeline.
Stipulated measures for reduction of harmful consequences that the intervention could
have on the ecological network determine the obligation for protection of the aquatic
turtle during the construction, in such way that the construction of the gas pipeline on
this area cannot take place in the periods when aquatic turtles are nestling.
Significant landscape of Rijeka Dubrova ka
The gas pipeline route passes through the significant landscape of Rijeka Dubrova ka
which is, in geomorphological terms, very demanding terrain for the construction of the
gas pipeline. Trenching and removal of vegetation would cause direct changes in habitat
conditions within the working area, as well as changes in visual features of the observed
area such as visual exposure of slopes, terrain steep and Karst. Besides, integrality and
cultural integrity of the registered cultural good “Old Dubrovnik water supply system”
from the 15th century would be disturbed.
With safisfactory technical decision on preservation of integrality and cultural integrity
of the “Old Dubrovnik water supply system” and carring out all measures determined in
the Study the intervention will be acceptable in the construction phase. Passing under
Rijeka Dubrova ka and the Old Dubrovnik water supply system is to be carried out by
combination of horizontal drilling and microtunneling with obligatory archeological
supervision.
Picture 5. Rijeka Dubrova ka
Conclusion
It is evident from numerous previous Plinacro´s projects that it is possible to square two
apparently opposing points of view – requests for accelerated construction of a gas
pipeline and simultaneous preservation of environment and cultural heritage. One of the
first preconditions for implementation of this aim is a consistent complaiance with by
the law stipulated procedures and decisions made based on the law.
While planning gas pipeline corridor we use available supporting documents of the
highest possible quality (maps, geological and geodetic supporting documents), user
programmes for planning, designing and analysing, different studies and measurements.
Usually more alternative sollutions are observed in the Environmental Impact
Assessment procedure, and different parameters are taken into consideration for the
most appropriate route to be selected; in the first place safety parameter, and then
technical, ecological, economical and others parameters. During the construction of the
gas pipeline competent experts use contemporary technologies for the purpose of faster
and higher quality construction, with as little changes in the landscape as possible. In
the conditions of normal operation and functioning of the gas transmission system there
is no emission of natural gas into the atmosphere, but when it comes to environment
protection and safety nothing is left to chance. The gas transmission system is equipped
with safety devices which alarm and prevent from any, even the smallest, harmful
consequence for people, facilities and environment.
By applying measures stipulated by the Decision on environmental acceptability during
the construction and by applying criteria of sustainable development in its everyday´s
operation Plinacro is trying to define itself in a social community as a company which
promotes and develops ecological awareness.
Literature
[1] http://www.plinacro.hr/
[2] By-Laws on technical terms and conditions and norms for a safe transportation
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
of liquids and gaseous hydrocarbon through main oil and gas pipelines and
through oil and gas pipelines for international transportation. (Official paper no.
28/85)
Environmental Protection Act (OG 80/13)
Regulation on the Environmental Impact Assessment (OG 64/08 i 67/09)
Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13)
Physical Planning and Construction Act (OG 76/07, 38/09, 55/11, 90/11, 50/12,
55/12)
Environmental Impact Study „Construction of the main gas pipeline Plo eDubrovnik DN 1000/75 bar“, made by the company Oikon d.o.o. in
collaboration with partners: Dvokut ECRO d.o.o., IGH d.d., Ekonerg d.o.o., in
Zagreb, December 2011.
Decision on the environmental acceptability of the main gas pipeline Plo eDubrovnik DN 1000/75 bar, Class: UP/I 351-03/11-02/23 issued on 5 March
2012 by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection
Specifi nosti procjene utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate zra nih luka
Mario Pokriva 1, Zoran Poljanec1, Domagoj Vranješ2
1
Dvokut ECRO d.o.o., Trnjanska 37, Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Institut IGH d.d., Janka Rakuše 1, Zagreb, Hrvatska
2
Sažetak
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate aerodroma specifi na je u odnosu na druge
infrastrukturne zahvate. Optere enje okoliša bukom je znatno izraženije tijekom
korištenja, a mogu nost provo enja mjera zaštite je otežana zbog obvezne koordinacije
s institucijama nadležnim za kontrolu i sigurnost zra nog prometa. Odle ivanje
zrakoplova i manevarskih površina predstavlja velik problem, naro ito u vodozaštitnim
podru jima. Postoji stalna mogu nost sudara s pticama i drugim životinjama. Zna ajno
je izražen sigurnosno-akcidentni aspekt.
Zbog navedenih razloga tijekom izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš u velikoj
mjeri potrebna je konzultacija s institucijama o kojima ovisi kasniji rad aerodroma.
Potrebno je uklju ivanje javnosti u tijeku rane faze izrade Studije o utjecaju na okoliš, a
prije svega lokalne zajednice koja je pod najve im pritiskom štetnih utjecaja. Paralelno
s ovim konzultacijama, u pojedinim slu ajevima potrebno je provesti ornitološko
istraživanje odnosno specifi nu razradu aktivnih i pasivnih mjera za zaštitu od buke.
Klju ne rije i: buka, zaštita voda, sudar s pticama, sigurnost, koordinacija institucija
Uvod
Prema Zakonu o zra nom prometu (NN 69/09 i 84/11), aerodrom predstavlja odre eno
podru je na zemlji ili vodi (uklju uju i sve objekte, instalacije i opremu) namijenjeno u
potpunosti ili djelomi no za kretanje, uzlijetanje, slijetanje i boravak zrakoplova. Zra ni
promet predstavlja letenje zrakoplova i kretanje zrakoplova po operativnim površinama
aerodroma. Zra na luka predstavlja aerodrom posebno prilago en za usluge u zra nom
prijevozu.
Za sigurnost zra nog prometa, certificiranje, nadzor i inspekciju u cilju osiguravanja
kontinuiranog udovoljavanja zahtjevima za obavljanje zra nog prijevoza i drugih
djelatnosti u zra nom prometu u Republici Hrvatskoj zadužena je Agencija za civilno
zrakoplovstvo. Ista Agencija zadužena je i za vo enje propisanih registara i evidencija
te obavljanje drugih poslova utvr enih Zakonom o zra nom prometu. Prema podacima
Agencije za civilno zrakoplovstvo u Republici Hrvatskoj trenutno je aktivno 26
registriranih aerodroma.
Osim aerodroma, Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo vodi evidenciju i o
letjelištima za ovjesne jedrilice i parajedrilice, heliodromima (interventni i za vlastite
potrebe) te terenima za izvanaerodromaka slijetanja/uzlijetanja.
Za ve inu ovih aerodroma nikad nije i ne e biti proveden postupak procjene utjecaja na
okoliš. Postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš bilo za rekonstrukciju postoje eg
aerodroma ili eventualnu izgradnju novog aerodroma propisan je Uredbom o procjeni
utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08 i 67/09).
Aerodromi u Hrvatskoj
U zadnjih 20-ak godina u Republici Hrvatskoj provedeno je svega nekoliko postupaka
procjene utjecaja na okoliš (odnosno ocjene o potrebe procjene), za postoje e
aerodrome Mali Lošinj25, Sopot-Vinkovci26 i Zagreb27 te za budu i aerodrom
Stankovci28. U planu je rekonstrukcija ve ine glavnih aerodroma u Republici Hrvatskoj
pa se u narednom periodu o ekuje da e se obaviti postupci procjene utjecaja na okoliš
za još nekoliko postoje ih aerodroma (Dubrovnik, Zadar…), s mogu noš u da se
ostvare i pojedina ni projekti izgradnje novih aerodroma koji su definirani u ve ini
Prostornih planova županija odnosno pojedinih gradova i op ina.
Zbog velikih i zna ajnih promjena u domeni procjene utjecaja na okoliš u proteklom
periodu od 10-ak godina29 ovaj rad fokusirat e se uglavnom na dvije najnovije studije o
utjecaju na okoliš (aerodromi Zagreb i Stankovci).
Aerodrom Zagreb
Podru je obuhvata zahvata izgradnje Novog putni kog terminala Zra ne luke Zagreb
(ukupne površine oko 1,3 km2 (površina koncesije 3,2 km2), smješteno je sjeverno od
grada Velike Gorice, neposredno uz Zra nu luku Zagreb. Lokacija zahvata nalazi se u
Zagreba koj županiji na podru ju Grada Velike Gorice u katastarskim op inama Pleso,
Mi evec i Kosnica.
Postoje a infrastruktura Zra ne luke Zagreb i prostorno ure enje nisu dovoljni za daljnji
razvoj prometa. Zbog toga se smatralo nužnim proširiti kapacitete zra ne i zemaljske
strane, kao i nadograditi kapacitete za prihvat i otpremu putnika i zrakoplova radi
prihvata o ekivanog rasta zahtjeva vezano za promet. U prosincu 2010. InterVISTAS
Consulting Group potvrdio je prognozu prometa Zra ne luke Zagreb za razdoblje od
2011-2040. Na temelju analize 30. vršnog sata izvedeni su novi projektni parametri koji
omogu uju izgradnju novog terminala po fazama. Predmetnim zahvatom predvi a se
pove anje kapaciteta Zra ne luke Zagreb na 5 milijuna putnika godišnje u I. fazi,
odnosno 8 milijuna putnika godišnje u II. fazi. Zahvat obuhva a izgradnju putnike
zgrade i vanjskih prometnih površina s prilaznim cestama i drugom infrastrukturom u
prvoj fazi te njihovo proširenje u drugoj fazi. Budu i koncesionar u kona nici ima
dužnost (kako je definirano Ugovorom o koncesiji) omogu iti da terminal može primiti
8 milijuna putnika godišnje i posti i minimalno razinu usluge C, ne kasnije od 15
godina nakon datuma primopredaje.
Predmet Studije o utjecaju na okoliš je bio slijede i:
1. izgradnja zgrade novog putni kog terminala (NPT) s potrebnim priklju cima na
infrastrukturnu mrežu
25
Studija ciljanog sadržaja za rekonstrukciju – produljenje uzletno sletne staze i izgradnje pristanišne zgrade u zra noj luci Mali
Lošinj, Rijekaprojekt d.o.o. (2002.) i Zahtjev za ocjenu o potrebi procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš za izmjenu rješenja
rekonstrukcije i dogradnje uzletno-sletne staze, manevarskih površina i nove putni ke zgrade zra nog pristaništa Mali Lošinj,
Institut IGH d.d. (2010.)
26
Studija o utjecaju na okoliš aerodroma Sopot, IPZ Uniprojekt MCF d.o.o. (2008.)
27
Studija o utjecaju na okoliš – novi putni ki terminal zra ne luke Zagreb, Institut IGH d.d. (2012.)
28 Studija o utjecaju na okoliš za zahvat: aerodrom Stankovci, Op ina Stankovci, DVOKUT ECRO d.o.o. (2012.)
29
Godine 2008. stupila je na snagu nova Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš (NN 64/08, izmjene 67/09) koja je zamijenila
prethodni Pravilnik o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš (NN 59/00, 136/04 i 85/06) koja je zna ajno izmijenila sam postupak procjene pa
nije mogu a usporedba postupaka vo enih po razli itim provedbenim zakonskim propisima.
2. izgradnja prometnih površina zra ne strane NPT (stajanka, brza izlazna vozna staza,
prilazne staze, mjesto za odle ivanje zrakoplova)
3. izgradnja prometnih površine zemaljske strane NPT (pristupne prometnice,
parkirališta (javno, za zaposlenike, za autobuse, za taxi))
4. izgradnja energetskog postrojenja s priklju kom na plinsku mrežu
5. izgradnja sustava odvodnje i pro iš avanja one iš enih oborinskih i sanitarnih
otpadnih voda Zra ne luke Zagreb s dvije opcije:
- Opcija 1: priklju ak na komunalnu mrežu i pro iš avanje otpadnih voda na
velikogori kom ure aju za pro iš avanje otpadnih voda
- Opcija 2: pro iš avanje otpadnih voda Zra ne luke Zagreb na lokaciji
6. rekonstrukcija uzletno-sletne staze i staza za vožnju, u dijelu izgradnje sustava
odvodnje one iš enih oborinskih voda. Uzletno sletna staza se ne e produljivati, niti e
se graditi druga uzletno sletna staza.
7. rekonstrukcija postoje e stajanke, u dijelu priklju ka odvodnje one iš enih
oborinskih voda na novi zajedni ki sustav odvodnje i pro iš avanja voda.
Slika 1. Prostorni prikaz Novog putni kog terminala Zra ne luke Zagreb
Aerodrom Stankovci
Predvi en obuhvat aerodroma Stankovci nalazi se jugozapadno od naselja Stankovci te
isto no od županijske ceste Ž6068, na ravnokotarskom prostoru Zadarske Županije
unutar površine od 99,96 ha koju e ogra ivati zaštitna ograda. Površinom obuhvat
aerodroma zauzima dio katastarske estice broj 408/1, dio 929/1 te dio 1516 u
katastarskoj op ini Stankovci. Namjena aerodroma je športsko rekreativna s predvi enih
6000 slijetanja i polijetanja u toku jedne godine. Referentni kod aerodroma prema
kategorizaciji i kodifikaciji aerodroma prema ICAO –u je B 3; referentni kod aerodroma
je definiran odnosom referentne dužine uzletno-sletne staze (USS) i fizi kih
karakteristika zrakoplova (raspon krila, razmak vanjskih rubova kota a glavnog
podvozja) koji e ga koristiti. USS je predvi ena za operacije zrakoplova koji koriste
postupke za prilaz u uvjetima vidljivosti (VFR - Visual Flight Rules), bez primjene
instrumenata. Na prostoru aerodroma predvi aju se montažni objekt i tipski kontejneri
koji e zadovoljiti potrebe aerodroma i sve tehni ko sanitarne uvjete.
Slika 2. Aerodrom Stankovci na digitalnoj ortofoto karti
Specifi ni problemi
Obvezni sadržaj Studije o utjecaju na okoliš propisan je prilogom IV Uredbe o procjeni
utjecaja na okoliš (NN 64/08 i 67/09). Samom Uredbom nije propisan obuhvat
potrebnih istraživanja postoje eg stanja okoliša, za ovaj tip zahvata nisu izra ene
smjernice za izradu studije koje se primjenjuju kod samog postupka procjene utjecaja na
okoliš (što se kasnije pokazuje kao zna ajan problem kod izrade pojedina ne Studije o
utjecaju na okoliš.
Vezano za one iš enje zraka, sli na je situacija kao i s primjerice cestovnim prometom.
Emisije u zrak iz avionskih motora su neizbježne, ali aerodrom ipak može dijelom
utjecati na smanjenje ovih emisija. Naime, Agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo je
nadležna za certificiranje zrakoplova uklju uju i potrebne inspekcijske preglede
tehni kog i operativnog stanja zrakoplova. Operator zrakoplova i zrakoplovne
komponente obvezan je u smislu zahtjeva kontinuirane plovidbenosti utvr enih
odgovaraju im EU propisima, pregledati i provjeriti zrakoplov i zrakoplovnu
komponentu tijekom uporabe i održavati ih u stanju koje jam i sigurnu zra nu plovidbu,
u skladu s odredbama Zakona o zra nom prometu, propisa donesenih na temelju njega i
odgovaraju im EU propisima. Usprkos injenici da zrakoplovni promet ima globalni
utjecaj, pri razmatranju utjecaja zra ne luke na kvalitetu zraka potrebno je fokusirati se
na aktivnosti koje se odvijaju unutar aerodroma i u njegovoj neposrednoj okolini.
Osim glavnih motora, dodatni izvor one iš enja kod velikih zrakoplova predstavlja
pomo ni motor (Auxiliary Power Unit - APU), koji me u ostalim opskrbljuje zrakoplov
elektri nom energijom i obavlja ventiliranje. Tako er, pomo ni motor pokre e
generator te daje potrebnu snagu za rad agregata kada ne rade glavni motori zrakoplova,
tijekom boravka zrakoplova na zemlji. Ukoliko aerodrom posjeduje vlastiti sustav
napajanja i izvor ventiliranja zraka, zrakoplov se nakon pristajanja može spojiti na isti i
tako izostaviti potrebu rada pomo nog motora. Na taj na in se bitno može utjecati na
emisije NOx i benzo(a)pirena i njihove koncentracije oko samog terminala, što je važno
zbog opasnosti koje ove dvije tvari predstavljaju za zdravlje, prvenstveno djelatnika
aerodroma.
Zrakoplovi predstavljaju zna ajan izvor buke kod slijetanja a osobito prilikom
uzlijetanja. Motor zrakoplova je jedina zna ajna to ka kod koje buka može biti
minimalizirana. Problematika buke zrakoplova ure ena je me unarodnim standardima
ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) u Annexu 16, Volume I, Aircraft
Noise, koji je proizašao iz ameri kog standarda FAR, Part 36. ICAO Annex 16, Volume
I, osim odre ivanja pojmova vezanih za buku koju uzrokuju zrakoplovi, propisuje
maksimalnu razinu buke kod slijetanja i uzlijetanja za sve kategorije zrakoplova, ovisno
o njihovoj masi i broju motora.
Zbog odre enih razlika u tuma enju propisa o dozvoljenoj ekvivalentnoj razini buke za
koje su trenutno zadužena dva ministarstva (Ministarstvo zdravlja i Ministarstvo
pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture) Ministarstvo zdravlja je tijekom 2013. godine bilo
u procesu uskla ivanja svojeg zakonodavstva s propisima Europske unije (EU). Naime,
za podru je aerodroma iznimno se primjenjuje Zakon o zra nom prometu (NN 69/09 i
84/11) kao “Lex Specialis”, dok Pravilnik o najvišim dopuštenim razinama buke u
sredini u kojoj ljudi rade i borave (NN 145/04) u ovom slu aju više nije relevantan. Kao
što je ve ranije re eno, hrvatski Zakon o zra nom prometu utvr uje podru ja zaštite od
buke u kojima ekvivalentna razina buke zrakoplova prelazi 67 dB(A), odnosno 75
dB(A), koja se unose u dokumentaciju prostora. Ove vrijednosti zna ajno odstupaju od
vrijednosti ekvivalentne razine buke koje su navedene u Pravilniku i na neki na in
stavljaju stanovništvo u okolici aerodroma u lošiji položaj u odnosu na stanovništvo u
blizini nekih drugih infrastrukturnih objekata (rije ne i morske luke, ceste, željezni ke
pruge…).
Za postoje e aerodrome vrlo je izražen problem sociološkog dijela Studije o utjecaju na
okoliš i velika važnost prethodne konzultacije s javnoš u. To se veže na preporuku
smjernica, ali nije zakonski obvezno pa je ostavljeno na odluci prvenstveno investitora i
procjeni izra iva a Studije o utjecaju na okoliš.
Problemu zaštite voda na aerodromima treba posvetiti posebnu pažnju u slu aju kada se
radi o vodozaštitnim podru jima, a pogotovo u podru jima gdje je zbog specifi nosti
klime potrebno odle ivanje manevarskih površina i samih zrakoplova. Kvalitetno
napravljen razdjelni sustav odvodnje otpadnih voda s adekvatnim pro iš avanjem prije
ispusta, bilo u sustav javne odvodnje ili recipijent, jamstvo je minimalnog utjecaja
aerodroma na podzemne i površinske vode. Moderna svjetska praksa se o ituje u
primjeni ekološki prihvatljivih kemijskih sredstava za odle ivanje pa ak i razni tipovi
„strugalica“ za led. Koli ine uree koje se upotrebljavaju za odle ivanje op enito se u
svijetu smanjuju (neki aerodromi više uop e ne upotrebljavaju ureu) zbog injenice da
je urea toksi na za ribe, pove ava koncentraciju amonijaka u vodenom okolišu
procesom hidrolize i uzrokuje veliku potrošnju kisika u procesu nitrifikacije. Stoga se
sve eš e urea zamjenjuje ekološki prihvatljivijim sredstvima za odle ivanje poput
propilen-glikola te kalijevih i natrijevih formijata. U slu aju akcidentnih situacija,
opasnosti za one iš enje podzemnih voda su sli ne kao i kod cestovnih prometnica, što
isti e važnost sustava spre avanja slobodnog otjecanja teku ina sa svih manipulativnih
površina.
Novi aerodrom potencijalno može imati utjecaj na prirodu šireg podru ja zahvata,
pogotovo na ornitofaunu, ukoliko je planiran u relativnoj blizini ornitološki zna ajnih i
vrijednih podru ja. Problem pri izradi Studije utjecaja zahvata na okoliš esto
predstavlja nedostatak ornitoloških podataka kojima bi se ustvrdilo slijede e:
- lokalna populacija ciljeva o uvanja podru ja ekološke mreže
- dnevne migracije lokalnih populacija ugroženih vrsta ornitofaune
- to ne putanje, visine i veli ine jata tijekom sezonskih migracija ukoliko se
aerodrom nalazi u blizini ornitološki zna ajnih i vrijednih podru ja
- vremenski period kada su najintenzivniji migracijski letovi
Svrha procjene utjecaja na okoliš je uo iti, analizirati i mjerama zaštite smanjiti mogu e
utjecaje pojedinog zahvata na najmanju mogu u mjeru. Do problema se dolazi kada se
treba odrediti obuhvat istraživanja jer je mogu i utjecaj tijekom korištenja znatno ve i
od samog zahvata na njegovoj lokaciji. To ne uklju uje znanstvena istraživanja ve eg
obujma posebno na ornitološki vrijednim i zašti enim podru jima kojima bi se popunile
praznine u znanstvenim istraživanjima u Republici Hrvatskoj. Dapa e, takva
istraživanja na takvim podru jima i podaci trebali bi biti na raspolaganju kako bi
procjena i ovlaštenika i nadležnog tijela (Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode) bila im
preciznija i kvalitetnija. Ornitološko istraživanje užeg podru ja zahvata je potrebno
obaviti kako bi se ustanovilo po etno stanje lokalne populacije ptica i kako bi kasnije
pra enje stanja populacija imalo smisla. Nužno je pratiti utjecaj tijekom korištenja (kad
e zahvat i imati utjecaja na ornitofaunu) te ako se pokaže potrebnim primijeniti
potrebne korekcije ruta, uzlijetanja i slijetanja, kako radi zaštite prirode tako i radi
sigurnosti zra ne plovidbe. U slu aju postoje eg aerodroma ovaj problem nije toliko
izražen jer su ovi podaci više ili manje ve poznati (ili bi barem trebali biti).
Akcidenti, bez obzira jesu li prirodne ili tehni ko-tehnološke naravi, ili se radi o bilo
kojem izvanrednom doga aju koji zbog nekontroliranog razvoja može ugroziti živote
ljudi, materijalna i kulturna dobra te okoliš, ne biraju niti mjesto niti vrijeme kada e
nastupiti, pa ni aerodromi u tome nisu izuzetak. Od prirodnih opasnosti valja istaknuti
poplave, potrese odnosno ostale prirodne uzroke (oborine, suše, snijeg, poledicu, tu u,
olujno ili orkansko nevrijeme i požare). Tehni ko-tehnološke opasnosti ine tehni kotehnološke katastrofe i velike nesre e u gospodarskim objektima a posebno tehni kotehnološke katastrofe i ve e nesre e izazvane u prometu (cestovnom , željezni kom,
pomorskom i zra nom). Potencijalnu opasnost za podru je aerodroma predstavljaju
spremnici (ukopani i nadzemni te autocisterne i cisterne) sa navedenim vrstama i
koli inama opasnih i štetnih tvari koji uslijed eksplozije mogu ugroziti putnike i okolno
stanovništvo. Potrebno je naglasiti i mogu nost pada putni kog zrakoplova, što
podrazumijeva potrebu zbrinjavanja velikog broja eventualnih žrtava i ustrojavanje
tijela koje e prikupljati i obra ivati informacije o žrtvama. Upravo iz razloga što su
aerodromi specifi ni po zna ajno ve em posve enju sigurnosti u odnosu na druge
infrastrukturne zahvate, u sklopu Aerodromskog priru nika koji mora imati svaki
aerodromi izra uju se propisani postupci za slu aj izvanrednog doga aja (Emergency
plan) za izvanredne doga aje:
- nesre e/ozbiljne nesre e sa zrakoplovima u zraku ili na zemlji
- izvanredne doga aje sa zrakoplovima u zraku ili na zemlji
- nezakonito ometanje zra nog prometa
- požare na aerodromu
- doga aje u svezi s opasnom robom
- prirodne katastrofe/elementarne nepogode: potrese, poplave, oluje i dr.
Rasprava
Procjena utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate aerodroma specifi na je po više aspekata u
odnosu na druge infrastrukturne zahvate, od kojih su posebno izraženi sljede i aspekti:
- Optere enje okoliša bukom je znatno izraženije tijekom korištenja
(slijetanje/uzlijetanje), a mogu nost provo enja mjera zaštite je relativna i
otežana zbog obvezne koordinacije s institucijama nadležnim za kontrolu i
sigurnost zra nog prometa.
- Pitanje odvodnje i pro iš avanja oborinskih voda s manipulativnih površina
(posebno u slu aju primjene postupaka odle ivanja piste i zrakoplova, tzv.
-
„deicing“) problem je koji zahtjeva izrazitu pozornost, naro ito u vodozaštitnim
podru jima.
Postoji mogu nost sudara s pticama i drugim životinjama koja je osobito
zna ajna u slu aju blizine ornitološki zna ajnih i bogatih podru ja, odnosno
lokaliteta
Mogu nosti primjene smjernica za zaštitu od svjetlosnog one iš enja tako er su
ograni ene zbog kolizije s propisima vezanim uz zra ni promet
Izražen je i sigurnosno-akcidentni aspekt koji je izuzetno pokriven sa znatno
više obvezuju ih dokumenata (Aerodromski priru nik, ICAO dokumenti i sl.).
Uvo enje sustava opskrbe zrakoplova elektri nom energijom svojevrsna je najbolja
raspoloživa tehnika u projektiranju i korištenju aerodroma pa se posebna pažnja mora
usmjeriti na troškove koje ova mjera iziskuje.
Kako bi se umanjio utjecaj pove ane razine buke kao posljedica rada aerodroma prema
europskom uzoru za podru je Republike Hrvatske, obveza Republike Hrvatske bila bi
izraditi Program snižavanja razine buke na nacionalnoj razini koji sa injavaju:
- propisani na ini slijetanja i uzlijetanja zrakoplova kako bi se minimalizirao
utjecaj buke koju uzrokuju zrakoplovi
- procedura Kontrole zra ne plovidbe koja omogu uje direktan odlazak
zrakoplova do odre ene visine i zadržavanje zrakoplova u dolasku na odre enoj
visini dok nije blizu samog aerodroma
- javne objave rezultata mjerenja buke i karata buke.
U sklopu ovog Programa, u suradnji s Hrvatskom kontrolom zra ne plovidbe nužno je
provesti Akcijski plan s ciljem smanjenja buke zrakoplova kroz usvajanje mjera koje
optimiziraju slijetanje i uzlijetanje zrakoplova radi smanjenja utjecaja buke zrakoplova
na lokalne zajednice. Tek u slu aju da provo enje gore navedenih operativnih mjera ne
polu i zadovoljavaju e rezultate, aerodrom bi, kad se to zakonski zatraži, proveo mjere
zaštite od buke kao što su bukobrani i program izoliranja buke za ku e ili zgrade
locirane u podru jima koja su izložena buci u razinama koje prelaze granice dozvoljene
zakonom. U takvom bi slu aju operater aerodroma, kako je dopušteno relevantnim
zakonom, nametnuo naknadu za buku avioprijevoznicima da bi nadoknadio pridružene
troškove.
Nastavno na problem one iš enja zraka i buke, svakako bi bilo vrlo poželjno da se za
postoje e luke, prije ili u sklopu izrade Studije o utjecaju na okoliš, izradi posebna
sociološka analiza. Zada a sociološke analize je istražiti utjecaj aerodroma na obližnja
naselja i lokalno stanovništvo te njihovu kvalitetu življenja u neposrednoj okolini
(postoje eg) aerodroma. Problemi su razmjeri i karakteristike optere enja okoliša od
prometanja zrakoplova. Sva rješenja moraju biti uskla ena s dokumentima prostornog
ure enja (trajno i dugoro no rješenje - preseljenje, kratkoro no rješenje - sanacija do
preseljenja).
Kvalitetno napravljen razdjelni sustav odvodnje svih otpadnih voda s pro iš avanjem
ovih voda prije ispusta bilo u sustav javne odvodnje ili recipijent jamstvo je minimalnog
utjecaja aerodroma na podzemne i površinske vode. Moderna svjetska praksa ukazuje
na zamjenu uree kao sredstva za odle ivanja manevarskih površina ekološki
prihvatljivijim kemijskim sredstvima poput propilen-glikola te kalijevih i natrijevih
formijata. Problemu zaštite voda na aerodromima treba posvetiti posebnu pažnju u
slu aju kada se nalaze u vodozaštitnom podru ju.
Smjernicama Nacionalnog povjerenstva za sprje avanje sudara zrakoplova i ptica
preporu ena je izrada Procjene opasnosti od ptica i ostalih životinja na aerodromu i
Programa kontrole pojave ptica i drugih životinja na podru ju aerodroma, kao dva
klju na dokumenta u sprje avanju sudara ptica i zrakoplova. Izradi Procjene pristupa se
ako se na aerodromi ili u neposrednoj blizini aerodroma dogodi jedan od sljede ih
slu ajeva:
1. Udar ptica u zrakoplov ili usisavanje ptica u motor zrakoplova;
2. Ošte enje zrakoplova zbog udara neke druge životinje;
3. Prisustvo ptica u podru ju kretanja zrakoplova u zraku ili prisustvo ptica i drugih
životinja na operativnim površinama.
Uzimaju i u obzir rezultate Procjene kao i obim prometa na aerodromu pristupa se
izradi odgovaraju eg Programa. Kao minimum preporu a se izrada i primjena Programa
koji sadržava najmanje ono što je sadržano u Procjeni. U izradi Programa, ovisno o
njegovoj sveobuhvatnosti, poželjno je da sudjeluju pored stru nih i iskusnih osoba
aerodroma i osobe koje su sudjelovale u izradi Procjene. Svrha programa je smanjiti
populaciju ptica i drugih životinja na i oko aerodroma koje predstavljaju prijetnju
sigurnosti zra nog prometa. Ovo smanjenje zna i u prvom redu uklanjanje onih
pogodnosti koje su atraktivne pticama i koje ih privla e na i oko aerodroma.
Tijekom izrade studije o utjecaju zahvata na okoliš u velikoj mjeri potrebna je
konzultacija s institucijama o kojima ovisi kasniji rad zra ne luke, od kojih neke nisu
bile direktno uklju ene u dosadašnje postupke procjene utjecaja na okoliš, kao što su
Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo i Hrvatska kontrola zra ne plovidbe.
Velika pomo u izradi idu ih Studija o utjecaju na okoliš bila bi izrada Smjernice za
izradu Studija o utjecaju na okoliš za zra ne luke, koje bi objedinile sve što je dosad
izra eno, po uzoru na smjernice koje su ve napravljene za vjetroelektrane.
Zaklju ak
Ovaj rad je napravljen sa ciljem da se prezentiraju specifi nosti procjene utjecaja na
okoliš za zahvate aerodroma u Republici Hrvatskoj u vezi sa obaveznim sadržajem
studije, one iš enjem zraka, buke, sociološkim utjecajem, zaštitom voda, zaštitom
prirode odnosno potencijalnim akcidentima.
Uvo enje sustava opskrbe zrakoplova elektri nom energijom svojevrsna je najbolja
raspoloživa tehnika u projektiranju i korištenju aerodroma. Kako bi se umanjio utjecaj
pove ane razine buke kao posljedica rada aerodroma prema europskom uzoru za
podru je Republike Hrvatske, obveza Republike Hrvatske bila bi izraditi Program
snižavanja razine buke na nacionalnoj razini. U sklopu ovog Programa, u suradnji s
Hrvatskom kontrolom zra ne plovidbe nužno je provesti Akcijski plan s ciljem
smanjenja buke zrakoplova. Za postoje e luke, prije ili u sklopu izrade Studije o
utjecaju na okoliš, potrebno je izraditi posebnu sociološka analiza. Smjernicama
Nacionalnog povjerenstva za sprje avanje sudara zrakoplova i ptica preporu ena je
izrada Procjene opasnosti od ptica i ostalih životinja na aerodromu i Programa kontrole
pojave ptica i drugih životinja na podru ju aerodroma. Tijekom izrade studije o utjecaju
zahvata na okoliš u velikoj mjeri potrebna je konzultacija s institucijama o kojima ovisi
kasniji rad zra ne luke. Velika pomo u izradi idu ih Studija o utjecaju na okoliš bila bi
izrada Smjernice za izradu Studija o utjecaju na okoliš za zra ne luke.
Usvajanjem ak i dijela navedenih preporuka kod izrade Studija o utjecaju na okoliš i
postupka procjene utjecaja na okoliš aerodroma, kvaliteta idu ih Studija o utjecaju na
okoliš mogla pove ati a postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš ubrzati.
Literatura
[1] Bruvo Veseli , J. Zra ne luke u funkciji održivog razvoja hrvatskih otoka.
Hrvatski geografski glasnik. 60: stranice 49-58.
[2] Državna uprava za zaštitu i spašavanje. (2009). Procjena ugroženosti Republike
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Hrvatske od prirodnih i tehni ko-tehnoloških katastrofa i velikih nesre a.
Zagreb.
DVOKUT ECRO d.o.o. (2012). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš za zahvat: aerodrom
Stankovci, Op ina Stankovci.
Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo. (2013). Popis registriranih
aerodroma u Republici Hrvatskoj na dan 31.05.2013. Dostupno na:
http://www.mppi.hr/UserDocsImages/TABLICA%20AERODROMA%20SVJODOB%2031-5_13.pdf
Institut IGH d.d. (2012). Studija o utjecaju na okoliš – Novi putni ki terminal
Zra ne luke Zagreb. Zagreb.
Institut IGH d.d. (2010.). Zahtjev za ocjenu o potrebi procjene utjecaja zahvata
na okoliš za izmjenu rješenja rekonstrukcije i dogradnje uzletno-sletne staze,
manevarskih površina i nove putni ke zgrade zra nog pristaništa Mali Lošinj.
Pavlin S., Rogulji , S., Sikora I. Analiza stanja i perspektive razvitka hrvatskih
aerodroma. The Third Croatian Road Congress. 2: 495-498
Zagreba ka županija. (2012). Prostorni plan podru ja posebnih obilježja
rnkovec – Zra na luka Zagreb. Glasnik Zagreba ke županije od 21. Rujna
2012. 23/12: stranice 3-38.
Zra na luka Zagreb. (2013). Akcijski plan Zra ne luke Zagreb za provo enje
mjera sukladno rješenju Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode vezano na buku i
javnu sigurnosnu zonu. Zagreb.
Influence of transport infrastructure on the genetic diversity - implications for
impact assessment
Toni Safner1, Jelena Liki 1, Mirko Mesari 1, Marijan Gredelj1
1
IRES ekologija d.o.o., Prilaz baruna Filipovi a 21, Zagreb, Croatia mi
Summary
Examples of the negative influence of transport infrastructure on the genetic structure of
insects, amphibians, small and large mammals are presented in this article.
Effectiveness of possible mitigation measures such as wildlife crossing structures for
different species is discussed in particular. General principles for the mitigation of
negative impacts of transport infrastructure projects are proposed for integration in the
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Key words: genetic diversity, habitat fragmentation, transport infrastructure, mitigation
measures
Introduction
Genetic diversity represents the total number of genetic variants within a species, and it
is considered as the adaptive potential of the species that allows it to adapt to the everchanging environment, a sort of a driving force of the evolution. Higher levels of
genetic diversity imply higher chances that some of the individuals will posses the
variants more suitable for new conditions, leading to the better success of the species.
For example, low level of genetic diversity in cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) has led to low
survivorship (a large number of animals dying), poor sperm quality, and greater
susceptibility to disease. Advance of relatively cheap, fast and effective molecular
methods and sophisticated statistical methods at the end of 20th century made genetic
diversity analyses more accurate and affordable, resulting in large number of such
studies.
Habitat fragmentation is one of the major factors causing the reduction of genetic
diversity. It can be defined as the subdivision of a large area of habitat into smaller
isolated patches [23], with consequences such as diminution in total amount of available
habitat and a change in the spatial configuration of the remaining habitat [5]. Following
fragmentation events, the remaining populations may experience the loss of rare alleles
and reduction of heterozygosity through genetic drift and inbreeding [18], leading to
fitness reduction. Due to the reduced effective population size (Ne), levels of genetic
drift and inbreeding are increased, resulting in the loss of genetic variation from
generation to generation, and further differentiation of separated populations. While
genetic separation of subpopulations can be caused by natural landscape features acting
as barriers to gene flow (e.g. seas, lakes, rivers or mountains), major factor causing
habitat fragmentation in last 70 years is human activity, mostly agriculture and
urbanization [2] [10] and [19]. For many species, transport infrastructure, such as roads
and railways, acts as a barrier to gene flow because of the impermeable fences [16],
habitat disturbance, altered microclimatic conditions or increased mortality due to
collisions with vehicles [12] [15] and [21]. This effect is not of the same magnitude for
all species: for small and less mobile species such as ground beetle (Carabus violaceus),
the common frog (Rana temporaria), or the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii)
motorways can be impermeable boundaries, leading to the complete isolation and
eventual extinction of local populations [13] [3] and [20]. Frantz et al [8] and Šprem et
al [21] reported that motorways in Belgium and Croatia act as a gene flow barriers for
red deer (Cervus elaphus), while Kuehn et al [14] found weak effect of motorway in
Switzerland on genetic diversity of roe deer (Capreoulus capreolus).
Estimates of genetic diversity and potential habitat fragmentation are part of the Impact
Assessment studies. According to those estimates, mitigation measures with goal to
make the negative impact milder or less intense or severe are prescribed. These
measures include construction of sufficient number of wildlife crossing structures,
physical structures that increase the permeability of the road or other linear
infrastructure by facilitating the safe passage of animals over or under it and in the case
of roads and railways, prevents collision with vehicles [22]. Wildlife crossing structures
may be purpose built for wildlife or may primarily serve other functions (e.g. water
drainage or access by humans). Structures like these should aim to increase habitat
connectivity and gene flow between population fragments and should be included in the
planning of new developments from the beginning of the process. Efficiency of the
mitigation measures should be under constant monitoring since the effects of the
population subdivision become measurable only after around 10 generations post
fragmentation [17].
Materials and method
This paper gives an overview of the current literature and presents some typical case
studies of the research of the negative influence of transport infrastructure on the
genetic structure of different species. All of the cases were selected because they
represent animal species with different ecology and dispersal patterns, and all of them
can be conservation target species for NATURA 2000.
Selected case studies are:
Keller and Largiader [13] analysed the effect of habitat fragmentation by the network of
roads on the population of Carabus violaceus, a nocturnal ground beetle in Switzerland.
They used six polymorphic microsatellite loci.
Safner et al [20] analysed the influence of roads on the genetic structure of common
frog (Rana temporaria) in the Chambery region in France, using 7 microsatellite loci.
Gauffre et al [9] analysed spatial genetic structure of common vole (Microtus arvalis) in
a fragmented landscape in Western France using 10 microsatellite loci.
Šprem et al [21] analysed the effects of two highways in Croatia (Zagreb - Lipovac and
Zagreb – Rijeka) on the genetic structure of red deer (Cervus elaphus) using 14
microsatellite loci.
In addition, this paper presents two cases of the evaluation of the efficiency of the
mitigation measures such as eco-bridges on the genetic diversity of different species.
Kusak et al [16] analysed the permeability of highway in Gorski kotar, Croatia for large
mammals such as roe deer, red deer, wild boar etc. using track searches, IR sensor
counters and photo trap.
Beebee (2013) gave overview of available literature on the effects of road mortality and
mitigation measures on amphibian populations.
Results
Using traditional population genetics methods such as analysis of molecular variance,
AMOVA [4], and Mantel test between the matrices of pairwise FST values and
geographical distance and number of roads between sampling sites, Keller and
Largiader [13] obtained the results that strongly indicate that the isolation caused by
major roads has a significant impact on the genetic structure of ground beetle
populations. All but one pairwise FST values between two samples from opposite sides
of the road were significant as p<0.001. This was further supported by the result of
Mantel test that showed that 44% of the variance in the pairwise FST values could be
explained by the number of roads between sites. Beside differentiation of populations,
they found evidence for the loss of genetic variability due to fragmentation. Comparison
of allelic richness showed that genetic variability in the fragment south of the highway
was significantly lower than in the rest of the study area.
In addition to AMOVA, Safner et al [20] used BAPS [1], Bayesian spatial model based
clustering method to detect putative boundaries to gene flow between 11 populations of
common frog. This method uses non-reversible Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm
to assign individuals or groups of individuals to the most likely population of origin
according to their genetic profiles. Results obtained from genetic analyses were
compared with the results obtained by radio tracking and simulated dispersal area.
Population based analyses (using sampling site as population) provided some evidence
for the isolation of the populations separated by major roads (Fig. 1). BAPS assigned all
populations into five distinct spatial clusters (A – E in the Fig. 1). While three of them
consisted of single sampling sites (B, C and E), clusters A and D are clearly separated
by roads.
Figure 1: Spatial structure of breeding patches detected with BAPS5 used with
predefined groups of individuals i.e. individuals belonging to breeding patches.
Numbers1–11 indicate breeding patches described in Table 1 and letters A to E indicate
detected spatial clusters. Pie charts indicate fraction of individuals from each breeding
patch assigned to each of 5 spatial clusters, represented with different shade of grey.
[20]
AMOVA confirmed significant differentiation between three groups of populations
separated by major roads, assigning 1.84% of total variance to this source of variation.
Individual based analyses were not able to detect the effect of the roads on the genetic
structure of frogs.
Gauffre et al [9] applied two different individual based Bayesian clustering methods:
GENELAND [11] and TESS [7] for the analysis of genotypes of 372 common voles
from 193 different sampling locations. Unlike in other presented cases, they were not
able to identify genetic differentiation across the motorway. GENELAND inferred the
presence of two populations, but one of them did not have any individuals assigned to.
TESS inferred four spatial clusters, with 85% individuals assigned to the same cluster
and random assignment of remaining individuals to other three clusters.
In the analyses of three red deer populations in Croatia, Šprem et al [21] used individual
based Bayesian spatial clustering method GENELAND. Population from Gorski kotar,
which habitat is intersected by the Zagreb – Rijeka highway built in 2004, was analysed
separately from Kopa ki rit and Spa va populations because of large geographical
distance between them.
In the eastern part of Croatia (populations Kopa ki rit and Spa va), GENELAND
method detected two spatial clusters (Fig. 2), separated by the Zagreb – Lipik highway,
with some migrant individuals (with genetic profile more similar to the population from
the other side of the highway then to the one where it was sampled).
Figure 2: Spatial genetic structure of red deer in the north-east of Croatia. Each point
indicates geographic location of one animal. Different colors represent different spatial
genetic clusters detected by GENELAND [21]
The analysis of the population from Gorski kotar indicated the presence of a single
genetic cluster in that region, with individuals from both sides of the Zagreb – Rijeka
highway assigned to it. The reason for this can be the fact that the fragmentation by
highway is only recent (since 2004) and the effect is still not detectable on the genetic
makeup of populations. On the other hand, on this segment of highway there is a
sufficient number of overpasses and other wildlife crossing structures that might
compensate for the effect of fragmentation.
Similar results for a similar region are presented by Kusak et al [16] who reported
sufficient usage of crossing structures by animals. Dedin green bridge had 15.8
crossings per day, while two monitored tunnel overpasses had 11.2 and 37.0 crossings
per day during the time of monitoring. Their findings indicate that the highway in
Gorski kotar does not present the boundary to gene flow due to the proper planning of
mitigation measures during the impact assessment process that maintained sufficient
level of habitat connectivity.
Somewhat less optimistic are the results of Beebee (2013) who found scant evidence in
cases he reviewed that current mitigation measures will protect amphibian populations
from negative effects of habitat fragmentation by roads and other anthropogenic
structures over the long term.
Discussion
Some of the presented case studies clearly demonstrate the negative effect of highways
and roads on the genetic structure of different groups of animals. Small range dispersers
like invertebrates and amphibians (that are also sensible to the change of land cover)
seem more affected than long ranging species like ungulates. Recent work by Frantz et
al [8] who found evidence that Belgian motorway acts as a boundary to gene flow for
red deer, while it did not have significant effect on wild boar (Sus scrofa), suggests that
habitat fragmentation by transport infrastructure does not affect all species equally so
planners and impact assessors should take care which model species they are using for
the design of corridors. The result by Kusak et al [16] that radiotracked large carnivores
expressed strong preference for the tunnels and viaducts while avoiding small
underpasses and bridges should also serve as a guideline for all assesment studies in the
areas where these animals are present or expected.
Both results by Kusak et al [16] and by Šprem et al [21] seem to find the benefits of
mitigation measures on the Zagreb – Rijeka highway, at least for large mammals. These
results, especially ones by Šprem et al [21] should be taken with care, since the potential
effect of the highway on red deer population structure would not be noticeable on the
genetic level in this short amount of time. Pure numbers of migrants across the crossing
structures could also be insufficient estimate of the mitigation success without proper
studies of genetic structure, since if the migrants do not mate successfully between
populations, the gene flow would still be reduced, and all the potential problems
described in the introduction would remain present. It is not realistic to expect that such
genetic studies will be performed within the impact assessment processes, but the data
collected during the monitoring periods could help with some insight.
The fact that the presented case study did not found any effect on small rodents
indicates that species with high densities and fast population dynamics might be less
vulnerable to the fragmentation. On the other hand, given the fact that the small rodent
present the group of animals that is very frequently killed in collisions with vehicles, it
is possible that this result is caused by large population size and too recent introduction
of highway.
According to Beebee (2013), amphibians are most affected by the transport
infrastructure, mostly by roads. It is not only because of habitat fragmentation, but also
due to their strong habitat preferences and the disturbances caused by roads. This
disturbance depends on the width of the road, traffic volume, vehicle speed and
characteristics of the adjacent landscape (e.g. slope, vegetation type, direction and speed
of prevailing winds), and its effects can be observed for distances that may exceed 1000
metres for arterial roads with large volumes of traffic [6].
Conclusion
In the Review of Mitigation Measures used to deal with the Issue of Habitat
Fragmentation by Major Linear Infrastructure (2008), prepared for the Australian
government, some of presented general principles are to:
avoid environmentally sensitive areas;
identify the goals for mitigation;
design mitigation structures for faunal groups, communities and
ecosystem processes;
mitigation structures should be for a wide range of species;
use and support targeted research;
monitoring should be an integral part of the construction and
management process.
Preliminary ecological studies of the potential impact of possible new major linear
infrastructure should be conducted at the earliest possible moment to give the best
opportunity to design and conduct an adequate and useful base line study. These
preliminary ecological studies should be properly designed, and adequately funded.
These general principles should be accepted and respected with the goal of successful
and sustainable planning of transportation infrastructure.
Literature
[1] Corander, J., Siren, J., Arjas, E. (2008). Bayesian spatial modeling of genetic
population structure. Computational statistics 23:111–129
[2] Coulon, A., Guillot,G., Cosson, J. F., Angibault, J. M. A., Aulagnier, S.,
Cargnelutti, B., Galan, M., and Hewison, A. J. M. (2006). Genetic structure is
influenced by landscape features: empirical evidence from a roe deer population.
Molecular Ecology 15 (6): 1669-1679.
[3] Edwards, T., Schwalbe, C. R., Swann, D. E., and Goldberg, C. S. (2004).
Implications of anthropogenic landscape change on inter-population movements
of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Conservation Genetics 5(4): 485-499.
[4] Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E., and Quattro, J. M. (1992). Analysis of molecular
variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to
human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131(2): 479-491.
[5] Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual
review of ecology, evolution, and systematics. 487-515.
[6] Forman, R. T. T., Sperling, D., Bissonette, J. A., Clevenger, A. P., Cutshall, C.
D., Dale, V. H., Fahrig, L., France, R., Goldman, C. R., Heanue, K., Jones, J. A.,
Swanson, F. J., Turrentine, T. and Winter, T. C. (2002). Road Ecology. Science
and Solutions. Island Press: Washington
[7] François, O., Ancelet, S., Guillot, G. (2006). Bayesian clustering using hidden
Markov random fields in spatial population genetics. Genetics 174(2): 805-816.
[8] Frantz, A. C., Bertouille, S., Eloy, M. C., Licoppe, A., Chaumont, F., and
Flamand, M. C. (2012). Comparative landscape genetic analyses show a Belgian
motorway to be a gene flow barrier for red deer (Cervus elaphus), but not wild
boars (Sus scrofa). Molecular Ecology 21(14): 3445-3457.
[9] Gauffre, B., Estoup, A., Bretagnolle, V., Cosson, J. F. (2008). Spatial genetic
structure of a small rodent in a heterogeneous landscape. Molecular Ecology
17(21): 4619-4629.
[10] Gerlach, G., Musolf, K. (2000). Fragmentation of landscape as a cause for
genetic subdivision in bank voles. Conservation Biology 14(4): 1066-1074.
[11] Guillot, G., Mortier, F., Estoup, A. (2005). GENELAND: a computer package
for landscape genetics. Molecular ecology notes 5(3): 712-715.
[12] Huber, D., Kusak, J., Frkovic, A. (1998). Traffic kills of brown bears in Gorski
kotar, Croatia. Ursus 167-171.
[13] Keller, I., Largiadèr, C. R. (2003). Recent habitat fragmentation caused by major
roads leads to reduction of gene flow and loss of genetic variability in ground
beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological
Sciences 270(1513): 417-423.
[14] Kuehn, R., Hindenlang, K. E., Holzgang, O., Senn, J., Stoeckle, B., Sperisen, C.
(2007). Genetic effect of transportation infrastructure on roe deer populations
(Capreolus capreolus). Journal of Heredity 98(1): 13-22.
[15] Kusak, J., Huber, D., Frkovi , A. (2000). The effects of traffic on large carnivore
populations in Croatia. Biosphere Conservation 3: 35-39.
[16] Kusak, J., Huber, D., Gomer , T., Schwaderer, G., Gužvica, G. (2009). The
permeability of highway in Gorski kotar (Croatia) for large mammals. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 55(1): 7-21.
[17] Lacy, R. C. (1987). Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations:
interacting effects of drift, mutation, immigration, selection, and population
subdivision. Conservation biology 1(2): 143-158.
[18] Noel, S., Ouellet, M., Galois, P., Lapointe, F. J. (2007). Impact of urban
fragmentation on the genetic structure of the eastern red-backed salamander.
Conservation Genetics 8(3): 599-606.
[19] Riley, S. P., Pollinger, J. P., Sauvajot, R. M., York, E. C., Bromley, C., Fuller, T.
K., and Wayne, R. K. (2006). FASTTRACK: A southern California freeway is a
physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology 15(7):
1733-1741.
[20] Safner, T., Miaud, C., Gaggiotti, O., Decout, S., Rioux, D., Zundel, S., and
Manel, S. (2011). Combining demography and genetic analysis to assess the
population structure of an amphibian in a human-dominated landscape.
Conservation genetics 12(1): 161-173.
[21] Šprem, N., Frantz, A. C., Cubric-Curik, V., Safner, T., and Curik, I. (2013).
Influence of habitat fragmentation on population structure of red deer in Croatia.
Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde.
[22] van der Ree, R., Clarkson, D.T., Holland, K., Gulle, N., Budden M. (2008).
Review of Mitigation Measures used to deal with the Issue of Habitat
Fragmentation by Major Linear Infrastructure, Report for Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), Contract No. 025/2006.
[23] Wilcove, D. S., McLellan, C. H., Dobson, A. P. (1986). Habitat fragmentation in
the temperate zone. Conservation biology 237-256.
Utjecaj stabilnosti atmosfere i meteoroloških parametara na prostorno
širenje buke
Tanja Tudor1, Melita Milosti
1
1
Gekom d.o.o., Trg senjskih uskoka 1.-2., Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected],)
Sažetak
Buka okoliša jest neželjen ili po ljudsko zdravlje i okoliš štetan zvuk u vanjskome
prostoru izazvan ljudskom aktivnoš u. Prostorno širenje buke, odnosno prikaz istoga
izradom karte buke iznimno je važan dio studije utjecaja na okoliš. Karta buke se
definira kao prikaz postoje eg i/ili predvi enog stanja imisije buke na promatranom
podru ju. Razine buke izražavaju se akusti kim veli inama (Lden, Lday i Lnight) kojima se
opisuje buka okoliša štetna za ljudsko zdravlje. Pri izradi karte buke putem ra unalnog
programa SoundPlan verzija 7.1, koriste se standardi propisani Pravilnikom o na inu
izrade i sadržaju karata buke i akcijskih planova te o na inu izra una dopuštenih
indikatora buke (NN 75/09), u kojima su ve ura unate odre ene meteorološke situacije
i parametri.
Atmosfersko stanje bitno utje e na širenje buke. Pojava temperaturne inverzije je
zna ajna za pojavu zona ujnosti i tišine na promatranom podru ju. Time naseljena
podru ja koja su najbliža nekom budu em zahvatu u prostoru ne moraju nužno biti i
najizloženija potencijalnoj buci istoga. Meteorološki parametri koji ulaze u prora un
širenja buke su smjer i brzina vjetra te prosje ne vrijednosti temperature, vlažnosti i
tlaka zraka. Kombiniranjem izrazito stabilnog stanja atmosfere i nepovoljnih
meteoroloških parametara, pogotovo smjera i brzine vjetra, postiže se najgori slu aj
(worst case) prostornog širenja buke zahvata s obzirom na okolna naseljena podru ja. U
radu e biti prikazane razine buke dobivene za najnepovoljniji meteorološki slu aj u
odnosu na uobi ajeni prora un prostornog širenja buke koji je propisan Pravilnikom o
na inu izrade i sadržaju karata buke i akcijskih planova te o na inu izra una dopuštenih
indikatora buke (NN 75/09).
Klju ne rije i: karte buke, hrvatski propisi, stabilnost atmosfere, meteorologija
Uvod
Prilikom planiranja i projektiranja novih ili rekonstrukcije postoje ih zahvata u okolišu
potrebno je odrediti njegov intenzitet utjecaja, doseg i trajanje kako bi se odlu ilo da li
je zahvat prihvatljiv za ljude i okoliš. U skladu sa zakonodavstvom RH i EU provedba
istoga se vrši putem izrade Studije utjecaja na okoliš (SUO) iji cilj je izbjegavanje
potencijalnih negativnih utjecaja zahvata na okoliš te ukoliko je potrebno odre ivanje
odgovaraju ih mjera zaštite okoliša. Prostorno širenje buke, odnosno prikaz istoga
izradom karte buke iznimno je važan dio studije utjecaja na okoliš.
Buka okoliša jest neželjen ili po ljudsko zdravlje i okoliš štetan zvuk u vanjskome
prostoru izazvan ljudskom aktivnoš u. Razine buke izražavaju se akusti kim veli inama
(Lden, Lday i Lnight) kojima se opisuje buka okoliša štetna za ljudsko zdravlje. Najviše
dopuštene ocjenske razine buke imisije u otvorenom prostoru odre ene su Pravilnikom
o najvišim dopuštenim razinama buke u sredini u kojoj ljudi rade i borave (Narodne
novine 145/04). U Pravilniku su dane najviše dopuštene vrijednosti buke s obzirom na
namjenu promatranog prostora, a iste su prikazane u Tablici 1.
TABLICA 1. Prikaz Tablice 1. iz lanka 5. Pravilnika o najvišim dopuštenim razinama
buke u sredini u kojoj ljudi rade i borave (NN 145/04).
Najviše dopuštene ocjenske
razine buke imisije LRAeq u
Zona
dB(A)
Namjena prostora
buke
za
no
za dan (Lday)
(Lnight)
1.
Zona namijenjena odmoru, oporavku i lije enju 50
40
2.
Zona namijenjena samo stanovanju i boravku
55
40
3.
Zona mješovite, pretežito stambene namjene
55
45
Zona mješovite, pretežito poslovne namjene sa
65
50
4.
stanovanjem
– Na granici gra evne estice
unutar zone buka ne smije
Zona gospodarske namjene (proizvodnja, prelaziti 80 dB(A)
5.
– Na granici ove zone buka ne
industrija, skladišta, servisi)
smije prelaziti dopuštene
razine zone s kojom grani i
Karta buke se definira kao prikaz postoje eg i/ili predvi enog stanja imisije buke na
promatranom podru ju. U tu svrhu koriste se razni numeri ki modeli kojima se simulira
širenje buke u okolišu. Pri izradi karte buke putem ra unalnog programa, u našem
slu aju radi se o programskom paketu SoundPlan verzija 7.1, koriste se standardi
propisani Pravilnikom o na inu izrade i sadržaju karata buke i akcijskih planova te o
na inu izra una dopuštenih indikatora buke (NN 75/09), u kojima su ve ura unate
odre ene meteorološke situacije i parametri. Isti se na ograni en na in mogu mijenjati
ovisno o meteorološkim karakteristikama promatranog podru ja.
Stabilnost atmosfere
Prostorno širenje buke uvelike ovisi o fizikalnom stanju atmosfere iji je osnovni
pokazatelj promjena temperature po visini, odnosno vertikalni temperaturni gradijent.
Temperaturni profil atmosfere je uvjetovan mnogim utjecajima poput grijanja i hla enja
tla, gibanja zra nih masa, (ne)postojanje oblaka i topografskih prepreka. Stabilnost
atmosfere ovisi o temperaturi zraka koji se uzdiže i temperaturi okolnog zraka. Odnosno
ovisi da li e se est zraka pomaknuta adijabatski u vis vratiti u po etni položaj (stabilno
stanje), ostati u novom položaju (neutralno stanje), ili e se nastaviti gibati prema gore
(nestabilno stanje). U stati ki stabilnoj atmosferi est je u novom položaju guš a i
hladnija od okolnog zraka, u neutralnoj atmosferi est u novom položaju ima jednaku
gusto u i temperaturu kao okolni zrak, dok je u stati ki nestabilnoj atmosferi est rje a i
toplija od okolnog zraka.
Adijabatski procesi su procesi pri kojima ne dolazi do razmjene energije izme u
promatrane esti i okoline. Isti su uvijek vezani za uzlazna/silazna kretanja bez obzira
da li je do njih došlo uslijed nejednakog zagrijavanja (podloge) ili uslijed prelaska
horizontalnih zra nih strujanja preko prepreka (brda, šume i sl.). Adijabatski procesi u
atmosferi su adijabatsko hla enje kod uzlaznih zra nih struja i adijabatsko zagrijavanje
kod silaznih zra nih struja. A uvijek odnose na promjenu temperature esti zraka koji je
suh, tj. nije zasi en vodenom parom. Kada se zrak iznad jednog mjesta ja e zagrijava od
okolnog zraka, topliji zrak se širi i postaje lakši. Okolni hladniji zrak potiskuje estice
toplijeg i isti se po inje dizati. Koliko je ve a temperaturna razlika izme u estica zraka
koji se diže i okolnog zraka, toliko e se zagrijani zrak brže dizati. Pri spuštanju hladnog
zraka je obratno. Sli ne pojave se javljaju i pri prelasku zra nih struja preko prirodnih
prepreka. Ako se zrak pri vertikalnom dizanju širi, a pri spuštanju skuplja bez
priliva/gubitka toplinske energije izvana, i zbog razlike u gusto i nije prisiljen miješati
se sa zra nom masom op e cirkulacije atmosfere, te isti nastoji da od nje ostane
odvojen. U takvim uvjetima nema razlika u koli ini toplinske energije izme u zraka u
kretanju i dijela zra ne mase zbog veoma slabe toplinske provodljivosti atmosfere. Pri
dizanju (širenju) topliji zrak ulazi u sve rje u sredinu, okolni zrak ga tla i sve slabije i
zbog toga on ekspandira. Posljedica toga je sniženje temperature toplijeg zraka.
Me utim, zrak koji se spušta ulazi u guš u sredinu, skuplja se (komprimira) i zbog toga
se zagrijava. Takvo ohla ivanje zraka pri širenju i zagrijavanje pri tla enju, koje se
doga a bez gubitka/priliva toplinske energije, zove se adijabatsko hla enje, odnosno
adijabatsko zagrijavanje. Kada se suh ili vlažan zrak (ali ne i zasi en vodenom parom)
adijabatski diže, njegova temperatura adijabatski pada za 1°C na svakih 100 m
visinskog uspona. Vrijednost pada temperature zraka za 1°C za 100 m visinske razlike
zove se adijabatski gradijent temperature.
Zavisno od vrijednosti vertikalnog gradijenta temperature, atmosfera se može nalaziti u
jednom od tri ravnotežna stanja: stabilnom, nestabilnom i neutralnom stanju.
Stabilna atmosfera nastaje kada je vertikalni gradijent temperature manji od
adijabatskog gradijenta, tj. manji od 1°C/100 m. Stabilnost je naro ita kada u atmosferi
postoje inverzivni slojevi temperature. U stabilnoj atmosferi mogu nastati slaba
horizontalna strujanja i vertikalna silazna strujanja, ali se ne mogu pojaviti vertikalna
uzlazna strujanja zraka. Takav slu aj javlja se u anticikloni.
Neutralno stanje atmosfere postoji kada je vertikalni gradijent temperature jednak
adijabatskom gradijentu, tj. jednak je 1°C/100 m. Ne postoje uvjeti za bilo kakva zra na
strujanja.
Nestabilna ravnoteža atmosfere se postiže u slu ajevima kada je vertikalni gradijent
temperature ve i od adijabatskog, tj. ve i od 1°C/100 m. Suprotno od prethodnog stanja,
u nestabilnoj atmosferi se javljaju vertikalna uzlazna strujanja. Takav slu aj se javlja u
cikloni.
U programskom paketu SoundPlan 7.1 atmosferska stanja su odre ena putem klasa
stabilnosti koje istu opisuju klasama stabilnosti od A do G. Klase od A pa naviše
postupno predstavljaju nestabilnu atmosferu, sve do klase D kojom je opisana neutralna
atmosfera, dok se daljnjim klasama reprezentira stabilno atmosfersko stanje.
Na svom putu širenja kroz atmosferu, zvu ni signal slabi. Uzrok tome je nehomogenost
zra nog fluida i gubitak energije apsorpcijom molekula zraka i raspršenjem na istima.
Slabljenje je ve e što je ve a frekvencija zvuka i što je daljina izvora ve a. Ti su gubitci
energije u stabilnoj atmosferi manji pa je time ujnost bolja (npr. zimi i no u). Stoga je
odabir vrlo stabilne atmosfere klju an za najnepovoljniji slu aj širenja buke, odnosno
worst case.
Meteorološki parametri
Osnovni pokazatelji akusti nosti atmosfere su brzina širenja zvuka i njegova ja ina,
odnosno slabljenje i poja avanje zvuka. Brzina širenja zvuka je odre ena prije enim
putem zvu nog vala u jedinici vremena, a jakost zvuka je odre ena koli inom energije
koju zvu ni val prenese u jedinici vremena na jedinicu površine okomite na smjer
njegova prostiranja. Kada zvu ni val nai e na prepreku, valna fronta odstupa od
pravocrtnog gibanja i savija se od prepreke, odnosno dolazi do pojave refrakcije
zvu nih valova ime nastaju zone zvu ne tišine i ujnosti. Ukoliko je prepreka velika u
usporedbi sa valnom duljinom zvu nih valova, ispod iste e do i do stvaranja zone
sjene, odnosno tišine. U suprotnom do nastanka te pojave ne e do i. Sa visinom se
mijenjaju temperatura zraka, brzina vjetra, tlak zraka i koli ina vodene pare što utje e
na na in i brzinu širenja zvuka u prostoru. Utjecaji navedenih parametara na prostorno
širenje buke su pojedina no opisani u daljnjem tekstu.
Temperatura
Pri normalnim uvjetima kada temperatura zraka opada sa visinom (Slika 1.), brzina
zvuka se sa visinom smanjuje. Kako se najve a promjena doga a po vertikali, tako se i
brzina zvuka najja e mijenja u tom pravcu. Pri širenju od izvora kroz homogenu
atmosferu, u normalnom slu aju refrakcija zvuka, valne fronte se savijaju prema gore.
Konveksna strana valne fronte okrenuta je prema tlu (pretpostavka ravne i glatke
površine) tako da valna fronta najbliža tlu odvaja zonu zvu ne sjene, odnosno tišine od
zone ujnosti.
Slika 1. Refrakcija zvuka u slu aju opadanja temperature sa visinom [1]
No, za vrijeme vedrih i mirnih no i, naj eš e u hladnom dijelu godine, može do i do
pojave temperaturne inverzije (Slika 2.), odnosno porasta temperature sa visinom.
Inverzija se tako er može javiti u bilo kojem dijelu godine. U takvoj situaciji valne
fronte, pri širenju od izvora kroz nehomogenu atmosferu, nailaze na inverzni sloj zbog
kojeg se savijaju prema tlu tako da je konveksna strana valne fronte okrenuta prema tlu.
Tako poreme eni valovi me usobno interferiraju i time tvore zone ujnosti, a zvuk se
tada registrira na puno ve im udaljenostima. Inverzija je znak jako stabilnog
atmosferskog stanja kada su nepogodnosti gotovo nemogu e osim u slu ajevima kada
su uzlazne struje toliko jake da uspiju probiti inverzni sloj koji se ponaša poput teško
probojne barijere. Na granici inverzije izrazita je promjena gusto e zraka zbog toga što
je gornji sloj mnogo rje i. Ovakav slu aj se može dogoditi na bilo kojoj visini iznad tla
ali i pri samom tlu.
Slika 2. Refrakcija zvuka u slu aju porasta temperature sa visinom [1]
Smjer i brzina vjetra
Razmatraju i refrakciju zvuka pri promjeni brzine vjetra sa visinom, situacija ovisi o
kutu kojeg ini smjer vjetra sa pravcem strujanja. Brzina zvuka raste niz vjetar dok ista
pada prema vjetru. Pri normalnim uvjetima, kada brzina vjetra raste sa visinom, valne
fronte koje se šire protiv vjetra se lome prema gore dok se širenjem niz vjetar lome se
prema tlu, tako poreme eni valovi me usobno interferiraju i tvore zone ujnosti. Na
suprotnoj strani, ispod „prepreke“ se formira zona zvu ne tišine. Ako brzina vjetra pada
sa visinom, situacija je obrnuta.
Slika 3. Refrakcija zvuka u slu aju porasta brzine vjetra sa visinom [1]
Vlažnost zraka i tlak zraka
Najvažniji mehanizam apsorpcije zvu nih valova u atmosferi je molekularno slabljenje.
U atmosferi se visoke frekvencije zvuka apsorbiraju više od niskih frekvencija. Koli ina
apsorpcije ovisi o temperaturi i vlažnosti atmosfere. Slika 4. prikazuje variranje
apsorpcije sa temperaturom i relativnom vlažnoš u. Može se uo iti da porastom udjela
vlage (za vlažnosti ve e od 10%) prigušenje zvuka slabi dok je pri temperaturi oko
20°C prigušenje zvuka podjednako za razli itu vlažnost zraka, oko 3,5 dB/100m.
Slika 4. a) Frekvencijska ovisnost prigušenja kao funkcija relativne vlažnosti na 20°C b)
Prigušenje kao funkcija temperature za razli ite udjele relativne vlažnosti [2]
Naime, vlažan zrak je rje i od suhog zraka. Uzrok tomu je sastav suhog zraka koji je
primarno sastavljen od molekula dušika i kisika koji imaju ve u molarnu masu od
molekula vode. Stoga mol suhog zraka teži više nego mol vlažnog zraka. Kako je
molarna masa vlažnog zraka manja time je brzina zvuka u njemu ve a. Amplituda
zvu nih valova dulje ostaje ve a u vlažnom zraku. Uzrok tomu je koli ina energije
potrebna za pomicanje molekula u zraku pri širenju zvuka. Manje gust zrak (vlažan
zrak) ima manje mase za pomicanje za širenje zvuka i time troši manje energije pri
širenju te više energije ostaje u obliku valne amplitude.
Tijekom modeliranja prostornog širenja buke putem programskog paketa SoundPlan
7.1, nije uo ena osjetljivost istoga na promjenu tlaka zraka.
Zbog bolje usporedbe rezultata, pri prora unu su uzete prosje ne vrijednosti
meteoroloških parametara (osim vjetra) za razli ita stanja atmosfere. Korištene su
slijede e vrijednosti: Temperatura zraka od 10°C, vlažnost zraka od 70% i tlak zraka od
1013,25 hPa.
Utjecaj reljefa i nadmorske visine
Osim utjecaja atmosferskih prilika na prostorno širenje buke znatan je i utjecaj
konfiguraciju terena promatranog podru ja te pokrivenost istoga podlogom odre enih
apsorpcijskih/reflektiraju ih karakteristika. Naime, razne morfološke prepreke mogu
stvoriti efikasnu zvu nu barijeru koja e smanjiti razine buke u prostoru isto kao i što ih
u manjoj mjeri umanjuje meka, odnosno apsorbiraju a podloga poput šuma. Digitalni
model terena se u programskom paketu SoundPlan 7.1 dobiva unosom postoje ih visina
promatranog podru ja (izohipsa ili visina u to kama), a isti se ra una putem metode
kona nih elemenata (FEM) dijele i podru je na manje dijelove, odnosno trokute unutar
kojih se vrši prora un.
Slika 5. Digitalni model terena u SoundPlanu - metoda kona nih elemenata (FEM)
Dobiveni digitalni model terena daje uvid u konfiguraciju postoje eg prostora kojim e
se buka širiti. Prikaz istoga ukazuje na morfološke prepreke koje e potencijalno
smanjivati razine buke u okolnim naseljima ili e pak iste biti potencijalno pove ane
unutar kotlina u kojima e dolaziti do reflektiranja i me usobnog superponiranja
zvu nih valova.
Slika 6. Digitalni model terena (TIN)
Tako er, na širenje buke u prostoru utje e nadmorska visina na kojima su smješteni
izvori (vjetroagregati). Što se izvor zvuka nalazi na ve oj nadmorskoj visini to e se
njegov utjecaj imati ve i doseg. Tako er, vrlo je bitna i nadmorska visina na kojoj su
smještena okolna naseljena podru ja. Naime, ukoliko se ista nalaze na manjoj
nadmorskoj visini od okolnog podru ja, potencijalno može biti zašti ena okolnim
uzvisinama od ve ih razina buke izvora. Stoga izvoru najbliža naselja ne moraju nužno
biti i bukom najugroženija.
Metode prora una buke
Kako bi prikazali utjecaj meteorološke situacije na prostorno širenje buke, korištene su
dvije metode prora una buke, ISO 9613-2 i CONCAWE standard.
ISO 9613-2:1996 standard za industrijski izvor zvuka je zakonski propisan Pravilnikom
o na inu izrade i sadržaju karata buke i akcijskih planova te o na inu izra una
dopuštenih indikatora buke (NN 75/09). Stoga se prora un spomenutim standardom
koristi za uobi ajeni prora un buke unutar Studije utjecaja na okoliš (SUO). Pri
prora unu su uzeti meteorološki uvjeti koji su dani unutar standarda ISO 9613-2:1996, a
usmjereni su na širenje buke niz vjetar. Od izvora prema prijamniku smjer vjetra je
unutar kuta od 45° dok se brzina vjetra kre e u rasponu od 1 do 5 m/s. Spomenuti
parametri se ne mogu mijenjati kao ni odabir stanja atmosfere (klase stabilnosti).
Standard CONCAWE nije propisan Pravilnikom (NN 75/09) za prora un buke i isti se u
praksi ne koristi. No, unutar prora una buke putem tog standarda omogu en je odabir
najnepovoljnijih meteoroloških uvjeta. Atmosferska stanja odre ena su putem klasa
stabilnosti koje opisuju nestabilnu, neutralnu i stabilnu atmosferu (od A do G klase).
Tako er je omogu en odabir najnepovoljnijeg smjera i brzine vjetra s obzirom na
okolna naseljena podru ja.
Prora uni buke u karakteristi nim to kama i karte buke, dobiveni putem obe metode
prora una, su napravljeni na primjeru novo planirane vjetroelektrane za vrijeme rada
svih vjetroagregata zajedno. Izvori zvuka su vjetroturbine smještene na 95 metara iznad
tla, koje se u praksi modeliraju kao to kasti industrijski izvori zvuka za koje je
Pravilnikom o na inu izrade i sadržaju karata buke i akcijskih planova te o na inu
izra una dopuštenih indikatora buke (NN 75/09) propisan standard ISO 9613-2:1996.
Za prora un prostornog širenja buke, za najnepovoljnije meteorološke uvjete, putem
standarda CONCAWE odabrana je vrlo stabilno stanje atmosfere (klasa F) i
najnepovoljniji smjer vjetra, s obzirom na okolna naseljena podru ja, brzine 9 m/s. Pri
navedenim prora unima korišten je 3D model terena i meka, odnosno apsorbiraju a
podloga koja reprezentira pokrivenost istoga visokom i gustom šumom. Rezultati su
prikazani u obliku karata buke (Slika 7. i Slika 8.) dok su pojedina ni rezultati
prora una buke u karakteristi nim to kama dani u Tablici 2.
Rezultati prikazani putem karta buke
Za potrebe studije utjecaja na okoliš (SUO), u programskom paketu SoundPlan 7.1
izra ene su karte buke za novo planiranu vjetroelektranu na podru ju Hrvatske.
Slika 7. Karta buke za uobi ajeni prora un buke (standard ISO 9613-2:1996)
Na satelitskoj slici promatranog podru ja prikazana je karta buke (Slika 7.) dobivena
uobi ajenom metodom prora una za istovremen rad svih vjetroagregata. Tamnozelena
linija predstavlja izofonu (liniju iste zvu ne razine) od 45 dB(A) koja je u ovom slu aju,
prema Pravilniku (145/04), bila najviše dopuštena razina buke. Crne konture
predstavljaju izgra ena i neizgra ena podru ja naselja koja su preuzeta iz pripadaju ih
prostornih planova. Podru ja naselja koja su najbliža planiranom zahvatu su obilježene
sa mjernim to kama (T1-T18) u kojim je izvršen i dodatni prora un buke (Tablica 2.).
Iz priloženog se može vidjeti da razine buke u niti jednom naselju ne prekora uju
dozvoljenih 45dB(A). Tako er se uo ava da se mjerna to ka T16 nalazi najbliže
zahvatu (719 m jugoisto no od zahvata), no na poziciji iste ne dolazi do postizanja
najviših vrijednosti buke što emo vidjeti i u Tablici 2. Najviše razine buke se postižu
na podru ju naselja reprezentiranog to kom T6 koje je jedno 100-tinjak metara
udaljenije, a nalazi se sjeverozapadno od zahvata. Uzrok tomu je prostorna ovisnost
širenja buke budu i da se vjetroagregati i okolna naseljena podru ja nalaze na razli itim
nadmorskim visinama te su okružena razli itom konfiguracijom terena.
Za identi nu situaciju, napravljena je karta buke (Slika 8.) za najnepovoljniji
meteorološki slu aj. Na istoj se može uo iti da izofone imaju dosta ve i doseg, odnosno
šire podru je utjecaja. Naime sada je položaj izofone od 45 dB(A) puno bliži okolnim
naseljima.
Slika 8. Karta buke za najnepovoljnijih meteoroloških uvjeta (standard CONCAWE)
Detaljniji uvid u navedene promjene razina buke zbog razli itih meteoroloških prilika
biti e opisane u slijede em poglavlju kroz analizu rezultata pojedina nih prora una
buke.
Rezultati dobiveni prora unom buke u karakteristi nim to kama
U programskom paketu SoundPlan 7.1, napravljen je i dodatni prora un buke u
karakteristi nim to kama uobi ajenom metodom i metodom prora una buke za
najnepovoljniji meteorološki slu aj, odnosno izrazito stabilnu atmosferu i
najnepovoljniji smjer vjetra (s obzirom na odre eno naselje) brzine 9m/s. Pozicije
karakteristi nih to aka T1-T18, koje predstavljaju okolna potencijalno bukom ugrožena
naseljena podru ja, istaknute su na kartama buke (Slika 7. i Slika 8.). Iz priloženih
rezultata se može vidjeti kako najbliža mjerna to ka T16 nije ujedno i najugroženija.
Naime, na pozicijama T5 i T6 se postižu za više od 3 dB ve e razine buke nego na
najbližoj to ki T16.
Tablica 2. Razine buke u najbližim naseljima za vrijeme rada svih vjetroagregata
Uobi ajeni
Najgori slu aj, stabilna atmosfera,vjetar Razlika
Pozicija prora un buke
brzine 9m/s NO dB(A)
dB(A)
NO dB(A)
30,1
33,0
2,9
T1
32,9
35,3
2,4
T2
35,6
39,2
3,7
T3
39,9
42,0
2,1
T4
42,2
44,9
2,7
T5
42,5
44,6
2,1
T6
36,4
38,3
1,9
T7
37,5
39,8
2,3
T8
38,6
40,9
2,3
T9
40,4
42,5
2,1
T10
41,3
43,1
1,8
T11
41,1
43,2
2,0
T12
39,7
42,4
2,6
T13
35,1
37,0
2,0
T14
40,5
42,8
2,2
T15
38,9
41,4
2,5
T16
40,9
43,5
2,6
T17
33,3
36,0
2,7
T18
Iz rezultata prora una buke putem obje metode danih u gornjoj tablici, vidi se da su se
razine buke pove ale za 2-4 dB u odnosu na uobi ajeni prora un buke. Tako er se može
uo iti da su najve a pove anja razine buke tako er prostorno ovisni obzirom na razli itu
nadmorsku visinu vjetroagregata i naselja te konfiguraciju terena promatranog podru ja.
Zaklju ak
Napravljena je usporedba prora una buke uobi ajenom metodom (zakonski propisana
Pravilnikom (NN 75/09)) i prora una buke za najnepovoljniji slu aj (worst case),
odnosno izrazito stabilnu atmosferu i najnepovoljniji smjer vjetra (s obzirom na
odre eno naselje) brzine 9m/s. Usporedbom dobivenih rezultata ustanovljeno pove anje
razine buke za 2-4 dB u odnosu na uobi ajeni prora un buke što predstavlja zna ajno
pove anje razina buke. Iako se izvoru najbliža naselja smatraju i bukom najugroženijim,
ne moraju biti. Naime, pozicije izvora i receptora na razli itim nadmorskim visinama i
karakteristike okolnog terena, te pokrivenost istoga npr. visokom i gustom šumom
mogu dodatno smanjiti razine buke u okolišu.
Iako prora un buke za najgori meteorološki slu aj nije zakonski potreban, isti pokazuje
razli itu prostornu osjetljivost utjecaja buke. Naime, u praksi esto imamo slu aj kada
su prora unom dobivene razine jednake ili nešto manje od dopuštenih razina buke te
iste za najnepovoljniji slu aj mogu prekora iti dopuštene razine buke. No,
najnepovoljniji meteorološki uvjeti u praksi nisu u estali, isti se u ovom slu aju javljaju
u manje od 3 % slu ajeva godišnje što je prakti ki zanemarivo. Baš iz tog razloga
prora un buke za worst case i nije zakonski potreban. Me utim, nakon puštanja zahvata
u rad, u našem slu aju vjetroelektrane, mora se uspostaviti monitoring, odnosno
pra enje buke. Stoga je vrlo bitno gdje e pra enje buke biti pozicionirano da bi dobili
to nu informaciju da li e dolaziti do prekora enja dozvoljenih razina buke i ukoliko do
njih do e, kolika e biti njihova u estalost i trajanje. Time nam prora un buke za
najnepovoljniju meteorološku situaciju može dati dobre smjernice za odabir
najpovoljnije lokacije mjernih mjesta za uspostavu pra enja odnosno monitoringa buke.
Literatura
[1] Crocker M.J., Handbook of noise and vibration control, 2007. John Wiley &
Sons
[2] Cyril H., Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature, Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 40, p. 148.
Influence of atmospheric stability and meteorological parameters on
the spatial noise propagation
Tanja Tudor1, Melita Milosti
1
1
Gekom Ltd., Trg senjskih uskoka 1.-2., Zagreb, Croatia ([email protected])
Abstract
Environmental noise is unwanted or on human health and the environment damaging
sound in outer space caused by human activity. Spatial sound propagation presented by
noise map is an extremely important part of an environmental impact study. Noise map
is defined as a representation of the current and/or predicted noise imission in the
observed area. Noise levels are expressed as acoustic value (Lden, Lday and Lnight)
describing the noise harmful to human health. In creation of noise maps using computer
program SoundPlan version 7.1, standards prescribed by the Ordinance on the method
of preparation and content of noise maps and action plans and on the method of
calculating limit values of noise indicators (OG 75/09) are used, in which certain
situations and meteorological parameters are already included.
Noise propagation is affected by atmospheric condition. Temperature inversion
phenomenon is significant for the occurrence of zones of audibility and tranquility in
the area observed. Therefore settlements closest to some future projects in an area are
not necessarily exposed the most to the potential noise. Noise calculation includes
meteorological parameters as wind direction and speed and average values of
temperature, humidity and air pressure. Combining extremely stable atmospheric
condition and unfavorable meteorological parameters for the surrounding residential
areas, especially wind direction and speed, the worst case of noise propagation is
achieved. This paper will show the noise levels obtained for the worst case in
comparison to the conventional spatial noise propagation calculation prescribed by the
Ordinance on the method of preparation and content of noise maps and action plans and
on the method of calculating limit values of noise indicators (OG 75/09).
Key words: noise maps, Croatian regulative, atmosphere stability, meteorology
Introduction
During the planning and design of new or reconstruction of existing infrastructure in the
environment it is necessary to determine the intensity of influence, scope and duration
in order to decide whether the intervention is acceptable for people and the
environment. In accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Croatia and the EU
implementation of this is done through the development of the Environmental Impact
Study (EIS), whose aim is to avoid the potential negative impact on the environment
and, if necessary, assessment of appropriate environmental protection measures. The
noise propagation, i.e. display of it by creating a noise map is an extremely important
part of the environmental impact study.
Environmental noise is unwanted or to human health and the environment harmful
outdoor sound created by human activities. Noise levels are expressed by acoustic sizes
(Lden, Lday i Lnight) which describe environmental noise harmful to human health.
Maximum allowed rating levels of noise imissions in the outdoors are determined by
Ordinance on the maximum allowed levels of noise in areas in which people live and
work (OG 145/04). Ordinance prescribes maximum allowable noise values respect to
the purpose of the area observed, and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of Table 1. from Article 5. Ordinance on the maximum allowed
levels of noise in areas in which people live and work (OG 145/04)
Maximum allowed rating
levels of noise imissions LRAeq
Noise
in dB(A)
Area purpose
zone
for
night
for day (Lday)
(Lnight)
1.
Area for resting, recovering and treatment
50
40
2.
Pure residential area
55
40
3.
Mixed area, mainly for residential purposes
55
45
Mixed area, mainly for business purposes
65
50
4.
with residence
– On the building plot border
noise shouldn’t exceed 80dB(A)
within the area
Commercial purpose area (production,
– On the border of this area,
5.
industry, warehouses, services)
noise should not exceed the
permissible level of zone which
borders with
Noise map is defined as current and/or future noise imission state of the area observed.
Due to this, various numerical models are used to simulate noise propagation in the
environment. In creation of noise maps using computer program, in our case software
package SoundPlan version 7.1, standards prescribed by the Ordinance on the method of
preparation and content of noise maps and action plans and standards on the method of
calculating limit values of noise indicators (OG 75/09) are used, in which certain
situations and meteorological parameters are already included. Change of those
parameters is limited and depends on the meteorological characteristics of the area
observed.
Atmospheric stability
Noise propagation depends on the physical state of the atmosphere whose primary
indicator is temperature changing with height, i.e. vertical temperature gradient.
Temperature profile of the atmosphere is determined by many influences such as ground
heating and cooling, air masses movement, clouds (non)existence and topographic
barriers. Atmospheric stability depends on the temperature of the rising air and the
temperature of the surrounding air, i.e. it depends on the ability of air part that is
adiabatically moved upward to return to the starting position (stable state), remain in the
new position (neutral state), or continue to move upwards (unstable state). In a stable
atmosphere, air part at new position is denser and cooler than the surrounding air. In a
neutral atmosphere, air part at new position has the same density and temperature as the
surrounding air, while in the unstable atmosphere air part is rarer and warmer than the
surrounding air.
Adiabatic processes are processes with no exchange of energy between the observed air
part and environment. They have always been related to the upward/downward
movement regardless of whether they occur due to uneven heat (ground) or due to the
transfer of horizontal air flow over obstacles (mountains, forests, etc.). Adiabatic
processes in the atmosphere are adiabatic cooling of upward air currents and adiabatic
heating of downward air currents. They always refer to changes in temperature of dry
air part that is not saturated with vapor. When the air over one place is heated more than
the surrounding air, the warmer air expands and becomes lighter. Surrounding cooler air
pushes the warmer particles which begin to rise. As the temperature difference between
the rising air particles and the surrounding air becomes greater, the heated air will rise
faster. Situation is opposite for cold air descending. Similar phenomena can occur
during air currents passing over natural obstacles. As the warmer air expands while
moving upwards and compress while moving downwards without influx/loss of external
energy and due to density deference, it isn’t forced to interfere with air mass of the
atmosphere general circulation and it tends to remain apart. In such circumstances, there
is no difference in the amount of thermal energy between moving air and part of air
mass because of the very low thermal conductivity of the atmosphere. While moving
upwards (expanding) warmer air enters rarer environment, it becomes less compressed
by surrounding air and therefore it expands. The consequence is a temperature reduction
of warmer air. However, descending air enters the denser environment, compresses and
therefore heats up. Such air cooling while expanding and air warming while
compressing that occurs without loss/influx of thermal energy is called adiabatic
cooling and adiabatic heating. When dry or moist air (but not saturated with vapor)
adiabatically rises, its adiabatic temperature decreases by 1°C per 100 m of height rise.
Value reduction in air temperature by 1°C per 100 m height difference is called the
adiabatic temperature gradient.
Depending on the value of the vertical temperature gradient, the atmosphere can be in
one of tree equilibrium states: stable, unstable and neutral state.
Stabile atmosphere occurs when the vertical temperature gradient value is smaller than
adiabatic gradient, i.e. is smaller than 1°C/100m. Stability is especially pronounced in
the atmosphere with inverse temperature layers. In a stable atmosphere weak horizontal
flow and vertical downward flow can occur, but not the vertical upward airflow. Such a
case occurs in an anticyclone.
Neutral atmosphere state occurs when the vertical temperature gradient value is equal to
the adiabatic gradient, i.e. is equal to 1°C/100 m. In that state there are no requirements
for any airflow.
Unstable atmosphere state can be achieved in cases where the vertical temperature
gradient value is greater than the adiabatic gradient, i.e. is greater than 1°C/100 m. In
contrast to the previous state, in the unstable atmosphere vertical upward flows occur.
Such situation occurs in a cyclone.
The atmospheric conditions in software package SoundPlan 7.1 are determined by the
stability class from A to G. Classes A and upward gradually represent an unstable
atmosphere, to the class D, which describes the neutral atmosphere, while further
classes represent a stable atmosphere.
The sound signal attenuates while spreading through the atmosphere. The reason for this
is the non-homogeneity of air fluid and energy loss by absorption and scattering of air
molecules. The attenuation grows with higher sound frequency and with greater source
distance. These energy losses are smaller in the stabile atmosphere thus audibility is
better (e.g. in winter and at night). Therefore, the selection of a very stable atmosphere
is essential for worst case scenario of noise propagation.
Meteorological parameters
Basic indicators of atmospheric acoustics are the speed of sound and volume, i.e. sound
attenuation and intensification. Speed of sound is determined by the sound wave
distance traveled per time unit. The volume is determined by the amount of energy that
sound wave transfers per time unit to unit area perpendicular to its direction of
propagation. When a sound wave encounters an obstacle, the wave front deviates from
linear motion and recurve of the obstacles leading to the refraction of sound waves
yielding zones of silence and audibility. If the obstacle is large compared to the
wavelength of the sound wave, under the obstacle sound shadow or silence zone will be
formed. In the contrary this phenomenon will not occur. Air temperature, wind speed,
air pressure and the humidity are changing with height which affects the mode and
speed of sound propagation. The influences of these parameters on the noise
propagation are described separately below.
Temperature
Under normal conditions, when the air temperature decreases with height (Figure 1.),
the speed of sound reduces with height. As the biggest change occurs vertically, the
sound speed change is the strongest in that direction. During noise propagation from
source through a homogeneous atmosphere, in the normal case of sound refraction,
wave fronts are recurving upwards. Convex side wave fronts are facing the ground
(assuming flat and smooth surface) so that wave front closest to the ground separates
sound shadows zone, i.e. silence zone from the audibility zone.
Figure 1. Refraction of sound in air with normal temperature lapse [1]
However, during clear and calm nights, usually in the cold months, temperature
inversion (Figure 2.) can occur so that temperature increases with height. Also
temperature inversion can occur in any part of the year. In such a situation, during noise
propagation from source through a non-homogeneous atmosphere, wave fronts come
across inverse layer which recurve them toward the ground so that the convex side of
wave front is facing the ground. Thus disturbed waves interfere with one another
forming a zone of audibility, and then the sound is registered at much further distances.
Temperature inversion is a sign of very stable atmospheric conditions when the
inconveniences are almost impossible except in cases where the ascending currents are
so strong that they manage to break through the inverse layer that behaves like
impenetrable barrier. There is a distinct change in air density on the inversion border
because of the much rarer top layer. This situation can occur at any height above the
ground and near ground.
Figure 2. Refraction of sound in air with temperature inversion [1]
Wind direction and speed
Considering the sound refraction during wind speed change with height, the situation
depends on the angle that wind direction closes with the flow direction. The sound
speed increases downwind while it decreases upwind. Under normal conditions, when
the wind speed increases with height, wave fronts spreading upwind are recurving
upwards and wave fronts spreading downwind are recurving to the ground and thus
disturbed waves interfere with one another forming a zone of audibility. On the opposite
side, under the "obstacle", zone of sound silence is formed. If the wind speed decreases
with height, the situation is reversed.
Figure 3. Refraction of sound in air with wind speed U(h) increasing with altitude h [1]
Humidity and air pressure
Molecular relaxation is the most important mechanism by which acoustic energy is
absorbed by the atmosphere. High frequencies are absorbed more than low. The amount
of absorption depends on the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere. The Figure
4. shows the absorption variation with temperature and relative humidity. It can be seen
that the attenuation decreases with humidity increase (for humidity over 10%) while at a
temperature of about 20°C attenuation is approximately equal for different humidity,
around 3.5 dB/100m.
Figure 4. a) Frequency dependence of attenuation as function of relative humidity at 20°C
b) Attenuation as function of temperature for various percentages of relative
humidity
Humid air is actually less dense than dry air. This is due to the fact that dry air is
primarily composed of nitrogen and oxygen molecules, which have a molecular mass
grater then molecule of water. Therefore, a mole of dry air molecules weighs more than
a mole of relatively humid air molecules. Because the molar mass is less for humid air,
speed of sound increases as molar mass decreases. The amplitude of sound waves stays
larger for longer time in humid air. This is because energy is needed in order to move
the molecules in the air and propagate the sound. Less dense air (humid air) has less
mass to be moved in order to propagate the sound, and therefore less energy goes into
propagating the sound and more energy can remain in the form of the amplitude of the
wave.
During noise propagation calculation using computer program SoundPlan version 7.1,
no change is detect with air pressure modification.
For better results comparison, average values of meteorological parameters (except
wind) are used for different atmospheric stability. These values have been used: Air
temperature of 10°C, air humidity of 70% and air pressure of 1013,25 hPa.
Terrain and altitude influence
Besides the influence of atmospheric conditions on the spatial noise propagation there is
also significant influence of the observed area terrain configuration and its coverage
with substrate of specific absorption/reflective characteristics. In fact, a number of
morphological barriers can create an effective sound barrier that will reduce the noise
levels in the area as it will be the case, to a lesser extent, with soft and absorbing
substrates such as forests. Digital terrain model in the software package SoundPlan 7.1
is produced by entering the existing height of the observed area (height points and/or
lines) and it is calculated using the finite element method (FEM) dividing the area into
smaller pieces, i.e. triangles within which the calculation is done.
Figure 5. Digital terrain model in SoundPlan – finite elements method (FEM)
Obtained digital terrain model provides insight into the configuration of an existing area
through which the noise will expand. Display of it points to the morphological obstacles
that will potentially reduce noise levels in the surrounding settlements or whether the
noise levels will potentially increased within the basins in which reflection and mutual
superposition of sound waves will take place.
Figure 6. Digital terrain model (TIN)
Also, propagation of noise in the area is affected by altitude at which sources (wind
turbines) are located. As the sound source is located at a higher altitude its influence
will have greater reach. Altitude of surrounding populated areas it also very important.
Namely, if they are at a lower altitude than the surrounding areas, they may potentially
be protected by surrounding uplifts from major noise sources. Therefore, settlements
closest to the source do not necessarily have to be the most vulnerable to the noise.
Noise calculation methods
To demonstrate the influence of the meteorological situation on the spatial noise
propagation, two noise calculation methods have been used: ISO 9613-2 and
CONCAWE standard.
ISO 9613-2:1996 standard for industrial sound sources is legally prescribed by the
Ordinance on the method of preparation and content of noise maps and action plans and
on the method of calculating limit values of noise indicators (75/09). Therefore, the
calculation by aforesaid standard is used for the common calculation of noise within the
Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Calculation uses meteorological conditions
proscribed by the ISO 9613-2:1996 standard, and are focused on down the wind noise
propagation. From the source to the receiver wind direction is within 45° angle and the
wind speed in the range from 1 to 5 m/s. These parameters can‘t be changed as well as
the selection of atmosphere condition (stability classes).
CONCAWE standard isn’t prescribed by the Ordinance (NN 75/09) for noise
calculation and therefore is not used. But, calculating noise using this standard allows
for selection of the most unfavorable metrological conditions. Atmospheric conditions
are defined by stability classes which describe unstable, neutral and stabile atmosphere
(from A to G class). This also allows selection of the most unfavorable wind direction
and speed when taking surrounding settlements into account.
Noise calculations at characteristic points and noise maps, obtained by both methods of
calculation, have been made in the case of newly planned wind power plant during the
simultaneous operation of all wind turbines. Sound sources are wind turbines located at
95 meters above the ground, which are modeled as industrial point sources for which
the Ordinance on the method of preparation and content of noise maps and action plans
and on the method of calculating limit values of noise indicators (75/09) prescribes
standard ISO 9613-2:1996. For the worst case calculation of the spatial noise
propagation, using standard CONCAWE, very stable atmospheric conditions (class F)
and the most unfavorable wind direction of 9 km/h for the surrounding settlements have
been chosen. In these calculations, a 3D model of the terrain and the soft, i.e. absorbing
surface that represents the coverage of the terrain with high and dense forest, have been
used. The results are presented in the form of noise maps (Figure 7. and Figure 8.),
while individual noise calculation results at the characteristic points are shown in Table
2.
Results in the form of noise maps
For the purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study, using the software
package SoundPlan 7.1, noise maps for the planned new wind farm in Croatia have been
made.
Figure 7. Noise map for regular noise calculation (ISO 9613-2:1996 standard)
Satellite image of the observed area shows noise map (Figure 7.) obtained by the regular
calculation method for concurrent operation of all wind turbines. Dark green line
represents isophone (same sound level line) of 45 dB(A), which in this case, according
to Ordinance on the maximum allowed levels of noise in areas in which people live and
work (OG 145/04), was maximum allowed noise level. Black contours represent built
and unbuilt areas of the settlement that were taken from the respective Regional Plans.
Settlement areas closest to the planned project are marked by measuring points (T1 T18) in which additional noise calculations are performed (Table 2.). It can be seen that
noise levels in any settlement do not exceed allowed 45dB (A). It can also be seen that
the measurement point T16 is situated closest to the project (719 m southeast), but at
this position highest noise levels are not achieved, which is shown in Table 2. The
highest noise levels are achieved in the settlement represented by point T6, which is
about 100 farther, northwest from the project. Reason for this is the spatial noise
propagation dependence since wind turbines and the surrounding residential areas
located at different altitudes, and are surrounded by a different terrain configuration.
Noise map (Figure 8.) for the most unfavorable meteorological case (worst case) has
been made for an identical situation. It can be seen on the map that isophone have much
larger reach, i.e. wider area of influence. Position of 45 dB(A) is now much closer to the
surrounding settlements.
Figure 8. Noise map for worst case scenario (CONCAWE standard)
A more detailed insight at these changes in noise levels due to different meteorological
conditions will be described in the next section by analyzing the results of individual
noise calculations.
Results obtained by single point noise calculation
Additional noise calculations at characteristic points using regular method and most
unfavorable meteorological case, i.e. exceptionally stabile atmosphere and most
unfavorable wind direction (depending on the specific settlement) with wind speed of
9m/s have been made using the software package SoundPlan 7.1. Positions of
characteristic points T1-T18, which represent the surrounding settlements potentially at
risk from noise, are highlighted on noise maps (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Above results
show that the closest measurement point T16 isn’t most vulnerable. Specifically, at the
positions T5 and T6,
3 dB higher noise levels are achieved than the noise levels at
the closest point T16.
Table 2. Noise levels at the closest settlements during simultaneous operation
turbines
Regular
noise
Worst case, stable atmosphere and
Position calculation
wind of 9m/s NIGHT dB(A)
NIGHT dB(A)
30,1
33,0
T1
32,9
35,3
T2
35,6
39,2
T3
39,9
42,0
T4
42,2
44,9
T5
42,5
44,6
T6
36,4
38,3
T7
37,5
39,8
T8
38,6
40,9
T9
40,4
42,5
T10
41,3
43,1
T11
41,1
43,2
T12
39,7
42,4
T13
35,1
37,0
T14
40,5
42,8
T15
38,9
41,4
T16
40,9
43,5
T17
33,3
36,0
T18
of all wind
Difference
dB(A)
2,9
2,4
3,7
2,1
2,7
2,1
1,9
2,3
2,3
2,1
1,8
2,0
2,6
2,0
2,2
2,5
2,6
2,7
Results of noise calculations obtained through both methods show that the noise levels
have increased by 2-4 dB compared to the regular noise calculations. It can also be seen
that the greatest increases in noise levels are also spatially dependent due to the different
altitude of wind turbines and settlements, and field configuration of observed area.
Conclusion
A comparison of the noise level calculations obtained by regular method (prescribed by
Ordinance (NN 75/09)) and for worst case, i.e. exceptionally stabile atmosphere and
most unfavorable wind direction (depending on the specific settlement) with wind speed
of 9m/s been made. Results comparison shows noise increase of 2-4 dB compared to the
regular noise calculation, which represents a significant increase in noise levels.
Although the settlements closest to the source are considered most vulnerable, that isn’t
necessarily the case. Specifically, the positions of the source and receptor at different
altitudes and characteristics of the surrounding terrain and coverage of the terrain with
e.g. high and thick forest can further reduce the noise levels in the environment.
Although noise calculations for worst meteorological case are not legally required, it
shows different spatial sensitivity to noise. In fact, in real life it is often the case that
calculated noise levels are equal or lower than allowed levels but in the worst case
scenario noise levels can exceed allowed levels. But, the worst meteorological
conditions actually are not common. In this case they occur in less than 3% of the year,
which is practically negligible. This is the reason why worst case scenario calculations
are not legally required. However, after putting the project into operation, in our case,
wind power plant, noise monitoring must be established. Therefore it is very important
where the noise monitoring will be positioned to get the exact information if allowed
noise levels will be exceeded and if it occurs, what will be their frequency and duration.
Thus noise calculation for the worst case can provide good guidelines for the selection
of the most suitable measurement point locations for the establishment of noise
monitoring.
Literature
[1] Crocker M.J., Handbook of noise and vibration control, 2007. John Wiley &
Sons
[2] Cyril H., Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature, Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 40, p. 148.
Specifics of the environmental impact of biomass use in the cement
industry
Merica Pletikosi
CEMEX Hrvatska d.d., Cesta
([email protected])
dr.Franje
Tu mana
45,
Kaštel
Su urac,
Croatia
Abstract
Adaptation to climate changes determines new goals in the economy, and success
depends on the use of technologies which replace fossil fuels. The most effective way to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the cement industry is the use of alternative fuels
originating from biomass. Therefore, several procedures of reviewing the need for
environmental impact assessment/s were conducted in cement plants.
The aim of this paper was to determine, by energy recovery, the impact of using olive
pomace as an alternative fuel in the cement production process through the emission of
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, dioxins, furans and heavy metals, as
well as the comparison of the observed fuels’ calorific values in the production process
of cement company CEMEX Croatia.
In a sample of entities of 120 daily average emission measurements of carbon dioxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (60 days of measurement in which exclusively fossil fuel
was used - 30 days in 2011 and 30 days in 2012) and occasional measurements of
dioxins, furans and heavy metals, in addition to 60 days in which the amount of olive
pomace used was defined as an alternative fuel (30 days in 2011 and 30 days in 2012),
there was a statistically significant difference in defined clusters.
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed statistically significant differences in
CO2 emissions between clusters of measurements that used olive pomace and those
which did not, while emission values from other observed parameters also indicate
reduced emission levels, but do not show statistical significance.
All emissions results were compared with models and calculation balance emissions
from the procedure of environmental impact assessment.
Keywords: biomass/cement industry/energy recovery/greenhouse gases.
Introduction
Climate changes and reduction of biodiversity illustrate problems whose causes and
effects are distant in time and space. They have become a prominent global problem and
governments take significant steps in order to solve this problem. The speed in which
physical changes of the ecosystem occur leads to economic damages and new dangers
for human health and life quality (Batelle, 2002). For cement industry, aside from the
importance of environmental protection, the problem of climate changes also brings
serious financial consequences. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas that
induces global climate changes and it is the only greenhouse gas emitted by the cement
industry in significant quantity. The main reason for introducing alternative fuels in
CEMEX Croatia is meeting the law requirements of the Kyoto protocol related to
reduction of carbon dioxide emission. The reduction is achieved, according to the
measures defined by the Kyoto protocol for cement industry, by substituting fossil fuel
(which is the greatest CO2 emitter) with fuels derived from biomass, in accordance with
sustainable development principles. Liabilities of adapting to climate changes are the
goal, and measures for achieving that goal are alternative fuels. When Croatia became a
member of the European Union, requirements which are placed on industrial plants of
the member countries also became valid for Croatian industry and plants, including
cement producers. Obtaining the IPPC 30 or environmental permit and greenhouse gas
emissions permit is the most demanding requirements in terms of financial investments
in the cement industry. The environmental permit, i.e., integrated requirements of
environmental protection has the aim of preventing and controlling pollution from
industrial activities. Companies are required to meet the given criteria in certain
deadlines in accordance with the negotiations of the Croatian Government and the EU31.
The IPPC Directive is based on BAT 32 or Best Available Techniques which represent
the most efficient techniques or measures for preventing emissions into the environment
and which is also economically feasible or cost-effective for average installation.
Besides the environmental permit, industrial installations must obtain a permit for
greenhouse gas emission because in the negotiations Croatia agreed to accept The
European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) from 1 January 2013 – Post
Kyoto period, to 2020. Those required to obtain permits in cement industry will get a
certain number of allowances which may not be exceeded in a period of one calendar
year. A new rule in the Post Kyoto phase of emission allowance trading is the allocation
of emission rights to installations by auction buying, except for sectors that are subject
to carbon leakage. To such, emission allowances will be allocated for free based on
referent values. Referent values are lower than actual necessary emissions so
installations must invest into emissions reduction or buy emission allowances in the EU
ETS system. The greatest risk for business of CEMEX in Croatia, within the framework
of market risk, is the further reduction of construction activity in the markets and the
illiquidity of the overall economic system in the region. Due to the large production
capacities that are temporarily dormant and the inability of harmonizing the workforce
with the needs of the rigid legislation (Omazi MA, et al., 2012), the high costs which
include various fees on emissions into the environment burden the liquidity and
competitiveness in foreign markets and in the domestic market lose the battle with
import from countries that are not members of the EU, whose products are not burdened
with the same kind of environmental costs and fees33 and are more price accessible.
The aim of the study, research question and research hypotheses
The aim of this paper is to determine the impact of using olive pomace as an alternative
fuel in the cement production process as part of the system of energy recovery of waste
biomass through emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the
process of cement production in CEMEX Croatia by comparing defined emissions for
fossil fuels with emissions resulting from using olive pomace as an alternative fuel.
30
IPPC Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive – Directive of the
European union with the aim of preventing and controlling pollution from industrial
and agricultural activities
31
The Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (2012),
chapter III, Waste management, p.148
32
BAT (Best Available Techiques). Best Available Techniques for the Cement Industry
(2010). CEMBUREAU.
33
Regulation on unit charges, corrective coefficients and detailed criteria and
benchmarks for determination of the charge for carbon dioxide emissions into the
environment (NN 73/07, 48/09)
Olive pomace is considered a useful residue after olive oil production and it can be used
for different purposes: as an animal food additive (nutrition of domestic and wild
animals); as a natural organic fertilizer (olive pomace has a positive effect on soil
permeability and stability); as motor fuel in technological processes. Mediterranean
countries, as big olive oil producers, confirm the economic value of olive pomace, the
use of olive pomace as fuel («waste-to-energy»)34 due to the characteristics and caloric
value of olive pomace.
The question to be answered is the following: does the substitution of olive pomace as
biomass in relation to the basic fossil fuel (petroleum coke) achieve significant change
in emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the cement
production process using the example of CEMEX Croatia.
Based on the research aim and research question set, three hypotheses were defined:
1. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke leads to
significant reduction of CO2 greenhouse gas emission.
2. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke does
not lead to significant reduction of SO2 emission.
3. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke does
not lead to significant reduction of NO2 emission.
Material and methods
Entity sample
The sample of entities was defined by 120 daily measurements of average emission
values when olive pomace was used as an alternative fuel in CEMEX Croatia in plant
Sveti Juraj in Kaštel Su urac and it represents two random subsamples. The first cluster
includes 60 days of measurements in which fossil or basic fuel was used (30 days in
2011 and 30 days in 2012) and 60 days in which certain amount of basic fuel was
substituted with olive pomace as alternative fuel (30 days in 2011 and 30 days in 2012).
The daily quantity of olive pomace was 5 tons, which is 1.7% of fossil fuel substitution
and 0.8% of average energy substitution. The average daily consumption of fossil fuel is
296 tons.
Variable sample
The variable sample is represented by average daily values of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions according to the methodology of the European commission for calculating
emissions in accordance with the Kyoto protocol35; sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
compounds expressed as NO2 according to the values of continuous monitoring in
accordance with the Regulation36; and group criterion variable olive pomace/without
olive pomace.
Methods of data analysis
Methods of data analysis included the calculation of descriptive statistical parameters:
means (Mean) and standard deviations (Std. Dev) for each defined cluster and for group
daily measurements.
34
Applied Thermal Engineering.23. (2003).Disposal of by-products in olive oil
industry: Waste-to-energy solutions.
35
Regulation on the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions in the Republic of Croatia
(OG No. 01/07)
36
Regulation on limit values for pollutant emissions from stationary sources into the air
(OG No. 21/07, 150/08, 05/09)
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance of
CO2, NO2 and SO2 emissions in differentiating the defined subsamples and in doing so
the value of F-test and the level of significance p were calculated.
To determine the differences between average daily measurements in which olive
pomace was used as alternative fuel and daily measurements in which only fossil fuel
was used in the production process, canonical discriminant analysis was applied and the
following values were calculated: structure of discriminant function (DF), group
centroids, coefficient of canonical discrimination (CanR) and the level of significance p
(Petz B. 1997).37
The overall quantitative processing and analysis were performed by STATISTICA
Ver.10.00 software package.
Results and discussion
The results of descriptive statistics of CO2, NO2 and SO2 variables for the defined
subsamples and group daily measurements (120 days) are presented in Table 1.
On days when olive pomace was used as alternative fuel, mean for CO2 was
quantitatively defined by average daily clinker emissions value of 858.76 kg/t,
emissions value of SO2 was 11.62 mg/m3, whereas average daily emissions of NO2
measured were 679.62 mg/m3.
On days when only fossil fuel was used in the production process CO2 mean was
quantitatively defined by average daily clinker emissions value of 912.11 kg/t,
emissions value of SO2 was 14.00 mg/m3, whereas average daily emissions of NO2 were
709.38 mg/m3.
The analysis of distribution parameters indicates that SO2 and NO2 variables show no
significant deviations from normal distribution, except the CO2 variable, as expected,
but it has normal distribution within the defined subsamples, which means that all
variables are suitable for further multivariate statistical analysis. Testing of distribution
normality was performed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with critical value of 0.12.
By comparing the obtained average values with descriptive parameters in a pilot study
conducted by Pletikosi M. (2012) in CO2, SO2 and NO2 emissions on a random sample
of 30 measurements in 2010 and 2011 (15 days in which only fossil fuel was used in the
production process and 15 days in which olive pomace was used as alternative fuel),
somewhat lower values of CO2, SO2 and NO2 were measured on days when olive
pomace was used as alternative fuel, whereas on days in which only fossil fuel was used
CO2 and SO2 values were approximately the same, while NO2 value was discernibly
lower.
Table 1 Descriptive parameters of CO2, NO2 and SO2 variables in the space of fuel usage
in CEMEX Croatia
Clusters
CO2
SO2
CO2
Std.D
Means
Means
ev.
30 816.68 115.35 7.45
30 900.83 48.24 15.79
N
Olive pomace 2011
Olive pomace 2012
Without olive pomace
30 919.66
2011
37
43.55 11.28
SO2
NO2
Std.Dev. Means
NO2
Std.Dev.
4.31
0.54
704.31
654.93
35.89
22.55
9.54
748.91
74.33
Petz B. (1997). Osnovne statisti ke metode za nematemati are. Naklada Slap.
Jastrebarsko. [Basics of statistical method for non-mathematicians]
Without olive pomace
30 905.55
2012
Total:
Olive pomace 2011/12 60 858.76
Without olive pomace
60 912.11
2011/12
61.02 16.73
0.97
669.85
16.73
76.79 11.62
2.43
679.62
29.22
52.28 14.00
5.25
709.38
45.53
Legend:
N- the number of measurements;
Mean-arithmetic mean;
Std.Dev.-standard deviation.
By univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), a statistically significant difference was
found between the groups of measurements which used olive pomace and those that did
not, for CO2 emission with quantitative value of F-test F=23.64 and the level of
significance of p=0.00. The values of SO2 and NO2 emissions also indicate decreased
values of emissions, but no statistical significance (Table 2).
In her pilot study, Pletikosi M. (2012) found consistency of statistical significance in
CO2 emissions on a random sample of 30 measurements in 2010 and 2011 (15 days of
using only fossil fuel in the production process and 15 days in which olive pomace was
used as alternative fuel), whereas NO2 and SO2 had equally lower values but no
statistical significance.
Table 2 The results of univariate analysis of variance
CO2
SO2
NO2
F
23.64
1.22
2.45
p
0.00
0.42
0.21
Legend:
F - test- significance test;
P – level of significance.
Statistically significant differences were found by canonical discriminant analysis
between average daily measurements of CO2, SO2 and NO2 emissions during periods of
using and not using olive pomace as alternative fuel, with the coefficient of canonical
discrimination of 0.51 and the level of significance of p=0.00 (Table 3). Discriminant
function and group centroids clearly show the discriminant strength of average daily
values of CO2, SO2 and NO2 emissions on days when olive pomace was not used. The
CO2 variable has high 0.97 correlation with significant discriminant function and
contributes most to explaining it. Higher quantitative values are present in other two
variables in measurements in which only fossil fuel is used.
Table 3 The results of discriminant analysis of CO2, SO2, NO2 emissions and criterion
variable olive pomace/without olive pomace
Chi-Square
Tests
with
Successive
(m_pletikosi __Zadar_2013_matrix)
variables
DF
-0.97
CO2
-0.08
SO2
-0.39
NO2
Roots
Removed
Group_centroid_without
pomace
Group_centroid_olive pomace
CanR
Wilks' - Lambda
Chi-Sqr.
df
p-value
olive
-0.63
0.63
0.51
0.73
19.95
3.00
0.00
Legend:
DF – discriminant function;
CanR – coefficient of canonical discrimination;
p - value-level of significance.
Based on the aforementioned results, the hypotheses set in this study are fully confirmed
and accepted:
1. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke leads to
significant reduction of CO2 greenhouse gas emission.
2. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke does
not lead to significant reduction of SO2 emission.
3. The use of olive pomace as an alternative fuel in relation to petroleum coke does
not lead to significant reduction of NO2 emission.
Conclusion
The requirement of greenhouse gas emission reduction for cement industry, thus also
for CEMEX Croatia, represents a challenge in adapting to climate change because
efficient reduction can be achieved only by using alternative fuels from biomass. For
this purpose the company conducted the procedures of reviewing the need for
environmental impact assessment, obtained the necessary permits and built an
installation for olive pomace usage. In cooperation with olive oil cooperatives, oil mills
and communal services, CEMEX Croatia established the basics of gathering olive
pomace in order to make its management through energy recovery environmentally
acceptable, with contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The aim of this study was to prove, in a scientific manner by statistical parameters, the
reduction of CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels from biomass, in this case olive
pomace, in the process of cement production in CEMEX Croatia. Similar or the same
scientific or expert studies on olive pomace usage in greenhouse gas emission reduction
in cement industry have not been found, except for the study conducted by the author of
the present study (Pletikosi , 2012). Therefore, the results of this study represent a
significant step for future investigations and monitoring the possible contribution of
olive pomace to the problem of adapting to climate change in cement industry.
On a sample of entities of 120 average daily measurements of CO2, SO2 and NO2
emissions (60 days of measurements in which only fossil fuel was used - 30 days in
2011 and 30 days in 2012, and 60 days in which the defined quantity of olive pomace
was used as alternative fuel or substitution for fossil fuel – 30 days in 2011 and 30 days
in 2012), statistically significant differences were found in the defined clusters. Namely,
by univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), a statistically significant difference was
found in CO2 emissions between the groups of measurements that used olive pomace
and those that did not, with quantitative value of F-test F=23.64 and the level of
significance p=0.00. The SO2 and NO2 emissions values indicate the reduction of
emissions values, but no statistical significance.
By canonical discriminant analysis with the coefficient of canonical discrimination
(CanR) of 0.51 and the level of significance of p=0.00, statistically significant
difference was found between average daily measurements of CO2, SO2 and NO2
emissions in the space of using and not using olive pomace as alternative fuel.
Based on the aforementioned, the three hypotheses set in this study are fully confirmed
and accepted.
It is recommended for future investigations to, in addition to monitoring CO2, SO2 and
NO2 emissions, analyze emissions of dioxins, furans and heavy metals, as well as to
compare caloric values of the observed fuels, keeping in mind the fact that olive harvest
season lasts for about two months in a years.
Literature
[1] Andriantiatsaholiniaina L. A., V. S. Kouikoglou, Y. A. Phillis. (2004).
Evaluating in Strategies for Sustainable Development: Fuzzy Logic Reasoning
and Sensitivity Analysis. Ecol. Econ. 48 :149–172.
[2] Ba un D., Mateši M., Omazi A. (2012). Leksikon održivog razvoja. Hrvatski
poslovni savjet za održivi razvoj. Zagreb. [Lexicon of sustainable development.
Croatian Business Council for Sustainable Development]
[3] Battelle. (2002). Toward a Sustainable Cement Industry. An indepent study and
its Substudies. A Report commissioned by the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development. Geneva: WBCSD
[4] CEMBUREAU - Co - processing of alternative fuels and raw materials in the
European Cement Industry.2009
[5] Cifri I. (2009). Pojmovnik kulture i okoliša. Zapreši : VŠPU B.A.Kr eli .
Zagreb. [Glossary of Culture and Environment]
[6] Omazi M.A. et al (2012). Zbirka studija slu aja društveno odgovornog
poslovanja, HRPSOR, EFZG, Zagreb. [Collection of CSR case studies that
underlines best practices of corporate social responsibility in Croatia]
[7] Petz B. (1997). Osnovne statisti ke metode za nematemati are. Naklada Slap.
Jastrebarsko. [Basics of statistical method for non-mathematicians]
[8] Pletikosi M. (2012).Korištenje goriva porijeklom od biomase kao zamjenskog
goriva u procesu proizvodnje cementa u CEMEX Hrvatska d.d. Hrvatski
biološki kongres.2012. [The use of fuel derived from biomass as an alternative
fuel in the cement production process in CEMEX Croatia. Croatian Biological
Congress]
[9] Pollution prevention in olive oil production .Regional Activity Centre for
Cleaner Production.Mediterranean Action Plan.Ministry of Environment
Spain.2000.
[10]
Publication of CO2 price forecast (2011).Climate Economics Chair from
Blue Next and ICE ECX Futures
[11]
Refuse
Derived
Fuel.Current
Practice
And
Perspectives
(B43040/2000/306517 /MAR/E3).
[12]
Tafra-Vlahovi
M. (2011).Održivo poslovanje.Zapreši : VŠPU
B.A.Kr eli . Zagreb. [Sustainable business]
[13]
Tafra-Vlahovi M. (2011). Upravljanje krizom. Zapreši : VŠPU
B.A.Kr eli . Zagreb. [Crisis management]
[14]
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2001). Cleaner
Production Section. Cleaner Production – Key Elements: The definition of
Cleaner Production adopted by UNEP. Cleaner Production – Related Concepts.
[15]
UNEP. 1995. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Area Management with a
particular reference to Mediterranean Basin. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and
Studies No. 161. Nairobi: UNEP/MAP-PAP/RAC.
[16]
Regulation on greenhouse gas emission quotas and the method of
emission allowance trading (OG No. 142/08, 113/10)
Provedba na ela kombiniranog pristupa prema Okvirnoj direktivi o
vodama EU u postupcima procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš
Vesna Trbojevi 1, Dunja Bariši 1, Elizabeta Kos1
1
Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, Uprava vodnoga gospodarstva, Ulica Grada Vukovara
220 Zagreb, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Sažetak
Ovaj rad ima za cilj prikazati primjenu na ela kombiniranog pristupa prema Okvirnoj
direktivi o vodama EU prenesenog u zakonodavni okvir vodnoga gospodarstva koji je
potrebno primijeniti ve u postupku procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš za svaki zahvat
u prostoru za koji se ocjeni da ima utjecaja na stanje površinskih i podzemnih vodnih
tijela uklju uju i i prijelazne i priobalne vode.
Kombinirani pristup u na elu zna i da se ocjena utjecaja nekog zahvata u prostoru na
stanje voda utvr uje kombinacijom ocjene utjecaja zahvata na stanje vodnih tijela koji
su pod utjecajem toga zahvata primjenom standarda kakvo e voda i ograni avanjem
odnosno kontrolom emisija otpadnih voda koje se ispuštaju iz tog zahvata primjenom
standarda kakvo e efluenta. Pritom treba imati u vidu postizanje propisanih ciljeva
zaštite voda i vodnog okoliša. U slu aju da ograni enjem emisija otpadnih voda nije
mogu e posti i propisano stanje vodnog tijela koje je recipijent otpadnih voda potrebno
je propisati strože grani ne vrijednosti emisija odnosno poduzeti i druge mjere koje
moraju omogu iti postizanje najmanje dobrog stanja vodnog tijela-recipijenta ispuštenih
otpadnih voda.
Klju ne rije i: emisija otpadnih voda, kombinirani pristup, zahvat u prostoru, utjecaj na
stanje voda, recipijent
Uvod
Zaštita voda jedno je od najvažnijih podru ja upravljanja vodama, a provodi se na
temelju Zakona o vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 153/09, 63/11, 130/11 i 56/13), i
podzakonskih propisa iz podru ja upravljanja vodama i to:
- Uredbe o standardu kakvo e voda („Narodne novine“ br. 73/13),
- Uredbe o kakvo i vode za kupanje („Narodne novine“ br. 51/10) i
- Pravilnika o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda („Narodne novine“
br. 80/13),
te planskih dokumenata upravljanja vodama i to:
- Strategije upravljanja vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 91/08),
- Plana upravljanja vodnim podru jima („Narodne novine“ br. 82/13),
- Višegodišnjih programa gradnje vodnih gra evina i
- drugih detaljnih i godišnjih planova gradnje vodnih gra evina
Strategijom upravljanja vodama koja je donesena je 2008. godine utvr eni su misija,
vizija, dugoro ni ciljevi i zadaci državne politike u podru ju upravljanja vodama.
Jedan od najvažnijih dokumenata upravljanja vodama je Plan upravljanja vodnim
podru jima koji predstavlja temeljni planski dokument za provedbu integralnog
upravljanja vodama u Republici Hrvatskoj. Dokument se sastoji od osnovnog dijela te
od tri dodatka. Dodatak I se odnosi na Analizu zna ajki vodnog podru ja rijeke Dunav,
Dodatak II na Analizu zna ajki Jadranskog vodnog podru ja, a Dodatak III na izvješ e
o informiranju i konzultiranju javnosti u postupku donošenja Plana. Prate i dijelovi
Plana su registri vodnih tijela s njihovim zna ajkama i registri zašti enih
podru ja. Osim zna ajki vodnih podru ja Planom su odre eni i ciljevi zaštite voda i
vodnog okoliša te program mjera za postizanje planiranog stanja voda. Osobito se to
odnosi na mjere smanjenja one iš enja iz to kastih i raspršenih izvora, mjere zaštite
vodnih tijela iz kojih se zahva a ili se planira zahva ati voda za pi e te mjere održivog
korištenja voda. Zašti enim podru jima osim podru ja namijenjenih za zahva anje vode
za pi e smatraju se i podru ja voda pogodnih za život i rast školjkaša i život
slatkovodnih riba, vode za kupanje i rekreaciju, podru ja voda ranjiva na nitrate,
osjetljiva podru ja i podru ja voda koja su staništa biljnih i životinjskih vrsta za koje je
voda bitan element njihove zaštite.
S obzirom na to da se stanje voda utvr uje na temelju provedenog monitoringa voda
Planom je odre ena i mreža monitoring postaja za pra enje pokazatelja stanja
površinskih i podzemnih voda (uklju uju i i prijelazne i priobalne vode) te vrste
monitoringa koji se planiraju provoditi.
Prvi Plan upravljanja vodnim podru jima donosi se za razdoblje do kraja 2015. godine,
a donijela ga je Vlada Republike Hrvatske krajem lipnja 2013. godine.
Navedeni registri, koje vode Hrvatske vode, su temelj odnosno baza podataka o
zna ajkama vodnih tijela i njihovom stanju koje je ocijenjeno prema standardima
propisanim Uredbom o standardu kakvo e voda. Bez navedenih podataka o stanju
površinskih i podzemnih vodnih tijela (uklju uju i i prijelazne i priobalne vode) nije
mogu e primijeniti na elo kombiniranog pristupa u provedbi zaštite voda. Registri
vodnih tijela sadrže detaljne podatke o kemijskom i ekološkom stanju površinskih voda
te kemijskom i koli inskom stanju podzemnih voda te ostale podatke o stanju umjetnih i
znatno promijenjenih vodnih tijela i voda u zašti enim podru jima. Podaci iz registra su
dostupni svim zainteresiranim osobama, a mogu se dobiti na pisani zahtjev koji se
podnosi Hrvatskim vodama, Zavodu za vodno gospodarstvo. U pisanom zahtjevu
potrebno je navesti vodna tijela koja su pod utjecajem planiranog zahvata u prostoru za
koji se vodi postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš odnosno ona vodna tijela za koja se
traži obrada i dostava podataka iz registra. Pismeni zahtjev potreban je radi izrade
stru ne analize Hrvatskih voda stanja vodnih tijela koja su pod utjecajem zahvata po
elementima koji se obra uju u poglavlju „NA ELO KOMBINIRANIG PRISTUPA“
pod to kama 1., 2. i 3..
Ciljevi zaštite voda
Ciljevi zaštite voda su:
- postizanje najmanje dobrog ekološkog i kemijskog stanja svih tijela površinskih
voda
- postizanje najmanje dobrog koli inskog i kemijskog stanja svih tijela podzemnih
voda
- ispunjenje standarda kakvo e voda svih vodnih tijela u zašti enim podru jima
- sprje avanje pogoršanja ve postignutog stanja bilo kojeg vodnog tijela
površinske i podzemne vode
-
-
zaštita i o uvanje svih umjetnih i znatno promijenjenih tijela površinskih voda
radi postizanja dobrog ekološkog potencijala i dobrog kemijskog stanja
površinskih voda, a da se pritom ne ugrozi stanje drugih voda na istom vodnom
podru ju
postupno smanjivanje one iš enja površinskih voda prioritetnim tvarima i
specifi nim one iš uju im tvarima te prekid i postupno ukidanje emisija
prioritenih opasnih tvari
zaštita, o uvanje i obnavljanje podzemnih voda te osiguravanje ravnoteže
izme u crpljenja i prihranjivanja podzemnih voda te sprje avanje ili
ograni avanje unošenja one iš uju ih tvari u podzemne vode
S obzirom na to da se radi o vrlo ambicioznim ciljevima za postizanje kojih je potrebno
provesti program mjera zaštite voda iz Plana upravljanja vodnim podru jima koje
zahtijevaju vrijeme i osiguranje sredstava za pokrivanje visokih troškova provedbe,
jasno je da se planirani ciljevi zaštite voda ne e mo i posti i u prvom planskom
razdoblju do 2015. godine ve e ih se morati postizati postupno u vidu privremene
odgode postizanja ciljeva i to u najviše dva naredna planska ciklusa Plana upravljanja
vodnim podru jima.
Ako se utvrdi da je stanje vodnih tijela u Republici Hrvatskoj takovo da bi postizanje
navedenih ciljeva bilo tehni ki neizvedivo ili nesrazmjerno skupo dopušteno je posti i
manje stroge ciljeve, ali je iste potrebno uspostaviti Planom upravljanja vodnim
podru jima, a razloge detaljno obrazložiti.
Slijedom navedenog, navedeni ciljevi mogu se posti i samo primjenom kombiniranog
pristupa koji obvezuje na ispunjavanje oba standarda, i standarda recipijenta i standarda
efluenta.
Na elo kombiniranog pristupa
Primjena na ela kombiniranog pristupa na neki na in predstavlja novinu u operativnoj
provedbi zaštite voda u Republici Hrvatskoj. Naime, ovo na elo je proklamirano
Okvirnom direktivom o vodama EU i poznato je na na elnoj razini mnogim
sudionicima koji su u okviru svoje nadležnosti dužni provoditi zaštitu voda. Me utim,
iako je njegova primjena bila propisana Zakonom o vodama ve od 2010. godine,
na elo kombiniranog pristupa nije se operativno primjenjivalo jer je za njegovu punu
primjenu bilo potrebno stvoriti neke preduvjete. Prvenstveno se to odnosi na baze
odnosno registre podataka o stanju vodnih tijela u Republici Hrvatskoj koji su, kako je
naprijed navedeno, prate i dokumenti Plana upravljanja vodnim podru jima.
Do sada se zaštita voda provodila naj eš e i gotovo isklju ivo primjenom standarda
efluenta odnosno primjenom grani nih vrijednosti emisija otpadnih voda kada se radilo
o zahvatima u prostoru odnosno postrojenjima koja se mogu smatrati to kastim
izvorima one iš enja. Za raspršene izvore one iš enja kao što je poljoprivreda nije se
mogao primijeniti niti standard efluenta ve su se propisivale mjere dobre
poljoprivredne prakse za koje se pretpostavljalo da e dovesti do odgovaraju ih
rezultata odnosno da e sprije iti one iš enja voda uzrokovanih nitratima i drugim
tvarima poljoprivrednog podrijetla. Uz navedeno, analiziran je položaj zahvata u odnosu
na proglašene zone sanitarne zaštite izvorišta, pa je u odnosu na ograni enja propisana
za pojedine zone sanitarne zaštite ocjenjivana prihvatljivost toga zahvata na okoliš. Ako
provo enje konkretnog zahvata u prostoru nije Odlukom o zonama sanitarne zaštite
izvorišta bilo zabranjeno, provedba zahvata je bila dozvoljena uz primjenu mjera zaštite
voda i pra enje kakvo e ispuštenih otpadnih voda, a u rje im slu ajevima propisivalo se
i pra enje stanja vodnih tijela koja su bila potencijalno ugrožena. Navedeno pra enje
stanja provodilo se uglavnom na tijelima podzemnih voda.
Zakonom o zaštiti okoliša („Narodne novine“ br. 80/13) odredbom lanka 85. stavka 3.
propisuje se da Studija utjecaja na okoliš, za zahvat koji može imati utjecaj na vode,
mora uzeti u obzir zahtjeve sukladno posebnom propisu o vodama. U tom smislu Zakon
o vodama odre uje da se u postupku procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš ocjenjuje i
utjecaj zahvata na vode sa stajališta ciljeva zaštite voda kao i ispunjenje uvjeta koji se
odnose na odstupanja od postizanja ciljeva zaštite voda.
Kako je naprijed navedeno, uz cilj koji se odnosi na postupno smanjivanje one iš enja
površinskih voda prioritetnim tvarima i specifi nim one iš uju im tvarima te prekid i
postupno ukidanje emisija prioritenih opasnih tvari, ostali ciljevi zaštite voda odnose se
na postizanje odgovaraju eg stanja vodnih tijela kako je to planirano Planom
upravljanja vodnim podru jima.
Slijedom navedenog, ocjena stanja vodnih tijela koji su potencijalno pod utjecajem
nekog zahvata je osnova za utvr ivanje utjecaja toga zahvata na vode i u kona nici za
ocjenu prihvatljivosti toga zahvata za okoliš što je i zadatak Studije kao stru ne podloge
za provedbu postupka procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš.
Stoga se na elo kombiniranog pristupa u zaštiti voda treba, na odgovaraju i na in,
po eti primjenjivati ve u postupcima procjene utjecaja zahvata na okoliš odnosno ve u
najranijoj fazi ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata na okoliš. To zna i da se u Studiji utjecaja
na okoliš za konkretni zahvat, u poglavlju koje obra uje zna ajke utjecajnog podru ja
zahvata u odnosu na sastavnicu okoliša vode, treba dati analiza stanja vodnih tijela za
koje se pretpostavlja odnosno utvrdi da su pod utjecajem zahvata za koji se procjenjuje
prihvatljivost na okoliš. Dakle, nije dovoljno analizirati utjecaj provedbe zahvata na
vode samo u pogledu kakvo e efluenta odnosno kakvo e otpadnih voda koje e se
ispuštati iz budu eg zahvata u odnosu na propisane grani ne vrijednosti emisija
otpadnih voda prema Pravilniku o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda i
konstatirati da iste primjenom predložene raspoložive tehnologije ne e biti prekora ene.
Zadatak izra iva a Studije je da, osim analize kakvo e budu eg ispuštanja otpadnih
voda s podru ja zahvata u vode, izradi i analizu potencijalnog utjecaja zahvata na stanje
vodnog tijela površinske ili podzemne vode, uklju uju i i prijelazne i priobalne vode,
odnosno na utjecaj na stanje recipijenta sa stajališta ispunjenja ciljeva zaštite voda. Da
bi se navedena analiza izradila potrebno je znati postoje e stanje „potencijalno
ugroženog“ vodnog tijela prije poduzimanja zahvata. Podaci o postoje im stanjima
vodnih tijela vode se u Hrvatskim vodama, Zavodu za vodno gospodarstvo i mogu se
dobiti na zahtjev pozivaju i se na pravo na pristup informacijama.
Nakon utvr ivanja stanja vodnog tijela, analiziraju se potencijalni utjecaji koji bi mogli
nastati provedbom zahvata i dovesti do pogoršanja tog stanja. Utjecaji se analiziraju u
odnosu na elemente za ocjenjivanje stanja voda iz lanka 10. i 36. Uredbe o standardu
kakvo e voda i to:
1. za površinske vode ocjenjivanje stanja obavlja se na temelju njihovog ekološkog i
kemijskog stanja s tim da se:
a) ekološko stanje odre uje na temelju bioloških, hidromorfoloških i osnovnih
fizikalno-kemijskih i kemijskih pokazatelja koji prate biološke pokazatelje
b) kemijsko stanje odre uje na temelju pokazatelja kemijskog stanja koji se navode
u PRILOGU 5. Uredbe o standardu kakvo e voda (prioritetne tvari)
2. za podzemne vode ocjenjivanje stanja obavlja na temelju njihovog kemijskog i
koli inskog stanja
3. za umjetna i znatno promijenjena vodna tijela površinskih voda ocjenjivanje
stanja se obavlja na temelju elemenata onih prirodnih vodnih tijela koja su im
najsli nija odnosno na temelju njegovog kemijskog stanja i ekološkog potencijala
sukladno Uredbi o standardu kakvo e voda.
Postupak ocjene stanja navedenih vodnih tijela je relativno složen, a odre en je
Uredbom o kakvo i voda i za tu ocjenu su nadležne Hrvatske vode.
Kako bi se omogu ila primjena kombiniranog pristupa, Studijom je potrebno, na
temelju ocjene utjecaja zahvata na stanje voda u odnosu na opisane elemente, na
na elnoj razini procijeniti da li e provedbom predmetnog zahvata do i do trajnog i
nepopravljivog pogoršanja stanja odre enih vodnih tijela za koje se pretpostavlja da su
pod utjecajem zahvata ili se eventualno pogoršanje stanja vodnih tijela može sprije iti
ili ublažiti provedbom odgovaraju ih mjera zaštite voda. U drugom slu aju treba na
na elnoj razini procijeniti koje bi to mjere bile, a one e se u daljnjim postupcima
realizacije zahvata razraditi i detaljnije propisati.
Nadalje, potrebno je procijeniti i propisati opseg monitoringa stanja voda ako je
potrebno, dok je ispitivanje efluenta koji potje e iz zahvata obvezno. Opseg toga
ispitivanja se može detaljnije propisati i u dozvolama koje se izdaju u daljnjim
postupcima prema posebnim propisima ovisno o vrsti zahvata odnosno postrojenja ako
u vrijeme izrade studije još nema dovoljno podataka o sastavu otpadnih voda.
Slijedom naprijed navedenog, a s obzirom na složenost postupka, od izra iva a Studije
utjecaja na okoliš za zahvate koji mogu imati utjecaja na vode se zahtijeva da za obradu
poglavlja o stanju voda, utjecaju zahvata na vode, mjere zaštite voda i monitoring voda
angažira osobu koja u potpunosti poznaje navedenu problematiku, upu ena je u zahtjeve
koje nalaže Okvirna direktiva o vodama EU i ostale prate e vodne direktive, poznaje
Plan upravljanja vodnim podru jima kao i opseg podataka koji se mogu zatražiti iz
registara koje vode Hrvatske vode.
U nastavku se radi boljeg razumijevanja problematike prilaže primjer iz jedne Studije o
utjecaju na okoliš koja je u odre enoj mjeri primijenila kombinirani pristup. To su tek
po eci, ali se nadamo da e se s vremenom svi izra iva i upoznati s novim pristupom
zaštiti voda te da e navedena poglavlja u studijama utjecaja biti sve bolja.
Napominjemo da su neke od studija koje nisu primjenjivale kombinirani pristup zaštiti
voda u procesu kandidiranja projekata za financiranje iz EU fondova vra ene u ponovni
postupak.
Primjer koji se daje u ovom radu je iz Studije o utjecaju na okoliš za zahvat izgradnje
infrastrukture Luke Osijek, izra iva HIDROING d.o.o. iz Osijeka, sije anj 2013.
godine i upotrijebljen je uz dozvolu izra iva a.
Izvadak iz navedene studije.
Stanje vodnog tijela koje je pod utjecajem zahvata Izgradnja infrastrukture Luke Osijek
Ocjena stanja vodnog tijela
Lokacija Luke Osijek je smještena duž rijeke Drave uz vodno tijelo DDRN020001 koje
je punom dužinom nacionalno vodno tijelo. Osnovni podaci o karakteristikama vodnog
tijela sistematizirani su u narednoj tablici te je vodno tijelo grafi ki prikazano na slici
3.15.
Tablica 3.12. Osnovni podaci o karakteristikama vodnog tijela
Pokazatelj
šifra vodnog tijelaVodno podru je (River
district)Podsliv (sub-basin)-
Napomena
DDRN020001
basin
D
Vodno podru je rijeke Dunav
D
Podsliv Drave i Dunava
Nizinske vrlo velike teku ice s
pjeskovito
–
muljevitom
podlogom
Obveza izvješ ivanja prema
ICPDR
Tip-
T09A
Nacionalno/me udržavno
nacionalno
Neposredna slivna površina (km2)
43
Ukupna slivna površina (km2)
36.694
Dužina vodnog tijela (vodotoci
29.456
površine ve e od 10 km2) (m)
Ime vodotoka vodnog tijela-
Od toga u Republici Hrvatskoj
6.811 km2.
dužina pridruženih vodnih tijela
(vodotoka) površine manje od 10
km2 iznosi dodatnih 7.199 m
Drava
Slika 3.15. Vodno tijelo DDRN020001
Prema Planu upravljanja vodnim podru jima (Nacrt, Hrvatske vode, Studeni 2010. god.)
– Dodatak I. Analiza zna ajki vodnog podru ja rijeke Dunav, stanje voda opisuje se na
razini vodnih tijela. Ukupna ocjena stanja pojedinog vodnog tijela odre ena je njegovim
ekološkim i kemijskim stanjem za tijela površinske vode, ovisno o tome koja od dviju
ocjena je lošija. Promjene u stanju voda odražavaju kumulativni utjecaj ljudskih
djelatnosti na vodama i vodnom podru ju. Pojedini vidovi korištenja i optere enja voda
mogu na razne na ine utjecati na neke elemente kakvo e voda i dovesti do njihovoga
pogoršanja, a time i do pogoršanja ukupnog ekološkog i/ili kemijskog stanja.
Ekološko stanje vodnog tijela površinske vode izražava kakvo u strukture i
funkcioniranja vodnih ekosustava i ocjenjuje se na temelju relevantnih bioloških,
fizikalno-kemijskih i hidromorfoloških elemenata kakvo e. Prema ukupnoj ocjeni
elemenata kakvo e, vodna tijela se klasificiraju u pet klasa: vrlo dobro, dobro,
umjereno, loše i vrlo loše. Klju nu ulogu u ocjenjivanju imaju biološki elementi
kakvo e, ije vrijednosti su odlu uju e za svrstavanje u neku od klasa. Za svrstavanje u
vrlo dobro ekološko stanje, pored bioloških moraju biti ispunjeni i odgovaraju i osnovni
fizikalno-kemijski i hidromorfološki uvjeti. O pripadnosti dobrom ekološkom stanju
odlu uje se na temelju bioloških i osnovnih fizikalno-kemijskih elemenata kakvo e.
Kemijsko stanje vodnog tijela površinske vode izražava prisutnost prioritetnih i drugih
one iš uju ih tvari u površinskoj vodi, sedimentu i bioti. Prema koncentraciji pojedinih
zaga ivala, površinske vode se klasificiraju u dvije klase: dobro stanje i nije dostignuto
dobro stanje. Dobro kemijsko stanje odgovara uvjetima kad vodno tijelo postiže sve
standarde kakvo e za koncentracije prioritetnih i ostalih one iš uju ih tvari.
Pretpostavka za pouzdano ocjenjivanje i klasifikaciju stanja tijela površinskih voda je
sustavan monitoring kakvo e voda koji po broju i rasporedu mjernih mjesta, sadržaju
(pokazateljima koji se prate) i u estalosti, odgovara biološkoj, fizikalno-kemijskoj,
kemijskoj i hidromorfološkoj raznolikosti površinskih voda na vodnom podru ju.
Op e hidromorfološko i fizikalno-kemijsko stanje rijeka i jezera
Na temelju raspoloživih podataka nije bilo mogu e dati ocjenu ekološkog stanja rijeka i
jezera sukladnu normativnim definicijama iz važe e Uredbe o standardu kakvo e voda
jer nema potrebnih podataka o biološkim elementima kakvo e koji bi trebali imati
glavnu ulogu u klasifikaciji ekološkoga stanja. Izvršena je samo procjena op eg
hidromorfološkog i fizikalno-kemijskog stanja na temelju osnovnih hidromorfoloških i
fizikalno-kemijskih pokazatelja kakvo e koji podržavaju funkcioniranje ekosustava.
Procjena op eg hidromorfološkog stanja temelji se na dostupnim podacima za niz
hidromorfoloških elemenata kakvo e (koli ina i dinamika vodenog toka, veza s
podzemnim vodama, longitudinalni kontinuitet rijeke, lateralni kontinuitet rijeke,
kanaliziranje, varijacija širine i dubine rijeke, struktura i sediment dna rijeke, struktura
obalnog pojasa) koji su u tu svrhu prikupljeni i sistematizirani u Hrvatskim vodama. Za
svaki hidromorfološki element kakvo e izvršena je procjena hidromorfološke promjene
nastala uslijed fizi kih zahvata koji su evidentirani na pojedinom vodnom tijelu i, s
obzirom na veli inu te promjene, izvršena je klasifikacija stanja vodnog tijela prema
tom hidromorfološkom elementu. Op e hidromorfološko stanje vodnoga tijela odre eno
je najnižom od ocjena za sve obuhva ene hidromorfološke elemente kakvo e.
Procjena op eg fizikalno-kemijskog stanja temelji se na pojedina nim ocjenama za
etiri osnovna fizikalno-kemijska elementa kakvo e: BPK5, KPK, ukupni N i ukupni P.
Za svaki fizikalno-kemijski element kakvo e izvršena je ocjena stanja na temelju
rezultata nacionalnog monitoringa kakvo e voda za 2009. godinu. Za vodna tijela na
kojima nema mjernih postaja, stanje je procijenjeno interpolacijom, na temelju
izmjerenog stanja na najbližim mjernim postajama i prostorne distribucije relevantnih
to kastih i raspršenih izvora one iš enja na neposrednom priljevnom podru ju vodnoga
tijela. Op e fizikalno-kemijsko stanje vodnoga tijela odre eno je najnižom od etiri
ocjene za obuhva ene fizikalno-kemijske elemente kakvo e.
Ocjena op eg hidromorfološkog i fizikalno-kemijskog stanja izvedena je iz ocjene
op eg hidromorfološkog stanja i ocjene op eg fizikalno-kemijskog stanja i odgovara
nižoj od dvije pojedina ne ocjene.
ekološko stanje
Tablica 3.13. Procijenjeno stanje vodnog tijela prema Planu upravljanja vodnim
podru jima
granice
prema
stanje
pokazatelj
ocjena stanja Standardu kakvo e
voda
BPK5
dobro
4,0 – 7,0 mgO2/l
Kemijski
i
KPK - Mn
vrlo dobro
8,0 mgO2/l
fizikalnokemisjki
Ukupni N
vrlo dobro
3,0 mgN/l
pokazatelji koji Ukupni P
vrlo dobro
0,25 mgP/l
prate biološke Ukupno kemijski i
elemente
fizikalno – kemijski dobro
kakvo e
pokazatelji
40% - 60% - loše
stanje
hidromorfoloških
elemenata (varijacije
širine
i
dubine,
kanaliziranje
vodotoka, struktura i
sediment dna, struktura
obalnog pojasa) –
driveri: gra evine i
procjena
održavanje
plovnog
kumulativnog efekta
hidromorfološki
puta i gra evine i
gra evina obrane od loše
elementi stanja
održavanje gra evina
poplave i plovnog
za obranu od poplava
puta
Napomena:
- granica
dobrog
stanja je 20%
- tip T09A se smatra
umjereno do vrlo
osjetljivim
na
promjene
navedenih
elemenata.
2,5 – 3,0 umjereno
dobro
biološki
saprobni
indeks umjereno
granica dobrog stanja
dobro
elementi stanja (ocijenjen u to ki)
2,5
ekološko stanje
loše
kemijsko stanje
ne zadovoljava
Vodno tijelo je ocijenjeno kao tijelo pod rizikom nepostizanja dobrog stanja voda
(dobro stanje vrlo vjerojatno ne e biti dostignuto) i to prvenstveno zbog postoje ih
hidromorfoloških promjena, prisustva prioritetnih tvari te djelomi no zbog organskog
optere enja budu i da se na vodnom tijelu nalazi najve e gradsko podru je u hrvatskom
dijelu sliva rijeke Drave. Dakle, rije je o vodnom tijelu koje je u Planu upravljanja
vodnim podru jima proglašeno kandidatom za zna ajno izmijenjenu vodnu cjelinu zbog
postoje ih zna ajnih morfoloških promjena koje su rezultat održavanja plovnog puta, te
aktivnosti vezanih uz zaštitu od poplava. Ostali pokazatelji ekološkog stanja voda su u
granicama prihvatljivosti, dok kemijsko stanje voda ne zadovoljava zbog pove ane
koncentracije endosulfana.
Dalje u Studiji slijedi utvr ivanje pritisaka odnosno utjecaja na stanje vodnog tijela,
prijedlog mjera zaštite i prijedlog monitoringa voda što se zbog veli ine teksta ne može
prikazati.
Ovdje se radi o primjeru kod kojeg je dominantan utjecaj u vidu hidromorfoloških
promjena vodnog tijela zbog provo enja zahvata u prostoru.
Zaklju ak
Kombinirani pristup kao jedno od važnih na ela na kojem se temelji zaštita voda
sukladno Okvirnoj direktivi o vodama EU, sada kada je Republika Hrvatska punopravna
lanica Europske Unije, trebalo bi se po eti provoditi u praksi, a ne samo na strateškoj i
planskoj razini. To zna i da se ocjena utjecaja nekog zahvata u prostoru na stanje voda
utvr uje kombinacijom ocjene utjecaja zahvata na stanje vodnih tijela koji su pod
utjecajem toga zahvata primjenom standarda kakvo e voda i primjenom standarda
kakvo e efluenta. Ako stanje vodnog tijela koje je recipijent otpadnih voda zahtijeva
stroža ograni enja emisija iz zahvata u vode, tada se ta ograni enja moraju primijeniti. S
obzirom na to da propisivanje strožih uvjeta predstavlja za one iš iva a dodatne
troškove, potrebno je dokazati da je to nužno zbog ispunjenja ciljeva zaštite voda i
vodnog okoliša. Me utim, previ ene su i brojne mogu nosti odstupanja od postizanja
ciljeva zaštite voda u slu ajevima kako to propisuje Zakon o vodama, ali razlozi za ta
odstupanja moraju biti obrazloženi u Planu upravljanja vodnim podru jima.
Slijedom navedenog, primjena kombiniranog pristupa je relativno složena kako za tijela
nadležna za izdavanje dozvola po posebnim propisima koji ure uju kontrolu emisija u
vode tako i za ovlaštenike koji su dužni izra ivati Studije i stru ne podloge za izdavanje
navedenih dozvola. Naime, primjena tog na ela zahtijeva provedbu pripremnih radnji
odnosno pribavljanje odgovaraju ih podataka o stanju vodnih tijela, poznavanje
najboljih raspoloživih tehnika i njihovih mogu nosti kontrole emisija u vode, a posebno
poznavanje na ela propisanih Okvirnom direktivom i vodama EU i ostalih vodnih
direktiva, propisa iz podru ja upravljanja vodama te prakse vezano uz to iz drugih
zemalja lanica EU. Dakle, s dosadašnjeg analiti kog pristupa u smislu analize kakvo e
efluenta pojedina nog zahvata u prostoru treba postupno prije i na sveobuhvatni pristup
zaštiti voda imaju i u vidu kumulativni u inak svih postoje ih i planiranih one iš enja
na stanje vodnog tijela.
Literatura
[1] Direktiva 2000/60/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vije a od 23. listopada 2000. o
uspostavi okvira za djelovanje Zajednice u podru ju vodne politike (Okvirna
direktiva o vodama) (SL L 327, 22.12.2000.),
[2] Zakon o vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 153/09, 63/11, 130/11 i 56/13),
[3] Uredba o standardu kakvo e voda („Narodne novine“ br. 73/13),
[4] Pravilnika o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda („Narodne novine“
br. 80/13),
[5] Strategije upravljanja vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 91/08),
[6] Plana upravljanja vodnim podru jima („Narodne novine“ br. 82/13),
[7] Studija utjecaja na okoliš za zahvat izgradnje infrastrukture Luke Osijek,
izra iva HIDROING d.o.o. iz Osijeka, sije anj 2013. godine
Application of the combined approach principle according to the EU
Water Framework Directive in environmental impact assessment
Vesna Trbojevi 1, Dunja Bariši 1, Elizabeta Kos1
1
Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management Directorate, Ulica grada Vukovara 220, Zagreb,
Croatia ([email protected])
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present the application of the combined approach
principle according to the EU Water Framework Directive transposed into the legal
framework of water management. The principle has to be applied already in the process
of environmental impact assessment for any project assessed as having effect on the
status of bodies of surface water and groundwater, including transitional and coastal
waters.
In principle, a combined approach means that assessment of impact of a project on the
status of water is identified by combining assessment of the impact of the project on the
status of water bodies which are under its impact by applying the water quality
standards and restriction or control of emissions of wastewater discharged as the result
of such project by applying the effluent quality standards. In that process, achievement
of the required objectives for the protection of water and the aquatic environment
should be taken into account. If the required status of the water body receiving
wastewater cannot be achieved by restricting wastewater emissions, it is necessary to set
stricter emission limit values or take other measures which have to facilitate
achievement of at least good status of the water body receiving discharged wastewater.
Keywords: wastewater emission, combined approach, project, impact on the status of
water, receiving body
Introduction
Water protection is one of the most important areas of water management. It is
implemented on the basis of the water act (official gazette 153/09, 63/11, 130/11, 56/13)
and subordinate legislation in the field of water management:
- Regulation on water quality standards (official gazette 73/13),
- Regulation on bathing water quality (official gazette 51/10) and
- Ordinance on limit values of wastewater emissions (official gazette 80/13),
And water management planning documents:
- Water management strategy (official gazette 91/08),
- River basin management plan (official gazette 82/13),
- Long-term programmes for construction of hydraulic structures and
- Other detailed and annual plans for construction of hydraulic structures.
The Water Management Strategy, adopted in 2008, defines the mission, vision, longterm goals and tasks of the national water management policy.
One of the most important water management documents is the River Basin
Management Plan (RBMP), which is the basic planning document for integrated water
management in the Republic of Croatia. The RBMP consists of the primary section and
three annexes. Annex I refers to the Analysis of Characteristics of the Danube River
Basin District, Annex II to the Analysis of Characteristics of the Adriatic River Basin
District, and Annex III to a report on public information and consultation in the RBMP
adoption process. The supporting parts of the RBMP are the registers of water
bodies including their characteristics and the registers of protected areas. In
addition to the characteristics of the river basin districts, the RBMP also defines the
protection objectives for water and the aquatic environment and a programme of
measures to achieve the planned water status. This refers particularly to the measures to
reduce pollution from point and disperse sources, the protection measures for the water
bodies from which drinking water is abstracted or planned to be abstracted, and the
measures for sustainable water use. In addition to the areas designated for the
abstraction of water intended for human consumption, the protected areas also include
the waters supporting shellfish life and growth and freshwater fish life, bathing and
recreation areas, nitrate-vulnerable areas, sensitive areas and areas which are habitats of
plant and animal species where water is an important factor in their protection.
Since the water status is defined on the basis of implemented water monitoring, the
RBMP also defines a network of surface water and groundwater monitoring stations
(including transitional and coastal waters) and the types of monitoring planned.
The first River Basin Management Plan, which applies in the period until the end of
2015, was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia at the end of June
2013.
The above registers, which are kept by Hrvatske vode (national water management
authority), are databases of water body characteristics and status of water bodies, with
the latter evaluated according to the standards laid down by the Regulation on water
quality standards. Without such data on the status of surface water and groundwater
bodies (including transitional and coastal waters) it is not possible to apply the
combined approach principle in water protection. The registers of water bodies contain
detailed data on the chemical and ecological status of surface water bodies and on the
chemical and quantitative status of groundwater bodies, as well as other data on the
status of artificial and heavily modified water bodies and water in the protected areas.
The data from the registers are available to all interested parties and can be obtained by
submitting a written request to Hrvatske vode, Water Management Institute. The written
request shall specify the water bodies which are under the impact of the planned project
for which environmental impact assessment is made, i.e. those water bodies for which
the analysis and submission of data from the register is requested. The written request is
required for the purpose of Hrvatske vode making an expert analysis of the status of
water bodies which are under the impact of a project according to the elements
addresses in the chapter “COMBINED APPROACH PRINCIPLE”, sections 1, 2 and 3.
Water protection objectives
The water protection objectives are the following:
- Achieve at least good ecological and chemical status of all surface water bodies;
- Achieve at least good quantitative and chemical status of all groundwater
bodies;
- Meet the water quality standards of all water bodies in the protected areas;
-
Prevent deterioration of the already achieved status of any surface water and
groundwater body;
Protect and preserve all artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies in
order to achieve good ecological potential and good surface water chemical
status without putting at risk other water bodies in the same river basin district;
Progressively reduce surface water pollution by priority substances and specific
pollutants and cease and phase-out emissions of priority dangerous substances;
Protect, enhance and restore groundwater and ensure a balance between
abstraction and recharge of groundwater and prevent or limit the input of
pollutants into groundwater.
As these are very ambitious objectives the achievement of which requires the
implementation of the programme of water protection measures under the RBMP,
which requires time and funds to cover the high implementation costs, it is clear that it
will not be possible to meet the planned water protection objectives in the first planning
period ending with the year 2015 and that they will have to be achieved progressively
through temporary extensions, in at the most next two RBMP planning cycles.
If it is identified that the status of water bodies in Croatia is such that the achievement
of the above objectives would not be technically feasible or would entail
disproportionate costs, the achievement of less stringent objectives is allowed, but these
have to be established in the RBMP and the reasons explained in detail.
Consequently, the above objectives can be achieved only by applying the combined
approach principle which requires the fulfilment of both standards – the receiving water
body standard and the effluent standard.
Combined approach principle
In a way, the application of the combined approach principle is a novelty in the
operational application of water protection in Croatia. This principle is specified by the
EU Water Framework Directive and many people charged with water protection are
generally familiar with it. However, even though its application had been required by
the Water Act back in 2010, it wasn’t applied operationally as its full application
required certain preconditions. This refers particularly to databases or registers of data
on the status of water bodies in the Republic of Croatia which are, as already
mentioned, the supporting documents to the River Basin Management Plan.
So far, water protection was done most often and almost exclusively by applying the
effluent standard, i.e. by applying the limit values of wastewater emissions in case of
projects or plants which can be considered as point sources of pollution. For disperse
sources of pollution such as agriculture not even the application of the effluent standard
was possible. Instead, the measures of good agricultural practice were laid down for
which it was assumed they would lead to relevant results, i.e. that they would prevent
the pollution of water by nitrates and other substances from agricultural sources. In
addition to that, the location of the project in relation to the designated water source
protection zones was analysed and the environmental acceptability of such project was
assessed in relation to the limits set for particular water source protection zones. If the
implementation of the specific project wasn’t forbidden by the Decision on sanitary
water source protection zones, its implementation was allowed provided that the water
protection measures are taken and the quality of discharged wastewater monitored. On
rare occasions, the monitoring of the water bodies that were potentially at risk was also
required. Such monitoring was conducted mostly for groundwater bodies.
Article 85, paragraph 3 of the Environmental Protection Act (Official Gazette 80/13)
lays down that an environmental impact study for the project with a potential impact on
water needs to take into account the requirements under a special piece of legislation on
water. In that sense, the Water Act lays down that during environmental impact
assessment of a project, its impact on water shall also be assessed in relation to water
protection objectives, as well as the fulfilment of the requirements concerning
deviations from the achievement of water protection objectives.
As mentioned above, in addition to the objective of progressively reducing surface
water pollution by priority substances and specific pollutants and ceasing and phasing
out of emissions of priority dangerous substances, other water protection objectives
refer to the achievement of the relevant status of water bodies as foreseen by the RBMP.
Consequently, the assessment of the status of water bodies potentially under the impact
of a project is the basis for identifying the impact of that project on water and, in the
end, for assessing its environmental acceptability. This is at the same time the task of
the Environmental Impact Study as a technical background document for environmental
impact assessment of a project.
Hence, the application of the combined approach principle in water protection shall, in
an appropriate way, start already during environmental impact assessment, i.e. already
in the initial phase of appropriate assessment. This means that an Environmental Impact
Study for a specific project shall, in the chapter dealing with the characteristics of the
area under project impact with regard to water as an environmental component, give an
analysis of the status of water bodies assumed to be or identified as being under the
impact of the project subject to appropriate assessment. So, it is not sufficient to analyse
the impact of project implementation on water only in terms of the effluent quality, i.e.
the quality of wastewater to be discharged from a future structure in relation to the
required limit value of wastewater emissions under the Ordinance on limit values of
wastewater emissions and state that these will not be exceeded by applying the proposed
available technology.
The author preparing the Study shall, in addition to analysing the quality of the future
discharge of wastewater from the project area into water, also analyse the potential
project impact on the status of a surface water or groundwater body, including
transitional and coastal waters, i.e. its impact on the status of the receiving water body
from the aspect of achieving the water protection objectives. In order to make such an
analysis, the current status of a water body “potentially at risk” shall be known before
implementing the project. The data on the current statuses of water bodies are kept by
Hrvatske vode, Water Management Institute, and are available at request referring to the
right to access information.
Once the water body status is defined, the potential impacts that might be caused by
project implementation and lead to status deterioration are analysed. The impacts are
analysed in relation to the elements for water status assessment under Articles 10 and 36
of the Regulation on water quality standards, as follows:
1. For surface water bodies, the status is assessed on the basis of their ecological and
chemical status, with:
a) The ecological status identified on the basis of biological,
hydromorphological and basic physical-chemical and chemical indicators
supporting the biological indicators;
b) The chemical status identified on the basis of the chemical status indicators
specified in ANNEX 5 to the Regulation on water quality standards (priority
substances);
2. For groundwater bodies, the status is assessed on the basis of their chemical and
quantitative status;
3. For artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies, the status is assessed on
the basis of the elements of those natural water bodies which resemble them the
most, i.e. on the basis of the chemical status and ecological potential under the
Regulation on water quality standards.
The procedure of assessing the status of the above-mentioned water bodies is relatively
complex and is defined by the Regulation on water quality standards. It is the
responsibility of Hrvatske vode.
In order to enable the application of the combined approach, the Study shall, based on
the assessment of the project’s impact on the status of water in relation to the described
elements, on a general level assess whether the implementation of the project will lead
to permanent and irreversible deterioration of the status of particular water bodies
assumed to be under the impact of the project or whether potential status deterioration
can be prevented or mitigated by taking the appropriate water protection measures. In
the latter case, it is necessary to assess, on a general level, what measures these might
be. They will then be elaborated and specified in more detail in subsequent steps of
implementation.
Furthermore, the scope of water monitoring shall be assessed and specified when
needed, whereas the analysis of the effluent which is the result of the project is
mandatory. The scope of such analysis can be specified in more detail in the permits
issued in subsequent procedures under specific regulations depending on the type of the
project or plant if at the time of preparing the study there is still not enough data on the
composition of wastewater.
Consequently, due to the complexity of the procedure, the authors preparing
Environmental Impact Studies for the projects that might have impact on water are
required to hire, for the chapter on water status, project’s impact on water, water
protection measures and water monitoring, a person who is fully versed in such topics,
is familiar with the requirements imposed by the EU WFD and other associated waterrelated directives, is familiar with the RBMP as well as with the scope of data that can
be requested from the registers kept by Hrvatske vode.
For better understanding of this issue, an excerpt from an Environmental Impact Study
in which the combined approach was applied to a certain extent is copied. These are
only the beginnings, but we hope that with time all EIS authors will be familiar with the
new approach to water protection and that the relevant chapters in environmental impact
studies will improve in quality. It is important to note that some of the studies submitted
as part of project applications for EU co-financing in which the combined approach to
water protection was not applied were returned for revision.
The paper gives an example from the Environmental Impact Study for the Osijek Port
Infrastructure Construction Project, prepared by HIDROING d.o.o. Osijek in January
2013. It is used with their permission.
Excerpt from the Study follows below.
Status of the water body under the impact of the Osijek Port Infrastructure Construction
Project
Water body status assessment
The Osijek Port lies along the Drava River next to water body DDRN020001 which is a
national water body in its full length. The basic data about the characteristics of the
water body are systematized in the table below. The water body is presented on a map
in Figure 3.15.
Table 3.12. Basic data about water body characteristics
Indicator
Note
Water body codeDDRN020001
River basin districtD
Danube River Basin District
Sub-basinD
Drava and Danube sub-basin
Very large lowland rivers with
TypeT09A
sand-mud substrate
National/Interstate
National
ICPDR reporting obligation
2
Direct catchment area (km )
43
2
Total catchment area (km )
36,694
Of which 6,811 km2 in Croatia
The length of associated water
bodies (watercourses) less than
Water body length (watercourses
29,456
10 km2 in size is additional
exceeding 10 km2 in area) (m)
7,199 m
Name of water body watercourse- Drava
Figure 3.15. Water body DDRN020001
According to the River Basin Management Plan (Draft, Hrvatske vode, November
2010) – Annex I Analysis of Characteristics of the Danube River Basin District, the
water status is described on the level of water bodies. The overall assessment of the
status of a particular water body is defined by its ecological and chemical status for
surface water bodies, depending on which of the two is poorer. Modifications in the
water status reflect a cumulative impact of human activities on water and in the river
basin district. Individual aspects of water use and loads may impact some of the water
quality elements in different ways and lead to their deterioration, and hence to the
deterioration of the overall ecological and/or chemical status.
The ecological status of a surface water body expresses the quality of the structure and
functioning of aquatic ecosystems and is assessed on the basis of the relevant biological,
physical-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. On the basis of the overall
assessment of quality elements, water bodies are classified into five classes: high, good,
moderate, poor and bad. The key role in the assessment is played by the biological
quality elements, the values of which are crucial for the classification into one of the
classes. In order to be classified as high ecological status, in addition to biological
conditions, appropriate basic physical-chemical and hydromorphological conditions also
need to be met. Good ecological status depends on the biological quality elements and
the basic physical-chemical quality elements.
The chemical status of a surface water body expresses the presence of priority
substances and other pollutants in surface water, sediment and biota. On the basis of the
concentration of individual pollutants, surface water bodies are classified into two
classes: “good status” and “good status not achieved”. Good chemical status
corresponds to the conditions when a water body meets all the quality standards for the
concentrations of priority substances and other pollutants.
A precondition for reliable assessment and classification of surface water bodies is
systematic water quality monitoring which in terms of the number and distribution of
monitoring points, the content (monitored indicators) and frequency corresponds to
biological, physical-chemical, chemical and hydromorphological diversity of surface
waters in the river basin district.
General hydromorphological and physical-chemical status of rivers and lakes
On the basis of available data it was not possible to assess the ecological status of rivers
and lakes according to the normative definitions of the relevant Regulation on water
quality standards since there is no necessary data about the biological quality elements
which are supposed to play a key role in ecological status classification. It was only the
assessment of the general hydromorphological and physical-chemical status that was
made on the basis of the basic hydromorphological and physical-chemical quality
indicators supporting ecosystem functioning.
Assessment of the general hydromorphological status is based on available data for a
number of hydromorphological quality elements (quantity and dynamics of water flow,
connection to groundwater bodies, longitudinal river continuity, lateral river continuity,
channelization, river depth and width variation, structure and substrate of the river bed,
structure of the riparian zone), which were for that purpose collected and systematized
by Hrvatske vode. For each hydromorphological quality element, the
hydromorphological alteration caused by physical interventions recorded in a particular
water body was assessed. The water body status was classified based on the extent of
such alteration. The general hydromorphological status of the water body is defined by
the lowest of the values for all the hydromorphological quality elements covered.
The general physical-chemical status is assessed on the basis of individual assessments
for the four basic physical-chemical quality indicators: BOD5, COD, total N and total P.
For each physical-chemical quality element, the status was assessed on the basis of the
results of national water quality monitoring for the year 2009. For the water bodies on
which there are no monitoring stations, the status was assessed by interpolation, on the
basis of the status recorded at the nearest monitoring stations and the spatial distribution
of the relevant point and disperse sources of pollution in the direct catchment area of the
water body. The general physical-chemical status of the water body is defined by the
lowest of the four scores for the physical-chemical quality indicators covered.
The assessment of the general hydromorphological and physical-chemical status is
derived from the assessment of the general hydromorphological status and the
assessment of the general physical-chemical status and corresponds to the lower of these
two individual assessment values.
Ecological status
Table 3.13. Water body status assessed according to the River Basin Management Plan
Limit values under
Status
Regulation on water
Status
Indicator
assessment
quality standard
BOD5
Good
4.0 – 7.0 mgO2/l
COD
Mn
High
8.0 mgO2/l
Chemical
and
physical-chemical
Total N
High
3.0 mgN/l
indicators
Total P
High
0.25 mgP/l
supporting
Overall chemical
biological
quality and
physicalGood
elements
chemical
indicators
40% - 60% - poor
status
of
hydromorphological
elements (depth and
width
variation,
watercourse
channelization,
structure
and
substrate of the river
bed, structure of the
riparian
zone)
–
Assessment of the
drivers:
waterway
cumulative effect
structures
and
Hydromorphological
of flood defence Poor
maintenance
and
status elements
and
waterway
structures and flood
structures
defence
structures
and their maintenance
Note:
- Good status limit
20%
- T09A type is
deemed
moderately
to
very sensitive to
the changes of
these elements
2.5 – 3.0 moderate
Biological
status Saprobity
index
Moderate
Good status limit 2.5
elements
(assessed at a
point)
Ecological status
Chemical status
Poor
Not
compliant
The water body was assessed as being at risk of failing to achieve good water status (it
is highly likely that good status will not be achieved) primarily due to the existing
hydromorphological alterations, the presence of priority substances and partly due to
organic pollution, since the largest urban area in the Croatian part of the Drava River
basin lies on that water body. That means that this is a water body which was in the
River Basin Management Plan designated as a candidate for a heavily modified water
body due to existing significant morphological alterations which are the result of
waterway maintenance activities and of activities related to flood defence. Other
ecological status indicators are within the acceptable limits, while the chemical water
status is not compliant due to an increased endosulphane concentration.
The Study then identifies the pressures or impacts on the status of the water body, gives
a proposal of protection measures and a proposal of water monitoring, which cannot be
presented here because of the limited space.
This is an example of a dominant impact in the form of hydromorphological alterations
to the water body caused by project implementation.
Conclusion
Now that Croatia is a full EU Member State, the combined approach, as one of the
principles on which water protection under the Water Framework Directive is based,
should be applied in practice, and not be applied any longer only on strategic and
planning levels. This means that the impact of a project on the status of water is
assessed by combining the assessment of the impact of the project on the status of water
bodies which are under its impact by applying the water quality standards and by
applying the effluent quality standards. If the status of the water body receiving the
wastewater requires stricter restrictions of emissions into water, then such restrictions
shall be applied. Since the setting of stricter conditions represents additional costs for
the polluter, it is necessary to prove that this is required in order to meet the water and
aquatic environment protection objectives. Still, the Water Act specifies cases in which
a number of possibilities for exemptions from the achievement of water protection
objectives are foreseen. The reasons for such exemptions shall be justified in the
RBMP.
Consequently, the application of the combined approach is relatively complex both for
the authorities in charge of issuing the permits under special regulations regulating the
control of emissions to water and for the people charged with the preparation of studies
and background documents for obtaining the above permits. The application of this
principle requires the implementation of preparatory activities, i.e. obtaining the
relevant data on the status of water bodies, knowledge of the best available techniques
and their possibilities to control emissions into water, and in particular the knowledge of
the principles laid down by the EU Water Framework Directive and other water-related
directives, regulations in the field of water management and the practice in other EU
Member States. Hence, it is necessary to gradually move from the analytical approach
to analysing the quality of effluent to a comprehensive approach to water protection
having in mind the cumulative impact of all existing and planned pollution on the water
body status.
Literature
[1] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy (Water Framework Directive) (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.),
[2] Zakon o vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 153/09, 63/11, 130/11 i 56/13),
[3] Uredba o standardu kakvo e voda („Narodne novine“ br. 73/13),
[4] Pravilnika o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda („Narodne novine“
br. 80/13),
[5] Strategije upravljanja vodama („Narodne novine“ br. 91/08),
[6] Plana upravljanja vodnim podru jima („Narodne novine“ br. 82/13),
[7] Studija utjecaja na okoliš za zahvat izgradnje infrastrukture Luke Osijek,
izra iva HIDROING d.o.o. iz Osijeka, sije anj 2013. godine
Kriteriji toplinskog optere enja vodotoka
Niko Malbaša1, Veronika Tomac1
1
Ekonerg, Koranska 5, Zagreb, Hrvatska,([email protected])
Sažetak
Jedna od glavnih tema po etnih inicijativa u zaštiti okoliša u 70-tim godinama prošlog
stolje a bili su problemi u vezi s toplinskim optere enjem voda (mora) uzrokovani
naglim porastom broja velikih (uglavnom nuklearnih) elektrana u SAD-u, a kasnije i u
drugim dijelovima svijeta.
U skladu s tim razvijala se postupno i regulativa u vezi sa zaštitom od toplinskog
optere enja temeljena i na vrlo opsežnim i kompleksnim istraživanjima.
S obzirom da je u to doba Hrvatska skupa sa Slovenijom ve pripremala izgradnju
Nuklearne elektrane Krško, a u planu je bila i druga zajedni ka elektrana u Hrvatskoj i u
nas se problematika toplinskog optere enja istraživala ve u tim ranim fazama, a
postupno se stvorila i odgovaraju a pozicija u regulativi u vezi s tim.
Me utim, kako se nuklearni program nije nastavio, a u posljednjih tridesetak godina
pušteno je u rad svega nekoliko manjih termoenergetskih objekata regulativa se na
ovom podru ju do nedavno nije razvijala, odnosno bila je manjkava i nepotpuna, a i
danas postoje odre ene neuskla enosti u odnosu na uobi ajenu praksu što može izazvati
probleme i nesporazume pri licenciranju objekata koji se koriste proto nim sustavom
hla enja.
U lanku se daje prikaz glavnih parametara koji se uobi ajeno reguliraju, opisuje se EU
praksa i regulativa u vezi s ovim problemom, daje prikaz stanja na doma im
termoelektranama te prijedlog kriterija prilago en našim specifi nim uvjetima.
Prezentiraju se i mogu e osnovne mjere zaštite okoliša u vezi s toplinskim
optere enjem.
lanak e pomo i u rješavanju problema zaštite okoliša u studijama o utjecaju na okoliš
u kojima se pojavljuje problem toplinskog optere enja vodotoka.
Klju ne rije i: proto ni rashladni sustavi, kriteriji toplinskog
termoelektrane, utjecaj proto nih rashladnih sustava na okoliš
optere enja,
Uvod
Jedna od glavnih zna ajki rada termoelektrana je što je potrebno da velika koli ina vode
pro e kroz kondenzator kako bi kondenzirala niskotla nu paru turbine, te da bi se na taj
na in postigao maksimalni efekt turbinskog ciklusa prije nego se kondenzat vrati u
generator pare. Pri prolazu kroz kondenzator rashladna voda se obi no grije za 8 do 12
°C, ponekad i više, ovisno o konstrukciji i tehni ko-ekonomskim zna ajkama
rashladnog sustava. Što je zagrijavanje rashladne vode pri prolazu kroz kondenzator
manje te što je niža temperatura rashladne vode na ulazu u kondenzator, bit e niža
temperatura kondenzacije pare u kondenzatoru pa e porasti snaga i efikasnost
elektrane. S druge strane s manjim porastom temperature rashladne vode pri prolasku
kroz kondenzator bit e potrebno dovesti više rashladne vode pa poskupljuju investicije
u rashladni sustav i troškovi pumpanja rashladne vode.
Toplina predana rashladnoj vodi pri njenom prolasku kroz kondenzator može se predati
okolišu na nekoliko na ina. Gdje je na raspolaganju dovoljno rashladne vode koristi se
proto ni sustav hla enja. U takvom sustavu voda se uzima iz rijeke, jezera, akumulacije
ili mora, prolazi kroz kondenzator te se vra a s povišenom temperaturom natrag.
Predana toplina se nakon toga prenosi u atmosferu ishlapljivanjem, konvekcijom i
zra enjem. Ako postoji odgovaraju a koli ina vode proto ni sustav ima s ekonomskog
stajališta prednost pred svim drugim sustavima.
Ispuštanje zagrijane rashladne vode u vodotok sudjeluje u fizikalnim i biološkim
promjenama. Te promjene mogu biti povoljne, nepovoljne ili neutralne što ovisi o
karakteristikama odre enog vodotoka. Ondje gdje izlaz zagrijane rashladne vode
proizvodi efekte koji su nepoželjni, kaže se da je nastupilo toplinsko one iš enje
(thermal pollution). Toplinsko one iš enje je bitno razli ito od drugih formi one iš enja
jer ne unosi dodatne strane tvari u okoliš i stoga ne kontaminira preostalu vodu.
Me utim, dodavanje topline vodi može izmijeniti životne zajednice u vodi u
nepovoljnom smislu i zbog toga je toplina nazna ena kao potencijalni faktor
one iš enja.
Ako temperatura vode raste, njen kapacitet otapanja kisika se smanjuje. Tako pri punom
zasi enju i pri temperaturi vode od 20°C voda sadrži 8,4 mg O2/l, a pri 30°C svega 6,9
mg/l, dakle za oko 18% manje.
U vodi živi velik broj organizama pa promjene temperature, kemijskog sastava i
proto ne koli ine mogu djelovati na vrste i broj tih organizama. Temperaturne promjene
igraju važnu reguliraju u ulogu u fiziologiji riba i drugih vodenih životinja.
Reproduktivni ciklusi, probava i drugi procesi koji nastupaju u ribljem organizmu su,
izme u ostaloga, ovisni o temperaturi.
Povijesni pregled obrade problema toplinskog optere enja
Prva organizirana briga o zaštiti okoliša zapo ela je po etkom 1970. godine stupanjem
na snagu ameri kog dokumenta NEPA38 odnosno 1972. konferencijom UN o okolišu u
Stockholmu, a jedna od glavnih tema tih po etnih inicijativa bili su problemi u vezi s
toplinskim one iš enjem uzrokovanih naglim porastom broja velikih (uglavnom
nuklearnih) elektrana u SAD-u, a kasnije i u drugim dijelovima svijeta.
Nuklearne elektrane su u pravilu velike snage, a relativno niskog stupnja djelovanja
uvjetovanog niskim parametrima svježe pare (zbog sigurnosnih razloga) pa proizvode
vrlo veliku koli inu otpadne topline. Osim toga, za razliku od klasi nih termoelektrana
koje dio otpadne topline ispuštaju u zrak, u nuklearnim elektranama se sva otpadna
toplina ispušta u okoliš preko rashladnog sustava.
Nakon što je problem toplinskog optere enja prepoznat i opisan nužno je bilo postaviti i
odre ene kriterije i izraditi potrebnu regulativu. U osnovi, radi se o uspostavljanju
kriterija za odre ivanje dopuštenog toplinskog optere enja pri ispuštanju rashladne vode
termoelektrana u recipijent (rijeku, jezero, akumulaciju, more).
Regulativa povezana s toplinskim optere enjem najprije se razvila u SAD-u jer su se
tamo u najve em broju gradile nuklearne elektrane te se potom širila u ostala podru ja.
Parametri koji su naj eš e regulirani su sljede i:
a) maksimalna koli ina vode koja se smije uzeti iz vodotoka za potrebe hla enja (za
rijeke)
b) maksimalni prosje ni porast temperature vodotoka i na in njegova ra unanja (za
rijeke)
c) definiranje tzv. zone miješanja i maksimalnog porasta temperature na rubu te zone
d) maksimalna temperatura na ispustu u recipijent
e) utjecaj kumulativnih efekata susjednih (uzvodnih) termoelektrana
38
National Environmental Policy Act
Naravno, kriteriji su znatno varirali ovisno o klimatskim podru jima i o kvaliteti vode
recipijenta. U vezi s klimatskim uvjetima jasno je da se ne mogu isti kriteriji primijeniti
ako se radi o Balti kom podru ju ili o Mediteranu, ako se radi o Kanadi ili o Italiji itd.
Vrlo otežavaju a okolnost u to vrijeme bila je i u injenici da je kvaliteta vode, osobito
u rijekama, bila iznimno loša. Poznati su slu ajevi Temze, Rajne i mnogih ameri kih
rijeka kojima je prijetila biološka smrt zbog organskog i kemijskog one iš enja. Sava,
osobito izme u Zagreba i Siska nije bila u ništa boljem stanju, uglavnom na granici IV
(najlošije) kategorije kvalitete vode.
Istraživanja su pokazala da se negativni utjecaj toplinskog optere enja bitno pove ava s
pove anjem organskog optere enja recipijenta otpadne topline. S pove anom
temperaturom pove ava se potrošnja kisika zbog razgradnje organske tvari prisutne u
vodi, a pove ava se i potrošnja kisika organizama koji žive u vodi. Time se dodatno
smanjuje sadržaj u vodi otopljenog kisika koji je ionako, zbog prisutnog one iš enja bio
nizak.
S obzirom da je u to doba Hrvatska skupa sa Slovenijom ve pripremala izgradnju
Nuklearne elektrane Krško, a u planu je bila i druga zajedni ka elektrana u Hrvatskoj
(intenzivno su analizirane lokacije Prevlaka na Savi nizvodno od Zagreba te Vir na
istoimenom otoku) i u nas se problematika toplinskog optere enja istraživala ve u tim
ranim fazama39, a postupno se stvorila i odgovaraju a pozicija u regulativi u vezi s tim.
Me utim, kako se nuklearni program nije nastavio, a u posljednjih tridesetak godina u
Hrvatskoj je pušteno je u rad svega nekoliko manjih termoenergetskih objekata
regulativa se na tom podru ju nije sustavno razvijala te je do nedavno bila manjkava i
nepotpuna.
U posljednje vrijeme u Hrvatskoj se planira nekoliko projekata termoelektrana (Tab. 1)
na kojima se pojavljuje problematika toplinskog optere enja rashladnom vodom. Zbog
toga je prošle godine pokrenuta inicijativa kod nadležnih tijela da se pokrene rasprava
koja bi rezultirala kvalitetnijom i jasnijom regulatornom pozicijom u vezi s opisanom
problematikom.
Tablica 1. Postoje e i planirane termoelektrane u Hrvatskoj i njihova emitirana otpadna
toplina
Koli ina
otpadne
Instalirana
topline pri radu s
Termoelektrana
snaga,
Recipijent
Lokacija
maksimalnom snagom,
MW
MJ/s
U radu
NE Krško40
665
Sava
Krško
1.300
430
Zagreb
41
max 250
TE-TO Zagreb
Sava
Žitnjak
TE Sisak
420
Sava
Sisak
550
TE Rijeka
380
more
Urinj
500
39
Toplinski režim rijeke Save, IE, 1975; Studija o utjecaju TE Sisak na rijeku Savu, IE,
1975; Studija rashladnog sistema TE-TO Rijeka, IE, 1975; Ponašanje toplog mlaza i
eksperimentalno odre ivanje koeficijenta disperzije, IE, 1976; Mogu nost korištenja
otpadne topline iz NE Prevlaka za ospkrbu Zagreba ogrjevnom toplinom, IE, 1977;
Optimiranje rashladnog sistema nuklearne elektrane na otoku Viru, IE, 1977. itd.
40
Nalazi se u Sloveniji, ali zbog veli ine ima utjecaj na toplinsko optere enje Save u
Hrvatskoj
41
Kogeneracijski blokovi sa smanjenom koli inom otpadne topline
TE Plomin, blok 210
II
U izgradnji ili planu
PTE Sisak
250
TE Plomin C
500
PTE Slav. Brod
570
PTE Osijek
570
400
PTE Peru a
EL-TO Zagreb
260
more
Plomin
280
Sava
more
Sava
Drava
akum.
Peru a
Sava42
Sisak
Plomin
Slav. Brod
Osijek
150
540
300
300
op . Hrvace
200
Zagreb
130
Uobi ajeni kriteriji s obzirom na pokazatelje toplinskog optere enja
U vezi s tretiranjem problema toplinskog optere enja mogu se razlikovati dva razdoblja
s bitno razli itim tretiranjem problema. U prvom razdoblju koje je trajalo negdje do
1985. smatralo se kako je ispuštenu, zagrijanu rashladnu vodu potrebno zadržati na
površini vode recipijenta. Tome su u prilog išli sljede i pozitivni procesi:
a) zadržavanjem zagrijane rashladne vode na površini vodotoka stimulira se prijelaz
topline na atmosferu,
b) povišena temperatura površine vode ubrzava otapanje kisika u vodi što je pozitivan
proces s gledišta života u vodi,
c) ako se radi o lokacijama na moru tada zadržavanje ispuštene rashladne vode na
površini smanjuje mogu nost recirkulacije izme u usisa i ispusta, odnosno vra anje
dijela ispuštene, zagrijane rashladne vode u podru je zahvata rashladne vode koji se
obi no nalazi na morskom dnu.
Zbog navedenog su se u tim godinama rashladni sustavi projektirali na na in da su se
stimulirali tzv. površinski ispusti rashladne vode s malom kineti kom energijom. Na
tom principu su u nas sagra ene TE Plomin i TE Rijeka na moru, TE-TO Zagreb i
donekle TE Sisak na Savi, te NE Krško u Sloveniji. Glavni kriterij s obzirom na
toplinsko optere enje bio je (za rijeke) formuliran kao prosje no zagrijavanje vode
nakon pretpostavljenog potpunog miješanja po sljede em izrazu:
T = Gk(Tk-T0)/G0
(1)
gdje je
Gk – protok rashladne vode,
G0 – protok rijeke,
Tk – temperatura rashladne vode na ispustu u vodotok
T0 – temperatura rijeke prije miješanja s rashladnom vodom
Me utim, ve od po etka pojavile su se i zamjerke takvom na inu ispuštanja rashladne
vode koje su se uglavnom svodile na sljede e:
a) u površinskom sloju vode koji je esto biološki najaktivniji, povišena temperatura
pove ava razgradnju organske tvari i snižava sadržaj otopljenog kisika,
b) povišena temperatura smanjuje kapacitet otapanja kisika pa usprkos njegovoj
pove anoj topivosti krajnji rezultat može biti negativan,
c) miješanje rashladne vode s vodom recipijenta je sporo i udaljenosti do potpunog
miješanja mogu se mjeriti u kilometrima ili desecima kilometara.
42
Proto ni rashladni sustav uz korištenje vode rijeke Save je jedna od razmatranih
varijanti
Prekretnica je nastala ve krajem 70-tih u SAD-u kad je kao glavni kriterij u reguliranju
toplinskog optere enja uveden koncept tzv. zone miješanja (mixing zone). Zona
miješanja je definirana kao ograni eno podru je u kojemu se doga a miješanje
ispuštene rashladne vode i vode recipijenta i unutar kojega standardi kvalitete vode,
uklju uju i i porast temperature, smiju biti premašeni.
Slijedom te definicije kriteriji toplinskog optere enja ne definiraju se više na ispustu
rashladne vode ni prema izrazu (1), nego uglavnom na rubu zone miješanja. Pritom se
odre uju i dimenzije te zone, naj eš e kao radijalna udaljenost od mjesta ispusta.
Nakon što su se kriteriji promijenili, promijenio se i na in projektiranja ispusta
rashladne vode. Kako bi se postigao zadani minimalni porast temperature na rubu zone
miješanja mora se kineti ka energija mlaza rashladne vode maksimalno iskoristiti za
intenzivno miješanje rashladne vode s vodom recipijenta.
Brojne analize s pomo u matemati kih i fizi kih modela pokazale su da se najbolji efekt
postiže izvo enjem ispusta rashladne vode ispod površine s pove anom brzinom, pa se
takav na in ispuštanja danas smatra i glavnom mjerom zaštite okoliša. Upravo na taj
na in, koncipirani su ispusti rashladne vode u studijama o utjecaju na okoliš za nove
termoelektrane Plomin C i Slavonski Brod.
U nastavku se daje pregled glavnih parametara koji se reguliraju u vezi s toplinskim
optere enjem:
1) Maksimalna koli ina vode koja se smije uzeti iz vodotoka za potrebe hla enja (za
rijeke)
U pravilu se ograni ava na maksimalno 1/4 ili izuzetno na 1/3 od ukupnog protoka
rijeke. U nas ni jedna termoelektrana na Savi ne uzima tu koli inu vode, osim NE
Krškog u Sloveniji gdje se maksimalno smije uzeti etvrtina protoka Save.
2) Maksimalno prosje no pove anje temperature vodotoka ( Tmax) i na in njegova
ra unanja (za rijeke)
Maksimalno prosje no pove anje temperature vodotoka obi no se ograni ava na 2-3 0C
ovisno o vrsti rijeke i biološkoj komponenti. Prosje no pove anje temperature ra una se
prema formuli:
Tmax=TkGk/Go
3) Definiranje tzv. zone miješanja i maksimalnog porasta temperature na rubu te zone
Zona miješanja je ograni eno podru je oko ispusta rashladne vode u kojemu dominiraju
sile inercije što rezultira intenzivnim miješanjem rashladne vode s vodom recipijenta.
Dimenzije zone miješanja najviše ovise o na inu ispusta, koli ini rashladne vode i
njenoj brzini na mjestu ispusta te tako er o dimenzijama i brzini recipijenta.
Uobi ajeno se zona miješanja u regulativi definira kao podru je do izvjesne udaljenosti
od mjesta ispusta rashladne vode. Ta udaljenost obi no nije ve a od 500 metara,
naj eš e 300 metara.
U SAD-u je 1991 predložena promjena Zakona o vodama (Clean Water Act, CWA) u
kojemu je bilo predvi eno da se sve termoelektrane u SAD-u (uklju uju i i nuklearne)
koje koriste proto ni sustav hla enja, a snaga tih termoelektrana u to doba iznosila je
oko 250.000 MW, rekonstruiraju u smislu zahtjeva da se dimenzija zone miješanja
reducira na 300 m (1000 stopa). Analize su pokazale da 74% elektrana ne udovoljava
tom zahtjevu te da bi troškovi njihove rekonstrukcije iznosili 22-26 milijarda dolara u
investiciji te 10-16 milijarda dolara zbog smanjenja proizvodnje elektri ne energije u
20-godišnjem razdoblju43. Iako nije došlo do tražene promjene zakona rasprava o tome
u ameri kom senatu i neizvjesnost koju je ta rasprava proizvela me u investitorima
izazvala je u SAD-u masovni prelazak u novim elektranama s proto nog hla enja na
hla enje s rashladnim tornjevima.
Na rubu zone miješanja obi no se propisuje maksimalna temperatura vode (naj eš e 2830 0C) i/ili porast temperature u odnosu na prirodnu temperaturu koji se obi no kretao
izme u 2 i 3 0C, u SAD-u izme u 2 i 5 0F (1,1 i 2,8 0C). Kriterij može ovisiti i o vrsti
vodotoka – salmonidne vode u pravilu se smiju manje opteretiti nego ciprinidne.
4) Maksimalna temperatura na ispustu u vodotok
Ograni enje ovog tipa javljalo se u ranim razdobljima tretiranja toplinskog optere enja
(70-tih godina prošlog stolje a) dok se još nije udoma io suvremeniji kriterij opisan
ovdje pod 3). U sjevernim podru jima (Kanada, Baltik i sl.) ograni enje se kretalo
izme u 28 0C i 30 0C, a u mediteranskim zemljama uglavnom izme u 32 0C i 35 0C.
Ako se prihvati na in regulacije kao pod 3) ovo ograni enje donekle gubi smisao.
5) Utjecaj kumulativnih efekata uzvodnih termoelektrana (za rijeke)
Ako se radi o rijekama, a i ina e, ako se ispusti rashladne vode raznih objekata nalaze
jedan blizu drugoga potrebno je obraditi i kumulativne efekte tj. utjecaje postoje ih
objekata na podru ju (lokaciji) novoga objekta što je tako er mogu e propisati u
regulativi.
Reguliranje toplinskog optere enja
Relevantno za temu toplinskog optere enja do nedavno su na snazi u Hrvatskoj bili
Pravilnik o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda (NN 87/10) i Uredba o
standardu kakvo e voda (NN 89/10).
Pravilnik (NN 87/10) davao je grani ne vrijednosti emisija one iš uju ih tvari u
tehnološkim vodama gdje se, me u ostalim, navode i grani ne vrijednost za pokazatelje
toplinskog optere enja - T i T (Tab. 2).
Tablica 2. Grani ne vrijednosti za pokazatelje toplinskog optere enja u otpadnim
tehnološkim vodama prema Pravilniku o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda
(NN 87/10) - Prilog 1 / Tablica 1: Grani ne vrijednosti emisija one iš uju ih tvari u
tehnološkim otpadnim vodama i referentne metode ispitivanja
Pokazatelji i mjerne jedinice
Grani ne vrijednosti
Fizikalno-kemijski pokazatelji
Površinske vode
Sustav javne odvodnje
2. Temperatura, ºC
30
40
3
3
3. T, ne više od ºC
U pojedenim slu ajevima, za proto ne rashladne sustave termoelektrana, T naveden u
Tab.2 tuma en je od strane nadležnih tijela kao razlika vrijednosti temperature
rashladne vode na ispustu i vrijednosti temperature rashladne vode na zahvatu. To
tuma enje je u suprotnosti s inženjerskom praksom koja se odnosi na proto ne
rashladne sustave i u kojoj se kriteriji tog tipa primjenjuju na rubu zone miješanja, kako
je bilo i navedeno u Uredbi o standardu kakvo e vode (NN 89/10).
43
Prema John A. Veil: Impact of a 1,000-foot thermal mixing zone on the steam electric
power industry, ANL/EAD/TM-15, April 1994.
Uredba (NN 89/10) unijela je u našu regulativu smjernice europske direktive
2006/44/EC o kakvo i slatkih voda kojima je potrebna zaštita ili poboljšanje kako bi
bile pogodne za život riba 44.
Cilj je direktive 2006/44/EC zaštita ili poboljšanje kakvo e slatkih voda koje su
pogodne ili koje bi smanjenjem ili uklanjanjem one iš enja mogle postati pogodne za
život riba koje pripadaju:
a) autohtonim svojtama koje pridonose prirodnoj raznolikosti;
b) svojtama iju prisutnost nadležna tijela država lanica ocjenjuju poželjnim u svrhu
upravljanja vodama.
Direktiva 2006/44/EC se primjenjuje na one vode za koje države lanice odrede da
trebaju zaštitu ili poboljšanje zaštite voda, kako bi bile pogodne za život riba. Za
potrebe te direktive razlikuju se salmonidne i ciprinidne vode. Salmonidne vode su vode
pogodne, ili koje postaju pogodne za život riba koje spadaju u svojte kao što su losos
(Salmo salar), poto na pastrva (Salmo trutta), lipljan (Thymallus thymallus) i ozimica
(Coregonus). Ciprinidne vode su vode koje su pogodne, ili koje postaju pogodne za
život riba koje spadaju u ciprinide (Cyprinidae) ili u svojte kao što su štuka (Esox
lucius), grge (Perca fluviatilis) i jegulja (Anguilla anguilla). U Prilogu I Direktive su,
me u ostalim, dane grani ne vrijednosti za temperaturu u odnosu na ove vrste voda
(Tab. 3).
Tablica 3. Sažeti prikaz dijela Priloga I Direktive koji se odnosi na parametar Temperatura45
salmonidne vode
ciprinidne vode
Tmax na granici zone miješanja (ºC)
1,5 (I)
3,0 (I)
Tmax na granici zone miješanja (ºC)
21,5 (I), (0)
28,0 (I), (0)
Tmax tijekom razdoblja razmnožavanja svojti
kojima je hladna voda potrebna za
10,0 (I), (0)
10,0 (I), (0)
razmnožavanje i u vodama u kojima mogu
živjeti takve vrste
Temperaturna ograni enja mogu biti prekora ena u 2% vremena.
(I) Obvezna vrijednosti. (0) Odstupanja su mogu a u skladu s lankom 11 Direktive
2006/44/EC
U 2011. godini stupila je na snagu Odluka o odre ivanju podru ja voda pogodnih za
život slatkovodnih riba (NN 33/11) kojom su odre ene salmonidne i ciprinidne vode u
Hrvatskoj, a grani ne vrijednosti iz Tab. 3 su u našu regulativu unesene u Uredbu o
standardu kakvo e voda (NN 89/10), u njen Prilog 6: Kakvo a voda odre enih kao vode
pogodne za život slatkovodnih riba (Tab. 4).
Iz navedenog se vidi da se kriteriji za toplinsko optere enje iz Pravilnika o grani nim
vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda (NN 87/10) i Uredbe o standardu kakvo e voda
(NN 89/10) suštinski razlikuju, što predstavlja problem za razvoj novih
termoenergetskih objekata, ali i rad postoje ih objekata. Nadalje, vidi se da nam
nedostaju i kriteriji za ispuštanje u more.
44
Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September
2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to
support fish life
45
Vrijednosti navedene u tab. 3 dokument europske komisije: Referentni dokument o
najbolje raspoloživim tehnikama (NRT) za industrijske sustave hla enja navodi kao
relevantne za razmatranje toplinskog utjecaja u tzv. NRT pristupu.
Tablica 4. Izvadak iz Uredbe o standardu kakvo e voda (NN 89/10)
Pokazatelj
Temperatura
(°C)
salmonidne vode
ciprinidne vode
Smjernice
G
Smjernice
G
Obaveze
I
Obveze
I
Temperatura mjerena nizvodno od to ke
toplinskog ispuštanja (na rubu zone
miješanja) ne smije prije i temperaturu na
koju istjecanje ne utje e za:
1,5°C
3°C
Ograni ena odstupanja na geografskom
podru ju u posebnim okolnostima, su
dopuštena ako nadležno tijelo dokaže kako
ne postoje štetne posljedice za uravnotežen
razvoj riblje populacije.
Termalna ispuštanja ne smiju uzrokovati da
temperatura nizvodno od termalnog
ispuštanja (na rubu zone ispuštanja) prije e
sljede e:
21,5
28 (0)
(0)
10 (0)
10 (0)
Granica temperature od 10°C primjenjuje se
jedino na rasplodna razdoblja vrsta kojima je
hladna voda potrebna za reprodukciju te
samo na vode u kojima se takve vrste
nalaze.
Temperaturne
granice
mogu
biti
prekora ene 2% vremena.
Metode
analize
ili
inspekcije
Minimalna
estalost
uzimanja
uzoraka
Napomene
Termometrija
Tjedno i
uzvodno i
nizvodno
od mjesta
toplinskog
ispuštanja
Iznenadna
variranja u
temperaturi
se trebaju
izbje i
Osim spomenute EU direktive važna referenca u razmatranju toplinskog optere enja je i
dokument Svjetske banke, (EHS Guidelines46) u kojemu se prezentira „dobra
me unarodna industrijska praksa“ koju treba slijediti ako su u projekt uklju ene lanice
Svjetske banke. Me utim, ako se regulativa zemlje u kojoj se realizira projekt razlikuje
od navedenog dokumenta tada se primjenjuje stroži propis. S druge strane, ako se zbog
nekih posebnih okolnosti žele primijeniti manje strože mjere od onih u spomenutom
dokumentu, tada se kao dio procjene utjecaja na okoliš mora provesti detaljna analiza
svih mogu ih varijanti kako bi se opravdao takav pristup.
U vezi s toplinskim optere enjem kriteriji postavljeni u tom dokumentu su sljede i:
a) Ispust rashladne vode se mora tako projektirati da ne do e do prekora enja
odgovaraju ih standarda s obzirom na temperaturu vode izvan znanstveno
ustanovljene zone miješanja. Pritom je zona miješanja definirana kao podru je
inicijalnog razrje enja u podru ju ispusta rashladne vode u kojemu se ne
primjenjuju propisani standardi s obzirom na temperaturu vode. Spomenuta
znanstvena analiza treba izme u ostaloga uklju iti kumulativni utjecaj sezonskih
varijacija, kvalitetu vode, na in upotrebe vode drugih korisnika te kapacitet
recipijenta.
b) Veli ina zone miješanja je specifi na za svaki pojedini projekt i ako ne postoji jasan
kriterij u regulativi ona se mora odrediti u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
c) Za projekte termoelektrana koje koriste proto ni sustav hla enja, a toplinska snaga
im je ve a od 1200 MJ/s (što odgovara termoelektrani od 500-600 MW elektri ne
snage) utjecaj ispuštanja rashladne vode mora se analizirati u sklopu studije o
46
Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants,
International Finance Corporation, Dec. 19, 2008.
utjecaju na okoliš s pomo u odgovaraju eg modela disperzije. kao što je, na primjer,
model CORMIX razvijen od ameri ke agencije za zaštitu okoliša (EPA).
Na temu me usobnih neuskla enosti naših propisa, kao i neuskla enosti pojedinih
dokumenata s uobi ajenom industrijskom / inženjerskom praksom održan je
13.11.2012. sastanak autora ovog teksta s predstavnicima Hrvatskih voda i Uprave za
vodno gospodarstvo pri Ministarstvu poljoprivrede. Na sastanku je konstatirano da
postoji potreba da se dorade i poprave propisi u smislu njihove primjene na proto ne
rashladne sustave. Na osnovi rasprave na tom sastanku izrada odre enih podloga za
izmjenu ili donošenje nove regulative za ovo podru je pomaknuta je u prvi prioritet.
Izvjesni korak u tom smislu dogodio se u novome Pravilniku o grani nim vrijednostima
emisija otpadnih voda (NN 80/2013) od 28.06.2013, u kojem je, me u ostalim
izmjenama i dopunama, unesen novi Prilog 17. Grani ne vrijednosti emisija otpadnih
voda iz objekata i postrojenja za proizvodnju toplinske i elektri ne energije, kojim su
definirane grani ne vrijednosti odre enih pokazatelja toplinskog optere enja, ovisno o
kona nom prijamniku - ciprinidne, slamonidne vode i priobalno more (Tab. 5).
Tablica 5. Grani ne vrijednosti za pokazatelje toplinskog optere enja u otpadnim
rashladnim vodama prema Pravilniku o grani nim vrijednostima emisija otpadnih voda
(NN 80/13) - Prilog 17, Tab. 1: Grani ne vrijednosti one iš uju ih tvari za rashladne
otpadne vode
Pokazatelji i mjerne Grani ne vrijednosti
jedinice
Fizikalno-kemijski
Površinske
Napomena
pokazatelji
vode
ako je temperatura vode na zahvatu niža
2.
Temperatura
na
30
od 200C
ispustu, ºC
ako je temperatura vode na zahvatu viša
2a.
Temperatura
na
35
od 200C
ispustu, ºC
3. Razlika vrijednosti
temperature
rashladne
vode na ispustu i 10
vrijednosti temperature
vode na zahvatu
4.
Razlika
izme u 3
za ciprinidne vode i more
temperature na granici
zone miješanja radijusa
200 metara i vrijednosti
1,5
za salmonidne vode
temperature
vode
uzvodno od zahvata
U lipnju 2013. godine donesena je i nova Uredba o standardu kakvo e voda (NN
73/13). Nova Uredba nije promijenila kriterije iz prethodne Uredbe (NN 89/10), a koji
su navedeni u Tab. 4 i koji su dalje na snazi.
Zaklju ak
Može se re i da su kriteriji u našem novom Pravilniku o grani nim vrijednostima
emisija otpadnih voda (NN 80/13) te u ostaloj regulativi koja obra uje problem
toplinskog optere enja za postrojenja za proizvodnju toplinske i elektri ne energije
korektno postavljeni i u skladu su sa relevantnim dokumentima EU i WB. Me utim,
postoji i jedna dosta bitna razlika. Za razliku od EU i WB dokumenata koji ne odre uju
dimenzije zone miješanja nego se to odre uje „od slu aja do slu aja“, jer isto ovisi i o
karakteristikama prijamnika, u našem Pravilniku (NN 80/13) je eksplicitno spomenuta
maksimalna veli ina zone miješanja od 200 metara od ispusta, što je vrlo strog kriterij.
Nadalje, naš Pravilnik (NN 80/13) ne precizira minimalnu toplinsku snagu ispuštene
otpadne topline ni minimalnu snagu termoenergetskog objekta na kojega se kriteriji
odnose. U svjetskoj praksi kriteriji toplinskog optere enja odnose se samo na velike
termoenergetske objekte koji proizvode od nekoliko stotina do nekoliko tisu a megavata
otpadne topline koja se prenosi preko rashladnog sustava. U našem Pravilniku (NN
80/13) ta granica nije specificirana pa se on odnosi i na vrlo male toplinske ispuste.
U reviziji važe ih dokumenata u R. Hrvatskoj trebalo bi navedene razlike dodatno
obraditi kako bi se naša regulativa u ovom podru ju kvalitetno uskladila s europskom i
svjetskim pristupom te kako bi se izbjegle nepotrebne rasprave pri licenciranju novih
objekata termoelektrana.
Zaštita i upravljanje tlom u EU i njeni u inci na procjenu utjecaja na
okoliš u Hrvatskoj
Ivan Pilaš
Hrvatski šumarski institut, Cvjetno naselje 41, 10450 Jastrebarsko ([email protected])
Sažetak
Tlo predstavlja jednu od okolišnih sastavnica ija je zaštita propisana Zakonom o zaštiti
okoliša te drugim zakonskim regulativama. Cilj procjene u inaka na okoliš je u
utvr ivanju obima, ja ine i trajanja razmatranog u inka na tlo kao i na ostale okolišne
sastavnice. Nakon pristupanja Republike Hrvatske u EU, procjena utjecaja na okoliš
treba uklju iti sve potrebne mjere zaštite tla i postupke koji su propisani razli itim
okolišnim direktivama EU. Jedan od nedostataka zaštite tla u EU je nepostojanje
jedinstvene zakonske osnove koja bi sveobuhvatno na jednom mjestu propisala sve
potrebne mjere zaštite. Nedavna rasprava vezana uz zaštitu tla u EU imala je svoje
polazište u Tematskoj strategiji o zaštiti tla u EU, donesenoj 2006. god. i Prijedlogu za
okvirnu direktivu o tlu za koju, do danas, nije postignut zajedni ki dogovor izme u
zemalja lanica. Posredno me utim, zaštita tla je uklju ena u više okvirnih direktiva EU
kao EU direktiva o otpadu, Okvirnoj direktivi o vodama i Direktivi o okolišnoj
odgovornosti. Jedan od najneposrednijih pomaka spram reguliranja zaštite tla
predstavlja EU direktiva o industrijskim emisijama (IED) koja zahtjeva isho enje
okolišnih dozvola za postrojenja u kojima su propisani zahtjevi za periodi ko pra enje
(monitoring) tla i podzemnih voda (svakih 10 odnosno 5 godina). IED zahtjeva izradu
izvješ a o nultom stanju one iš enosti tla i podzemnih voda (baseline report) prije
neposrednog pokretanja instalacija. Nakon zatvaranja pogona, stanje one iš enosti tla i
podzemnih voda se mora ponovno analizirati i u slu aju zna ajnijeg odmaka u odnosu
na nulto stanje (zna ajnog one iš enja tla) moraju se provesti neophodne mjere
remedijacije. Puna implementacija IED-a zahtijeva i adaptaciju dosadašnjih mjera
unutar PUO te izgradnju kompletnog sustava upravljanja one iš enim tlom u Hrvatskoj.
Klju ne rije i: One iš enje tla, Direktiva o industrijskim emisijama (IED), procjena
utjecaja na okoliš, monitoring tla, remedijacija
Uvod
Tlo kao važna sastavnica okoliša, predstavlja jedan od obveznih sadržaja svake procjene
utjecaja na okoliš. Prema Uredbi o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš [1], pravna osoba,
izra iva studije mora dati; (a) opis postoje eg stanja tla na koji bi zahvat mogao
zna ajno utjecati, (b) opis utjecaja zahvata na tlo tijekom gra enja i/ili korištenja i (c)
prijedlog mjera zaštite tla kao i prijedlog ocjene prihvatljivosti zahvata za okoliš.
Obaveza zaštite tla u Republici Hrvatskoj prvenstveno proizlazi iz Zakona o zaštiti
okoliša [2] koji definira i obvezuje zaštitu tla: (I) Zaštita tla obuhva a o uvanje zdravlja
i funkcija tla, sprje avanje ošte enja tla, pra enje stanja i promjenu kakvo a tla te
saniranje i obnavljanje ošte enih tala i lokacija; (II) One iš enje, odnosno ošte enje tla
smatra se štetnim utjecajem na okoliš, a utvr ivanje prihvatljivih grani nih vrijednosti
kakvo e tla provodi se na temelju posebnih propisa. Sankcije za trajnije i zna ajnije
ugrožavanje kakvo e tla putem unosa one iš uju ih tvari, a slijedom toga i za
ugrožavanje života i zdravlja ljudi propisane su osim kroz na elo „one iš iva pla a“ i
Kaznenim zakonom RH [3]. Me utim, u praksi, do danas, temeljeg prijašnjih i
postoje eg novog Zakona o zaštiti okoliša [2], nisu doneseni adekvatni podzakonski akti
kojima bi se neposredno propisale prihvatljive grani ne vrijednosti kao i daljnji postupci
sanacije one iš enja.
Osim na elno kroz zaštitu okoliša, zaštita tla u RH je u ve oj mjeri provedena sektorski,
posebno u poljoprivredi i šumarstvu kao najve im korisnicima zemljišnih resursa RH.
Na regulativi zaštite tla u RH najve i pomak je napravljen u poljoprivrednom sektoru
gdje je u sklopu Zakona o poljoprivrednom zemljištu [4] donesen ve i broj
podzakonskih akata od kojih se posebno može istaknuti Pravilnik o zaštiti
poljoprivrednog zemljišta od one iš enja [5], Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvr ivanje
osobito vrijednog obradivog (P1) i vrijednog obradivog (P2) poljoprivrednog zemljišta
[6], te Pravilnik o metodologiji za pra enje stanja poljoprivrednog zemljišta [7].
Tijekom 2010. godine doneseni su pravilnici kojima se odre uju Nacionalni centri
zaduženi za provedbu trajnog pra enja stanja na poljoprivrednom i šumskom zemljištu.
Prema Pravilniku o metodologiji za pra enje stanja poljoprivrednog zemljišta [7], trajno
pra enje stanja poljoprivrednog zemljišta provodi Hrvatski centar za poljoprivredu,
hranu i selo – Zavod za tlo i o uvanje zemljišta (sadašnja Agencija za poljoprivredno
zemljište), dok se prema Pravilniku o na inu motrenja ošte enosti šumskih ekosustava
[8], temeljem Zakona o šumama [9], Nacionalnim koordinacijskim centrom za procjenu
i motrenje utjecaja atmosferskog one iš enja i drugih imbenika na šumske ekosustave
odre uje Hrvatski šumarski institut. U šumarskom sektoru me utim, tlo se izrijekom ne
spominje u niti jednom od podzakonskih akata u sklopu Zakona o šumama [9].
Od srpnja 2013. Republika Hrvatska je postala punopravna lanica Europske Unije ime
se obvezala uskladiti s pravnom ste evinom EU (acquis communautaire). To zna i kako
RH mora prihvatiti osniva ke ugovore i druge sadržaje izvedene iz ugovora i uskladiti
svoje zakonodavstvo s pravnom ste evinom EU, što obvezuje i usvajanje te
uskla ivanje zakonodavstva vezanog uz zaštitu tla u okvirima zaštite okoliša i održivog
razvitka. Kako u Hrvatskoj tako i u EU, tlo se ve inom provla i kroz razli ite sektorske
direktive [10], EU niti danas nema objedinjeno zakonodavstvo unutar zasebne direktive
o tlu. Dugogodišnja inicijativa vezana uz zaštitu tla u EU do sada je rezultirala s dva
klju na dokumenta usvojena 2006 godine: Tematskoj strategiji za zaštitu tla [11], te
Prijedlogu za okvirnu direktivu o zaštiti tla [12]. Iako su od 2007 godine vo ene
rasprave na razini EU, izme u zemalja lanica nije postignut dogovor o donošenju
zajedni ke direktive o tlu tako da nakon Španjolskog predsjedanja 2010 tlo više nije
postavljano za temu daljnjih rasprava. Iako je nepostojanje jedinstvene direktive loše s
obzirom na percepciju slabiju zaštite, slabije prepoznatljivosti i manje važnosti koju tlo
kao važni resurs u EU ima (što posebno odnosi na percepciju manjeg zna aja tla u
našem sustavu spram drugih segmenata okoliša kao što su vode i zrak), zaštita tla je
isprepletena u nizu sektorskih direktiva i to od direktive o staništima [13] koja odre uje
zaštitu prirodnih stanišnih tipova do politike višestruke sukladnosti (cross-compliance)
[14,15] u poljoprivredi koja objedinjuje niz direktiva EU i veže davanje poticaja
poljoprivrednicima uz poštivanje zaštite tla primjenom na ela dobre poljoprivredne
prakse. Jedna od novih i za zaštitu tla od one iš enja posebno zna ajnih propisa
predstavlja Direktiva o industrijskim emisijama (IED) [16] donesena 24 studenog 2010
god. kao naslje e IPPC direktive. IED direktiva za sve industrijske pogone koji
potpadaju pod nju traži uspostavu kompleksnog sustava upravljanja one iš enim tlom
na razini Države kako bi se omogu ila provedba na ela „one iš iva pla a“ te smanjio
rizik od one iš enja tla odnosno podzemnih voda.
U ovom radu iznesen je prikaz osnovnih zahtjeva koje postavlja IED spram zaštite tla
od one iš enja kao i osnovne zna ajke sustava upravljanja s tlom koji je potrebno
uspostaviti prema toj direktivi. Isto tako u rad daje i presjek uo enih nedostataka u
dosadašnjem sustavu upravljanja s one iš enim tlom u Hrvatskoj. Rad je nastao u
okviru me udržavne suradnje izme u Republike Hrvatske i Flandrije (Ministarstva
zaštite okoliša RH i Flamanske agencije za otpad – OVAM) na problematici zaštite tla
te projektu tehni ke pomo i za uspostavu sustava gospodarenja s one iš enim tlom u
Hrvatskoj, koji izvodi flamanska kompanija ECOREM, a za koji je financijsku potporu
dala Flamanska vlada.
Osnovne zna ajke direktive o industrijskim emisijama (IED)
(1) Direktiva 2010/75/EU o industrijskim emisijama (integrirana prevencija i kontrola
one iš enja - IPPC) naslanja se i pretapa: direktivu EU o otpadu iz industrije titanijevog
dioksida, EU direktivu o emisijama hlapivih organskih spojeva (VOC) iz organskih
otapala, Direktivu o spaljivanju otpada, Direktivu o ograni enju emisija one iš enja u
zrak iz velikih postrojenja za izgaranje i Direktivu vezanu za integriranu prevenciju i
kontrolu one iš enja.
(2)
Temelji se na prevenciji i reduciranju one iš enja na izvoru po principu
„one iš iva pla a“
(3)
Razli iti pristupi kontrole emisija u zrak, vode i tlo zasebno mogu potaknuti
premještanje one iš enja iz jednog medija u drugi. Direktiva osigurava integriran
pristup prevencije i kontrole emisija u zrak, vode i tlo, gospodarenja otpadom,
energetske efikasnosti i prevencije incidenata.
(4)
Direktiva ide k pojašnjenju odredbi, reducira nepotreban administrativni teret i
implementira zaklju ke komisije vezane uz tematsku strategiju o one iš enju zraka,
tematsku strategiju zaštite tla i tematsku strategiju prevencije i recikliranja otpada, a
naslanja se na Šesti Okolišni Akcijski Program EU iz 2002.
(5)
Svaka instalacija može biti pokrenuta jedino ako ima okolišnu dozvolu ili u
slu aju posebnih instalacija koje koriste organska otapala jedino ako posjeduje okolišnu
dozvolu ili je registrirana
(6)
Na zemljama lanicama je da odrede pristup kojim e se dodijeliti odgovornost
operatera na instalacijama da provedu sukladnost s direktivom. Okolišna dozvola se
može dodjeliti operateru za itavu instalaciju ali i na više operatera za razli ite dijelove
instalacije.
(7)
U cilju pojednostavljivanja dobivanja dozvole, zemlje lanice mogu postaviti
zahtjeve za pojedine kategorije instalacija u op im povezanim pravilima.
(8)
Važno je sprije iti incidente i ograni iti utjecaje. Odgovornost spram incidenata
je stvar nacionalnih akata i drugih relevantnih akata EU.
(9)
Radi uklanjanja dupliciranja, dozvola za instalaciju vezana uz EC direktivu
2003/87/EC koja postavlja okvir za dozvolu trgovanja emisijama unutar EU ne
uklju uje grani nu vrijednost emisija za neposredne emisije stakleni kih plinova.
(10) Na temelju lanka 193 sporazuma o funkcioniranju EU, ova direktiva ne
ograni ava zemlje lanice da usvoje i strože zaštitne mjere.
(11) Operateri trebaju podnijeti prijavu za odobrenje dozvole koja sadrži potrebne
informacije za ovlašteno tijelo. Operateri pri prijavi trebaju uvažiti Direktivu o procjeni
inka javnih i privatnih zahvata na okoliš i Direktivu o kontroli rizika velikih nesre a
koje uklju uju opasne tvari.
(12) Dozvola treba uklju iti sve mjere potrebne kako bi se postigla visoka razina
zaštite okoliša kao cjeline kao i mjere koje osiguravaju da se proizvodnja odvija u
skladu s op im principima koje je operater dužan ispoštovati. Dozvola tako er treba
uklju iti grani ne vrijednosti emisija za one iš uju e tvari ili ekvivalentne parametre ili
tehni ke mjere, prikladne mjere za zaštitu tla i podzemnih voda. Uvjeti dozvole trebaju
biti postavljeni na temelju najboljih raspoloživih tehnologija.
(13) S ciljem utvr ivanja najboljih raspoloživih tehnologija i limitiranja razina
industrijskih emisija u EU, referentni dokumenti s najboljim raspoloživim
tehnologijama (BAT) se trebaju sastaviti i nadopunjavati. Komisija e postaviti vodilju
za prikupljanje podataka o BATu kao i osiguranje kvalitete. Referentni dokumenti se
trebaju obnavljati u razdoblju od max. 8 godina.
(14) Komisija e uspostaviti forum za razmjenu informacija o BAT-u. Prakti ni
sporazumi s ciljem razmjene informacija i pristupu BAT-u se trebaju propisati s ciljem
osiguranja kvalitete i kvantitete informacija.
(15) Potrebna je fleksibilnost u odre ivanju grani nih vrijednosti kako ih vrijednosti
emisija uz primjenu BAT-a ne bi prekora ile.
(16) Ako vrijednosti emisija povezane s BAT uzrokuju prekomjerne troškove u
odnosu na korist, grani ne vrijednosti emisija se mogu pomaknuti s time da se ne
prekora uju vrijednosti emisija u ovoj direktivi.
Obaveze zaštite tala i podzemnih voda od one iš enja prema IED
IED u lanku 12. Paragraf 1.e. odre uje da sve zemlje lanice poduzmu mjere kod
izdavanja novih okolišnih dozvola kao i kod zatvaranja industrijskih aktivnosti, da se
napravi i ocjena stanja tla odnosno nultog stanja (baseline report).
Kada aktivnost uklju uje korištenje, proizvodnju ili ispuštanje relevantne opasne tvari i
postoji mogu nost one iš enja tla i podzemnih voda na prostoru instalacije, operator e
izraditi i priložiti ovlaštenom tijelu izvješ e o nultom stanju (baseline report) prije
pokretanja pogona ili prije obnavljanja dozvole po prvi puta nakon 7. Sije nja 2013.
Izvješ e o nultom stanju treba sadržavati sve potrebne informacije iz ega se može
utvrditi stanje tla te stanje one iš enosti podzemnih voda, kako bi se mogla napraviti
kvantitativna usporedba sa stanjem tla i podzemnih voda nakon definitivnog završetka
industrijskih aktivnosti.
Izvješ e o nultom stanju (baseline report) treba minimalno sadržavati:
(a) Informaciju o sadašnjem na inu korištenja zemljišne estice kao i informaciju,
ako postoji, o na inima korištenja tog zemljišta u prošlosti.
(b) Postoje e informacije o izmjeri kakvo e i stanja tla kao i stanja podzemnih voda
koje odražavaju stanje kada je izvještaj sastavljan, alternativno, nova
kvantitativna analiti ka mjerenja tla i podzemnih voda, za one tvari od kojih
postoji potencijalni rizik od one iš enja iz proizvodnje ili popratnih emisija,
trebaju biti priložene.
Ako ve postoje informacije o stanju tla i podzemnih voda, izra ene u sklopu
nacionalne regulative, a koje zadovoljavaju tražene uvjete prema ovoj direktivi, one se
mogu priložiti uz izvješ e o nultom stanju.
Europska komisija e uspostaviti smjernice o sadržaju izvješ a o nultom stanju
IED, u lanku 14. tako er utvr uje uvjete dozvole za popratne aktivnosti kao što je
zaštita tla i podzemnih voda kroz pra enje utjecaja sustava upravljanja industrijskim
otpadom nastalim tijekom proizvodnje.
IED postavlja zahtjev za „trajnim pra enjem (monitoringom)“ tla i podzemnih voda što
je definirano u lanku 16.
Pra enje stanja podzemnih voda provoditi e se najmanje jednom u 5 godina dok e se
pra enje tla obavljati najmanje svakih 10 godina.
IED utvr uje mjere sa tlom koje se trebaju poduzeti nakon zatvaranja industrijskog
pogona u lancima 22.3 i 22.4.:
Nakon kona nog zatvaranja proizvodnog pogona, operator e napraviti analizu stanja tla
i one iš enja podzemnih voda od one iš uju ih tvari korištenih, proizvedenih ili
ispuštenih iz instalacije. Gdje je pogon uzrokovao zna ajno one iš enje tla i podzemnih
voda, a što se vidi iz usporedbe prema izvješ u o nultom stanju (baseline report),
operater ima obavezu poduzeti sve relevantne mjere kako bi sanirao one iš enje i
zemljište vratio u stanje prije pokretanja proizvodnje.
Nakon završetka proizvodnje, a gdje one iš enje predstavlja zna ajan rizik za zdravlje
ljudi i okoliš, operater e poduzeti potrebne mjere uklanjanja ili reduciranja one iš enja
tla i podzemnih voda (remedijacija) tako da takvo zemljište prestane predstavljati
zna ajan rizik.
Sustav upravljanja one iš enim tlom prema IED na primjeru Flandrije
Uspostava efikasnog sustava zaštite tla i podzemnih voda od one iš enja prema IED,
zahtjeva uspostavu funkcionalnog ustrojstvenog okvira na razini države koji se sastoji
od zakonskog okvira kojim se detaljno definira zaštita tla te ostalih instrumenata za
provedbu politike kao što su: registar one iš enih tala; certifikat o tlu; standardi za tlo;
obveza financiranja; akreditiranje eksperata za tlo [17].
Kao funkcionalan primjer uspostave navedenog sustava, može poslužiti postoje i
flamanski sustav upravljanja one iš enim tlom iz kojeg se djelomi no mogu prenijeti
uspostavljena rješenja, a iji je opis ukratko iznesen.
Flamanski sustav upravljanja one iš enim tlom definiran je u uredbi odnosno Dekretu o
remedijaciji i zaštiti tla [18], donesenog 14. Prosinca 2007, iji je cilj zaštita tla od
one iš enja i ošte enja. Postavljeni ciljevi zaštite teže postizanju poboljšanja stanja tla
približno stanju kakvo nalazimo u prirodnim, neone iš enim uvjetima. Uredbom je
regulirana obveza uklanjanja “povijesnog” one iš enja kroz razdoblje od proteklih 40tak godina kao i prevencija te remedijacija novih one iš enja tla. Ima više instrumenta
za provedbu politike, a jedan od osnovnih instrumenata predstavlja Informacijski
registar o tlima (Soil Information Register) koji sadrži kvantitativne i analiti ke
parametre tla svih istraženih one iš enih lokaliteta u Flandriji. Informacijski registar
sadrži tzv. certifikate o tlu (Soil certificates) za svaku navedenu zemljišnu esticu sa
svim potrebnim podacima, a itav sustav provodi flamanska agencija za otpad
(OVAM). Inventarizacija potencijalno rizi nog zemljišta vodi se na razini nižih
upravnih jedinica odnosno „županija“ (Slika 1).
Slika 1. Prikaz istraženih one iš enih lokaliteta u Flandriji iz registra o tlu
Svaka novo one iš ena lokacija podrazumijeva se ona koja je one iš ena nakon 28.
Listopada 1995 i na nju se stavlja obveza provo enja remedijacije ako su prekora eni
zakonski postavljeni standardi. Za povijesna one iš enja koja su se dogodila prije 29.
Listopada 1995. Postoji obveza remedijacije ako postoji ozbiljan rizik za zdravlje i
okoliš i to prema odre enim prioritetima. Obvezu provo enja i financiranja remedijacije
ima operater, a u slu aju da on nije poznat tu obavezu preuzima korisnik zemljišta. U
slu aju da ne posjeduje dostatne resurse, može aplicirati za potporu od strane flamanske
vlade. Standarde za remedijaciju (grani ne i ciljne vrijednosti) donosi flamanska vlada,
a oni moraju biti ispod vrijednosti koje predstavljaju rizik za zdravlje i okoliš. Ako se
utvrdi da one iš enje tla prelazi grani ne vrijednosti, odmah se provodi detaljnije
istraživanje tla. Za provo enje istražnih aktivnosti na tlu, flamanska vlada ovlaš uje
fizi ke i pravne osobe tzv. eksperte za remedijaciju tla (trenutno su u Flandriji
akreditirane 72 osobe odnosno kompanije). Eksperti za remedijaciju provode
preliminarna istraživanja tla i podzemnih voda, detaljna istraživanja, remedijaciju te
izra uju završni izvještaj. Do 2013. Godine je u Flandriji izdano preko 3 miliona
certifikata o tlu, izvedeno je preko 32000 preliminarnih ispitivanja tla, preko 9500
detaljnih ispitivanja. Više od 4000 projekata remedijacije je odobreno, 3500 ih je
zapo eto, a oko 2200 završeno.
Implementacije sustava upravljanja i gospodarenja one iš enim tlom u Hrvatskoj
Implementacija sustava upravljanja one iš enim tlom prema zahtjevima IED traži
uspostavu funkcionalnog ustrojstvenog sustava na razini države (slika 2):
NADLEŽNOST (MINISTARSTVO)
ZAKONSKA OSNOVA
REGISTAR ONE IŠ ENIH LOKALITETA
AKREDITIRANI EKSPERTI ZA TLO
Slika 2. Sustav upravljanja one iš enim tlom
Kao osnovni problem kod uspostave sustava gospodarenja one iš enim tlom postavlja
se pitanje nadležnosti resornih ministarstava za pitanja tla. U dosadašnjoj praksi u RH,
za pitanja vezana uz tlo uglavnom je nadležno sadašnje Ministarstvo poljoprivrede u
kojem su djelomi no razvijani i potrebni kapaciteti za provedbu obveza. Ministarstvo
poljoprivrede putem Agencije za poljoprivredno zemljište operativno i djelomi no
provodi kontrolu stanja tla ali radi se uglavnom o poljoprivrednom zemljištu (urbana
podru ja na kojima i dolazi do one iš enja tla su van djelokruga ovog ministarstva). S
druge strane za provedbu op e okolišne politike, politike održivog razvoja te zaštitu
sastavnica okoliša (zrak, tlo, vode, more, bioraznolikost), te okolišnih direktiva kao
IED, prema Zakonu o ustrojstvu i djelokrugu ministarstva i drugih središnjih tijela
državne uprave [19] nadležno je Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode zajedno s
operativnim tijelom, a to je Agencija za zaštitu okoliša. Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i
prirode kao niti Agencija za zaštitu okoliša, nemaju za sada dostatne kapacitete za
samostalnu operativnu provedbu gospodarenja one iš enim tlom prema IED. Isto tako,
pra enje kakvo e podzemnih voda na vodocrpilištima je u djelokrugu Ministarstva
zdravlja (Zavodi za javno zdravstvo) odnosno Hrvatskih voda.
Prema IED ( lanak 22), djelatnosti koje uklju uju korištenje, proizvodnju ili emisije
štetnih tvari (hazardeous substances) koje mogu one istiti tlo i podzemne vode na
lokalitetu, trebaju pripremiti i podnijeti izvješ e o nultom stanju (baseline report) prije
pokretanja pogona ili obnavljanja okolišne dozvole. Me utim, do danas u hrvatskom
zakonodavstvu nije definiran pojam „one iš enja tla“, nije definirano na koje
one iš uju e tvari u tlu se IED odnosi, a isto tako nisu postavljene niti grani ne
vrijednosti. U zakonodavstvu nisu definirane vrijednosti koje predstavljaju „zna ajno
one iš enje“ odnosno „zna ajan rizik“ u slu aju kojeg postoji obveza „remedijacije tla“
nakon trajnog prekidanja proizvodnje. Iako je u novom zakonu o zaštiti okoliša dosta
toga posve eno IED-u, povezana problematika one iš enih tala je vrlo malo i dosta
uop eno obra ena tako da se postavlja kao nužno na i okvir koji e precizno definirati
postupke upravljanja s one iš enim tlom.
Vezano uz pitanja registra one iš enja tla, agencija za zaštitu okoliša izradila je bazu
GEOL 2006. godine u sklopu Hrvatskog informacijskog sustava tla (HIST). GEOL je
georeferencirana (GIS) baza koja obuhva a podatke i informacije o potencijalnim i
prepoznatim one iš enim lokacijama, one iš uju im tvarima na potvr eno one iš enim
lokacijama, te statusu provedbe sanacije (remedijacije) one iš enih lokacija. Provedena
je nadogradnja postoje ih korelacijskih veza GEOL-as bazama podataka Katastar
odlagališta otpada i Registar postrojenja u kojima je utvr ena prisutnost opasnih tvari
(RPOT). S obzirom na trenutno stanje, AZO je napravio zna ajan iskorak prema
izgradnji informati ko-prostorne platforme koja predstavlja dobar temelj za daljnji
razvoj sustava upravljanja s one iš enim lokalitetima. Predstoje i koraci zahtijevaju
kontinuirano nadopunjavanje osnovane informati ke baze sa kvantitativnim
parametrima tla, ovisno o izvoru one iš enja i to na svim lokalitetima relevantnim za
IED što e vjerojatno predstavljati dugotrajan i financijski zahtjevan proces.
Primjeri regionalnog optere enja tala one iš uju im tvarima (urbano podru je,
poljoprivreda, šumarstvo i Natura2000)
Grad Zagreb
U Programu zaštite okoliša grada Zagreba (2009) istaknut je problem optere enja
zagreba kog vodonosnika pojedinim one iš uju im tvarima kao vjerojatna posljedica
prekomjerne one iš enosti tala na podru ju grada. Zagreba ki vodonosnik je glavni
izvor snabdijevanja stanovništva grada Zagreba pitkom vodom. Nesumnjivo, radi zaštite
zdravlja ljudi, provodi se vrlo kvalitetan i pouzdan monitoring kvalitete vode za pi e u
za to ovlaštenim laboratorijima. Me utim, prema dosadašnjim indicijama radi se o
ekološki vrlo osjetljivom sustavu, izrazito ranjivom na one iš enja. Na užem podru ju
grada Zagreba, na ve em broju zdenaca utvr ena su zaga enja koja upu uju na
kontaminaciju tala u tom okruženju (slika 3). Naj eš a one iš enja uzrokovana su
pove anim koncentracijama teških metala kao što je olovo što su pokazale analize
podzemnih voda u vodocrpilištima na podru ju Zapru a, Pre kog, Kosnice, Ivanje
Reke. Isto tako su vrlo esta one iš enja podzemnih voda manganom (Petruševec,
Sašnjak i Kosnica) te živom (Kosnica). Osim teških metala, poseban problem
predstavljaju atrazini koji su na eni u podzemnoj vodi na podru ju Buzina. Zbog
prekomjernog unosa one iš uju ih tvari u podzemne vode grad Zagreb je u roku od 10
godina ostao bez vodocrpilišta koja su davala 114,5 milijuna litara vode dnevno
(potrebe grada od 350.000 stanovnika).
Problem zagreba kog vodonosnika vrlo je o iti primjer izostanka sustavnog pristupa
upravljanja sa one iš enim tlom, što dovodi i do „one iš enja“ podzemnih voda te u
kona nici rezultira zatvaranjem vodocrpilišta. Sustavno rješavanje problema, ime bi se
dugoro no smanjio pritisak i rizik od one iš enja može se potražiti i prenijeti iz IED i to
kroz slijede e korake: a) pove anim angažmanom gradske uprave na identificiranju
one iš enih lokaliteta i pripadaju ih one iš uju ih tvari, b) utvr ivanjem stanja
one iš enosti tala od strane ovlaštenih eksperata (registar one iš enja); c) uspostavom
grani nih vrijednosti za tla koja ne predstavljaju zna ajan rizik za zdravlje i okoliš (na
razini države); d) postupnom provedbom remedijacije na utvr enim rizi nim
lokalitetima; e) donošenjem precizne zakonske regulative koja e definirati sve
prethodne mjere.
Slika 3. Lokacije “potencijalno” one iš enih tala uz vodocrpilišta (Iz Programa zaštite
okoliša grada Zagreba 2009
Zadarska županija
Za analizu stanja one iš enosti tala tijekom izrade Izvješ e o stanju okoliša Zadarske
županije (2012), korišten je geokemijski atlas Republike Hrvatske [20].
Na podru ju Županije nalazimo zna ajno pove ane koncentracije arsena, kadmija,
kroma i mangana (slika 4) koji su ve inom vrlo toksi ni za ljude, biljke i životinje.
Pove ane koncentracije arsena, kroma i mangana na tom prostoru nastaju od prirode tj.
vezane su uz geološku boksitnu podlogu i trošenje boksitnih ležišta, dok se za porijeklo
kadmija navode lokalni izvori one iš enja. Prema postoje oj zakonskoj regulativi
(Pravilnik o zaštiti poljoprivrednog zemljišta od one iš enja [5]) i važe im MDK
(maksimalno dopuštena koli ina), zbog visokog sadržaja tih elemenata u tlu velika
podru ja na prostoru županije možemo svrstati u klasu one iš enog do zaga enog
zemljišta. Posebno je važno istaknuti „one iš eno zemljište“ visokim koncentracijama
kroma na širem podru ju Ravnih kotara na kojem se nalaze vrijedne poljoprivredne
površine s intenzivnom proizvodnjom. S obzirom na to da se radi o relativno visokim
koncentracijama, prema kojima se zemljište klasificira kao „one iš eno“ postavlja se
pitanje npr. ekološke poljoprivrede kao i pridobivanje sredstava poticaja iz EU na tom
podru ju pri sadašnjoj regulativi. Me utim pošto se radi o prirodnim koncentracijama
na podru ju povijesno opredijeljenom za poljoprivredu, upitno je koliko u stvarnosti
pove ane koncentracije, npr. kroma, predstavljaju „zna ajan rizik“ za zdravlje i okoliš, i
da li je potrebno zbog njih postavljati ograni enja u proizvodnji hrane. Pri izradi novih
pravilnika koji e propisivati grani ne vrijednosti, svakako treba uzeti u obzir i prirodna
optere enja one iš uju im tvarima u tlu kao i njihov stvarni ekološki rizik.
Slika 4. Optere enje tala arsenom, kadmijem, kromom i manganom na prostoru
zadarske županije [20]
Vukovarsko-srijemska županija (Spa va-Natura2000)
Šuma Spa va u Vukovarsko-srijemskoj županiji uklju ena je u Natura 2000 podru ja u
Hrvatskoj. Posebno se isti e jugozapadni dio Spa ve koji se sastoji od zašti enih
poplavnih miješanih šuma Quercus robur, Ulmus laevis, Ulmus minor, Fraxinus
excelsior ili angustifolia, aluvijalnih šuma (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion
albae), hrastovo-grabove šume Carpinion betuli i prirodnih eutrofnih voda s
vegetacijom Hydrocharition ili Magnopotamion. Me utim, veliki dio zašti enih
podru ja nalazi se na one iš enom tlu s vrlo visokim sadržajem kroma i nikla (Slika 5),
porijeklom iz poplavnih sedimenata Save. Iako u uvjetima prirodnih staništa, nije
vjerojatno poduzimanje ikakvih mjera sanacije odnosno remedijacije, sustav upravljanja
tlom u ovakvim prirodnim uvjetima treba uzeti u obzir, kako sam sadržaj pojedinih
one iš uju ih tvari, tako i procjenu rizika na staništa i zašti ene vrste kako bi i sama
zaštita na tim podru jima dobila puni smisao.
Slika 5. One iš enje tla kromom i niklom [20] u zašti enom, Natura2000 predjelu
Spa ve
Zaklju ak
Zaštita tla u EU provedena je kroz razli ite sektorske direktive kojima tlo nije temeljni
subjekt, a s posebnim osvrtom na sprje avanje unosa one iš enja u podzemne i
površinske vode.
Postupanje s iskopanim tlom na one iš enom zemljištu se unutar Direktive o otpadu
(Directive 2008/98/EG concerning Waste) tretira kao „end of waste“ što omogu uje
ponovnu uporabu odnosno „recikliranje“ iskopanog materijala, odnosno regulira
oporabu neo iš enog iskopanog tla.
Sprje avanje one iš enja tla se spominje i u kontekstu Okvirne direktive o vodama
(Directive 2000/60/ EC concerning Water & Directive 2006/118/EG concerning
Groundwater) koje imaju za cilj postizanja "dobre kakvo e vode do 2015" i poboljšanje
kakvo e podzemne vode, a za provedbu navedenih direktiva izra uju se posebni
planovi gospodarenja sa slivovima kao i definiranje to kastih izvora one iš enja.
Direktiva EU o okolišnoj odgovornosti, (Directive 2004/35/CE concerning
Environmental liability) ima za cilj prevenciju i otklanjanje ošte enja okoliša, a unutar
navedene direktive nalazi se i ošte ivanje tla. Ovom direktivom regulira se kako
izvoditelji razli itih zahvata u okolišu moraju poduzeti nužne mjere prevencije kako bi
se sprije ili nepovoljni utjecaji na tlo.
Za zaštitu tla od one iš enja poseban zna aj ima Direktiva o industrijskim Emisijama
(Directive 2010/75/CE concerning Industrial Emissions). IED Direktiva navodi obvezu
izrade izvješ a o nultom stanju one iš enja tla kao uvjet za dobivanje okolišne dozvole i
pokretanja proizvodnje, pra enja stanja tla i podzemnih voda na podru ju industrijskih
postrojenja i to u periodu od svakih deset odnosno 5 godina. Nakon prestanka
proizvodnje, a u slu aju prekora enja „zna ajnog one iš enja tla“ operater ima obvezu
remedijacije odnosno povrata zemljišta u stanje kakvo je bilo na po etku pokretanja
proizvodnje.
Upravljanja one iš enim tlom prema IED zahtjeva od Republike Hrvatske uspostavu
kompleksnog sustava koji kao prvo traži bolje definiranje nadležnosti za problematiku
tla izme u ministarstava, izradu adekvatne zakonske osnove za tlo po na elu
„one iš iva pla a“, te izgradnju instrumenata za provedbu politike zaštite tla kao što je
izrada registra one iš enih tala, akreditiranja eksperata za tlo te za provedbu
remedijacije.
Usporedno sa sektorskim reguliranjem zaštite tla, prisutna je i inicijativa za donošenje
jedinstvenog zakonodavstva na razini EU, a koja je definirana u "Tematskoj strategiji za
tlo" (Soil Thematic Strategy) te prijedlogu "Okvirne direktive za tlo" (Soil Framework
Directive). Me utim zbog izuzetno suprotstavljenih interesa pojedinih zemalja lanica
EU i izrazito širokog spektra regulativa gdje je zastupljeno tlo, donošenje ovakve
jedinstvene regulative je za sada pod znakom pitanja.
Literatura
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Uredba o procjeni utjecaja zahvata na okoliš, Narodne novine 64/08, 67/09
Zakon o zaštiti okoliša, Narodne novine 80/13
Kazneni zakon, Narodne novine 125/11, 144/12
Zakon o poljoprivrednom zemljištu, Narodne novine 152/08, 21/10, 39/13
Pravilnik o zaštiti poljoprivrednog zemljišta od one iš enja, Narodne novine
32/10
[6] Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvr ivanje osobito vrijednog obradivog (P1) i
vrijednog obradivog (P2) poljoprivrednog zemljišta, Narodne novine 53/10
[7] Pravilnik o metodologiji za pra enje stanja poljoprivrednog zemljišta, Narodne
novine 60/10
[8] Pravilnik o na inu motrenja ošte enosti šumskih ekosustava, Narodne novine
67/10
[9] Zakon o šumama, Narodne novine140/05, 82/06, 129/08, 80/10, 124/10, 25/12,
68/12
[10]
Cardon M. Soil Policy at EU level. Presentation from the workshop in
Public Waste Agency of Flanders – OVAM, 11.-14. September 2012, Mechelen.
[11]
Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM(2006)231)
[12]
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive
2004/35/EC (COM(2006)232)
[13]
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
[14]
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing
common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common
agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers,
amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No
378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
[15]
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated
administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers
provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support
scheme provided for the wine sector
[16]
DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated
pollution prevention and control)
[17]
Gommeren E. 2012: Soil management in Flanders. Presentation from the
workshop in Public Waste Agency of Flanders – OVAM, 11.-14. September
2012, Mechelen.
[18]
Decree on soil remediation and soil protection.
[19]
Zakon o ustrojstvu i djelokrugu ministarstva i drugih središnjih tijela
državne uprave Narodne novine, 150/11, 22/12, 39/13
[20]
Halami J., Miko S. (ur.) 2009. Geokemijski atlas Republike Hrvatske.
Hrvatski Geološki Institut, 87str. Zagreb.
Utjecaj golf terena na agroekosustav
Martina Lipovš ak1, Aleksandra Ani Vu ini 2, Nenad Mikuli
3
1
Ivana Mžurani a 3, Sisak, Hrvatska ([email protected])
Geotehni ki fakultet Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu, Hallerova aleja 7, Varaždin, Hrvatska
3
Eko invest d.o.o., Draškovi eva 50, Zagreb, Hrvatska
2
Sažetak
Travnate površine golf igrališta imaju svoju posebnu ulogu. Kratko pokošena trava na
relativno ravnoj i glatkoj površini tla oko rupe (green), viša trava na neure enoj površini
koja okružuje rupe (rough) te nekošena trava (fringe) koja služi za usporavanje i
zaustavljanje golf loptice. Sve ove travnate površine zahtijevaju posebnu njegu i tretman
gnojivima i sredstvima za zaštitu bilja.
Tijekom postupka Procjene utjecaja na okoliš golf igrališta, posebna pažnja javnosti i
stru njaka posve uje se utjecaju uporabe gnojiva i sredstava za zaštitu bilja na okoliš i
to na tlo te površinske i podzemne vode. Zbog toga je u ovome radu razmatran utjecaj
golf igrališta na okoliš, posebice na agroekosustav, tijekom korištenja i održavanja
travnatih površina uporabom gnojiva i sredstava za zaštitu bilja. Radi usporedbe,
odgovaraju a istraživanja obavljena su i za uzgoj odabranih poljoprivrednih kultura koje
tako er zahtijevaju primjenu gnojiva i sredstva za zaštitu bilja.
Dobiveni rezultati doprinose objektivnijoj ocjeni utjecaja golf igrališta na agroekosustav
u odnosu na pretpostavljeni uzgoj poljoprivrednih kultura na istoj lokaciji.
Klju ne rije i: golf igrališta, agroekosustav, utjecaj, poljoprivredne kulture, okoliš
Uvod
Golf igrališta danas su nezaobilazan dio vrhunske turisti ke ponude. Kako bi ti tereni
bili zanimljivi izbirljivoj klijenteli a ujedno i isplativi investitorima moraju zadovoljiti
niz zahtjeva. Prvi je naravno financijska isplativost. Budu i da troškovi izgradnje i
održavanja golf igrališta nadilaze prihode od korištenja igrališta, u obuhvatu zahvata
planiraju se apartmani pa ak i cijela mala naselja koja se iznajmljuju ili prodaju
pretežno igra ima golfa. Golf igrališta uklju uju i i apartmanska naselja zauzimaju
relativno velike površine (oko 100 ha) esto u prirodnom i/ili dijelom poljoprivrednom
okolišu. Uklapanje u prirodni ambijent, što uklju uje u fazi projektiranja i gradnje
posebnu prilagodbu razmještaja igrališta i ostalih sadržaja na na in da ne utje u na
prirodne vrijednosti i životne zajednice u obuhvatu zahvata, posebno se vrednuje od
strane Europskog golf udruženja (European Golf Association - EGA). Bez obzira na
studiozno izra enu dokumentaciju te mjere zaštite prirode i okoliša propisane temeljem
provedenih postupaka Procjene utjecaja na okoliš, u javnosti je prisutan negativan stav
prema takvim zahvatima. Jedan od naj eš ih argumenata protiv golf terena je njihov
navodni neprihvatljiv utjecaj na tlo i podzemne vode (agroekosustav).
Prenamjena tla postavlja pitanje da li je baš to prava i kvalitetna namjena. Naime u
današnje vrijeme potreba za hranom je velika a tako er i potreba za razvoj elitnog
turizma. Prema istraživanjima, po propisima golf igrališta moraju zadovoljiti odre eni
zahtjeve za o uvanje bioraznolikosti te se pri tome uklopiti u izgled krajobraza dok s
druge strane poljoprivreda ne poštuje zakone bioraznolikosti te uklapanja u krajobraz.
Kod intenzivne poljoprivrede tlo se maksimalno iskorištava, pesticidima se uništavaju
razni korisni organizmi, te edafon tla.
Tako er se postavlja pitanje kolika je potrošnja danas najdragocjenijeg prirodnog
resursa, vode. I koliko ustvari poljoprivreda kao i golf igrališta pridonose one iš enju te
potrošnji podzemnih voda. Golf igrališta i poljoprivredne kulture zauzimaju velike
površine. Investitorima u golf igrališta najzanimljivija su zemljišta locirana u blizini
poželjnih turisti kih lokacija.
Od po etka razvoja golf igre razmatra se pitanje utjecaja na okoliš i prirodu. Stanje
ekološke bilance uvelike ovisi o lokaciji, obliku i vrstama mjera održavanja igrališta, te
može biti pozitivno ili negativno. Na jednom kraju ljestvice nalaze se igrališta u skladu
s ekološkom orijentacijom, a druga krajnost su igrališta za golf na podru jima gdje oni
ine organski strano tijelo i neumjerenu potrošnju resursa (primjerice vode) ili uvo enje
neendemskih biljaka, intenzivno rabljenje pesticida, te predstavljaju opasnost za okoliš.
Naj eš i problem, osim destrukcije okoliša su nitrati koji se unose u tlo gnojidbom.
Ekološki problem tako er predstavljaju u zemljama gdje se golf turizam tek razvija,
dolazi do oduzimanja zemljišta lokalnim poljoprivrednicima ili se ugrožava lokalna
opskrba vodom i korištenje šuma.
Alan i sur., (2003.), navode da je u skladu s o uvanjem okoliša osmišljen program koji
pove ava aktivno sudjelovanje ekologa na golf igralištima, na taj na in poboljšavaju i
kvalitetu igrališta za biljni i životinjski svijet. Golf igrališta zauzimaju velike površine
koje su prirodna staništa. injenica je da bi se to zemljište moglo koristiti za
urbanizaciju i poljoprivredu. Potrebno je još puno rada s ekološkog stajališta da bi se u
potpunosti razumjelo kako golf tereni utje u na biološku raznolikost u krajoliku.
Najvažnija ekološka inicijativa je Valderramska deklaracija "donesena u studenome
1999. godine kojom su utvr ene prednosti zajedni kog rada golf igra a i ekologa za
"dobrobit golfa, okoliša i ljudi". Potpisana je od strane predstavnika United States Golf
Association (USGA), Royalan Acient Golf Club of St Andrews, European Golf
Association (EGA), Me unarodnog olimpijskog saveza, World Wide Fund of Nature
(WWF), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) i Europske komisije.
Golf igrališta
Igrališta za golf su posebno ure ene i prilago ene površine za igranje golfa koje se
ure uju s razli itom razinom obrade, od najgrublje razine (rough površine) do najfinije
razine obrade (green površine) golf igrališta. Površine unutar golf igrališta ure uju se na
slijede i na in: golf polja, prirodno zelenilo i kultivirano zelenilo.
Prenamjena zapuštenog zemljišta je osnovna radnja pri zasnivanju golf igrališta ili
poljoprivrednih površina. Kod prenamjene dolazi do destrukcije prirodnog staništa
mnogim biljnim i životinjskim vrstama. Kako bi se sa uvala prirodna bioraznolikost od
izuzetne važnosti je da se dio prirodne vegetacije ostavi na zemljištu kao uto ište za
divlje životinje. U studijama utjecaja na okoliš posebno se obra a pažnja na rijetke i
zašti ene vrste biljaka i životinja, te se pronalazi najprihvatljivije rješenje. Cilj
intenzivne poljoprivredne proizvodnje je prinos te su ostalo organizmi na toj površini
kao i bioraznolikost zanemareni, suprotno tome ekološka poljoprivreda je u skladu sa
prirodom i okolišem.
Zemljište namijenjeno za golf igralište moglo bi se iskoristiti kao poljoprivredno
zemljište. Prema istraživanjima, WWF-a (2013.) oko 50% svjetskog korisnog zemljišta
je ve pretvoreno u poljoprivredno zemljište. Ta podru ja se i dalje pove avaju,
predvi a se da e se razvojem zemalja u budu nosti, više od 120 milijuna hektara
prirodnih stanište prenamijeniti u zemljište za poljoprivredu kako bi se zadovoljila
potreba za hranom do 2050. godine što uklju uje i tlo s visokom biološkom raznolikosti.
Najve i problemi prilikom navodnjavanja pojavljuju se na podru jima gdje je
nedostatak vode u ljetnim mjesecima. Radi problema s navodnjavanjem golf igrališta su
najisplativija na podru jima gdje ima dovoljno oborina te su potrebe za navodnjavanjem
minimalne.
Tako er se, odgovaraju im odabirom podru ja te pridržavanjem strogih propisa United
States Golf Association (USGA) metode može posti i da golf tereni pridonose o uvanju
prirode te pozitivno utje u na okoliš i ekonomski razvoj podru ja u kojem se nalaze. Za
tu svrhu postupci Procjene utjecaja na okoliš nesumnjivo mogu pridonijeti kvalitetnim
rješenjima.
Devastirana i za poljoprivredu neiskoristiva podru ja (npr. sanacija odlagališta otpada,
nepristupa an teren, velika udaljenost od naseljenog mjesta…) mogu se iskoristiti za
golf igrališta. Poštivanjem propisanih uvjeta golf igrališta pružaju uto ište divljim
biljnim i životinjskim vrstama, i postaju uvari kulturne i prirodne baštine.
Poljoprivredne površine
Poljoprivredni ekosustavi osiguravaju važna staništa za raznolike biljke i divlje
životinje, što je osobito izraženo u tradicionalnoj poljoprivredi koja njeguje raznolikost
vrsta. Pove anje potrebe za hranom pove ava prenamjenu prirodnih staništa kako bi se
oslobodilo zemljište za intenzivni uzgoj monokultura.
Prema istraživanjima WWF-a (2013.), kada je poljoprivreda vo ena agronomima, vodi
se briga o o uvanju i obnovi kriti nih staništa, zaštiti slivnih voda i poboljšanju
kvalitete tla i voda. Me utim poljoprivreda vo ena bez takovih stru njaka, predstavlja
veliku opasnost za jedinke u ekosistemu. Negativni utjecaji poljoprivrede nastali od
intenzivne poljoprivrede uklju uju:
- Prenamjenu zemljišta i gubitak tla,
- Rastrošnu upotrebu voda,
- Eroziju i degradaciju tla,
- One iš enje,
- Klimatske promjene,
- Gubitak genetske raznolikosti.
Osnovne temeljne zada e obrade tla za uzgoj poljoprivrednih kultura su: popravljanje
strukture tla, suzbijanje korova i unošenje gnojiva u tlo. Jedna od važnih zada a obrade
jest konzerviranje vlage, kada se uklju uju procesi infiltracije, površinskog otjecanja i
evaporacije. Ipak treba naglasiti da stvaranje kulturnog tla, odnosno proces njegove
antropogenizacije, po inje obradom tla, Butorac (1999.). Nedostaci obrade tla su ve i
gubitak vlage tla i pove ana mogu nost erozije tla.
Nakon uklanjanja prirodne vegetacije te obrade tla, izloženi gornji sloj tla esto bude
otpuhan vjetrom ili odnesen kišom na nagnutim terenima. Erozijom tijekom proizvodnje
soje izgubi se 55 miliona tona površinskog sloja tla. To dovodi do reduciranja plodnosti
tla i degradacije zemljišta. Odnošeno tlo kišom i vodom za navodnjavanje može dovesti
do sedimentacije u rijekama, jezerima i priobalnom podru ju. Problem je pogoršan ako
nema prirodne vegetacije uz obale rijeke ili ostalih vodenih površina da zadrže tlo.
Procijenjeno je da je od 1960, jedna tre ina svjetskih oranica izgubljena erozijom ili
ostalim degradacijama tla, (WWF (2013.)).
Poljoprivreda utje e negativno na genetsku raznolikost biljnog i životinjskog materijala.
Prema podacima WWF-a, rasprostranjen utjecaj geneti ki uniformnih modernih
varijeteta usjeva uzrokovalo je da poljoprivredni usjevi izgube oko 75% geneti ke
raznolikosti u zadnjem stolje u. Gubitak genetske raznolikost reducirala je potencijal
modernih kultura na prilagodbu ili uzgoj u promijenjenim uvjetima. Najvažnije
agrotehni ke mjere, uz obradu tla, za kvalitetan uzgoj su gnojidba, zaštita od šteto inja
te navodnjavanje.
Gnojidba
Jedna od važnijih agrotehni kih mjera je pravilna gnojidba. Pravilnom gnojidbom
postižu se visoki i stabilni prinosi, kakvo a proizvoda te profitabilnost. Tlo nije
nepresušan resurs i ne osigurava prirodnim procesima dovoljnu koli inu hranjiva za
visoke prinose, stoga je potrebno gnojidbom nadoknaditi iznesene ili na drugi na in
izgubljene hranjive elemente.
Hranjve tvari koje upotrebljavaju biljke sastoje se od iona minerala. Biljka ih otopljene
korijenjem crpi iz tla i zajedno sa ugljik dioksidom i vodom pretvara u hranu.
Makronutrijente biljke trebaju u razmjerno velikim koli inama, a to su: dušik, fosfor,
kalij, magnezij, kalcij i sumpor. Mikronutrijenti ili elementi u tragovima jednako su
važni ali su potrebni u malim koli inama. To su: željezo, mangan, bakar, cink, bor,
molidben i klor.
Gnojidba kao agrotehni ki zahvat nužna je da bi se održalo funkcioniranje sistema tlobiljka s obzirom na primanje hranjiva i stvaranje prinosa. Sve tvari organskog ili
mineralnog sastava koje oboga uju tlo aktivnim hranjivima, djeluju na pove anje
biološkog priroda ili prinosasu gnojiva.. Potrebno ih je koristiti u smislu osiguranja
optimalnog uroda, zaštite okoliša, te osiguranja zdravstvene ispravnosti proizvoda.
Izbalansirana gnojidba je jedan od najvažnijih imbenika intenzivnog uzgoja
poljoprivrednih kultura. Ve ini tala redovito treba dodavati samo dušik koji poti e bujan
rast, fosfor koji pomaže snažnom rastu korijenja i kalij koji poboljšava cvatnju i
plodonošenje. Osnovna gnojidba ve ine poljoprivrednih kultura je odgovaraju im
omjerom NPK (kompleksna mineralna gnojiva) gnojivima, koja se tako er upotrebljava
i za gnojidbu trava za uzgoj na golf terenima i oku nicama.
Nepravilna primjena gnojiva dovela je do štetnog utjecaja na okoliš. Eutrofikacija je
proces oboga ivanja površinskih voda hranjivima (dušik, fosfor, sumpor). Time dolazi
do pove anja produkcije biljnog i životinjskog svijeta u vodama i vodi ka promjenama u
akvati nom ekosustavu te smanjenju otopljenog kisika.
Primijenjena gnojiva u poljoprivrednim kulturama, stambenim površinama i golf
igralištima mogu biti izvor hranjiva u površinskim vodama.
Kao što je navedeno nitrati se najlakše ispiru iz tla te time one iš uju najvrjedniji
prirodni resurs, vodu. Monitoring nitrata u vodama odre en je Direktivom o zaštiti voda
od one iš enja koje uzrokuju nitrati poljoprivrednog podrijetla (91/676/EZ). Cilj
Direktive je smanjiti one iš enje voda, uzrokovano ili izazvano nitratima
poljoprivrednog podrijetla, te sprije iti daljnje takvo one iš enje.
Prema odredbama USGA-a velika gusto a trave, vriježa i korijenja tratine na golf
terenima omogu ava filtriranje i pro iš avanje svega što padne na zemlju bolje nego
bilo koja biljka. Pored velike gusto e stabljika, vriježa i korijenja postoji odre ena
mogu nost da višak neiskorištenih umjetnih gnojiva prolazi u podzemlje uglavnom
zbog prekomjernog prihranjivanja. Greenovi pomažu i ovdje tako što voda koja se
zadržava u donjem dijelu korijenskog sloja ("perched water"), a u sebi sadrži
neiskorišten dio hranjiva daje mogu nost korijenju da potroši do kraja ostatak hranjiva.
Uz podatke potrebne za gnojidbu golf igrališta analizirani su podaci za gnojidbu
kukuruza i pšenice koji pripadaju porodici trava (Poaceae) te imaju sli nu potrebu za
gnojidbom (Tablica 1).
Tablica 1. Ukupne potrebe istraživanih kultura za osnovnim hranjivima
Kultura/hranjivo
Dušik (N) kg/ha
Fosfor (P2O5)
Kalij (K2O)
kg/ha
kg/ha
KUKURUZ
150-200
100-120
120-180
OZIMA PŠENICA
160-180
80-120
80-120
TRAVNA
SMJESA
NA
GOLF
116-174
33-61
83-116
GRALIŠTU
Izvor: podaci za kukuruz dobiveni od Petrokemije; za ozimu pšenicu iz Pospišil A. (2010);
podaci za golf igralište iz Studije utjecaja na okoliš za golf igralište Baštijunski brig Biograd
n/m (2010).
Analizom prikupljenih podataka o potrebama za osnovnim hranjivima utvr eno je da su
potrebe za dušikom i fosforom kod ispitivanih kultura podjednake, dok se kukuruz isti e
sa potrebom za kalijem.
Dušik je najvažnije biljno hranjivo za sve životne procese u biljci. Kod ispiranja dušika
njegovo pove anje ima zna ajne posljedice na okoliš kao što su: pove anje
koncentracije nitrata u površinskim i podzemnim vodama, eutrofikaciju ija je
posljedica smanjenje bioraznolikosti, zakiseljavanje tala i površinskih voda depozicijom
amonija i dušikovog monoksida te pove anje atmosferskog sadržaja dušik- I oksida.
Fosfor je važan za rast biljaka, kakvo u plodova i sposobnost uvanja. Problemi koji se
javljaju u okolišu kao posljedica primjene fosfornih gnojiva su: smanjivanje zaliha
fosfatnih stijena, otpadni materijal koji ostaje nakon njihovog va enja, nepoželjni
elementi u fosfornim stijenama, transport fosfora do vodotoka i njihova eutrofikacija
koja za okoliš može biti pogubna. Primjenom odgovaraju ih uzgojnih mjera mogu se
smanjiti gubici fosfora iz tla i time smanjiti rizk od eutrofikacije a to su: primjena
gnojiva temeljena na analizama tla, uspostavljanje zaštitne zone oko površine ili uz
vodotoke koja spre ava ispiranje hranjiva u vodotoke.
Podjednaku potrebu za fosforom imaju pšenica i kukuruz. Kukuruz je osjetljiv na
nedostatak fosfora u prvom dijelu vegetacije. Fosfor utje e na razvoj korijenovog
sistema i na busanje pšenice. Time i objašnjavamo visoke zahtjeve u osnovnoj gnojidbi
tih kultura. Tijekom zasnivanja travnjaka posebice je kriti an fosfor. Prema
istraživanjima Teutsch i sur., (2000.), unošenjem 15-30 kg/ha fosfora na dubinu 2,5-5,0
cm (direktno ispod sjemena) unapre uje se brz razvoj korijena i porast mladih biljaka,
posebno na tlima srednje bogatim fosforom.
Kalij se nalazi u biljci u znatnim koli inama u obliku organskih i anorganskih tvari.
Najve a potreba za kalijem je kod kukuruza, a najmanja za travu na golf igralištima.
Kukuruz ima velike potrebe za kalijem osobito u vegetacijskoj fazi porasta. Mlade
biljke trave imaju relativno male potrebe za kalijem, no vrlo je važan za prinos i
postojanost travnjaka.
Analizirani podaci pokazuju da nema zna ajnih odstupanja u koli ini gnojiva koja se
primjenjuju u uzgoju poljoprivrednih kultura i na golf igralištima.
Sredstva za zaštitu bilja
Pokušavaju i se oduprijeti rastu im kritikama i protivljenju golf igralištima te stvoriti
pozitivnu sliku o sebi u javnosti, golferi nude „terene bez pesticida“, „golf terene
prijateljske prema okolišu“ ili „osjetljive golf terene“. Jasno je da takvi tereni ne
postoje, kreiranje i održavanje „savršenog travnjaka“ neizbježno zahtjeva intenzivnu
uporabu kemikalija.
Sredstva za zaštitu bilja su grupa kemikalija kojima je direktna namjena upotreba u
okolišu sa ciljem da suzbije nepoželjne bolesti, biljne i životinjske štetnike kako bi
zaštitila poljoprivredne i industrijske biljke. Me utim ve ina sredstava za zaštitu bilja ne
djeluje samo na štetnike te tijekom primjene djeluje na ostale biljke i životinje. U estala
primjena dovodi do gubitka bioraznolikosti. Ve ina ih se ne razgra uje lako te ostaju u
tlu, ispiru se do podzemnih i površinskih voda te i na taj na in one iš uju okoliš.
Sredstva za zaštitu bilja utje u na: one iš enje tla, voda, na organizme, te na
bioraznolikost. U posljednjih pedeset godina sredstva za zaštitu bilja su zajedno s
umjetnim gnojivima postali najtraženiji proizvodi u poljoprivredi. Sva sredstva za
zaštitu bilja djeluju vrlo štetno na ekosustave, mnogi ubijaju korisne kukce, ribe, ptice,
te tako uzrokuju više štete nego koristi. Ve ina je kukaca korisna ili bezopasna, ali
stradava njihovom upotrebom. Nepovoljno djeluju i na korisne tzv. duši ne bakterije u
tlu, a posljedica je iscrpljenje tla. Mnoga sredstva za zaštitu bilja ostaju aktivna u
okolišu mjesecima, godinama pa ak i desetlje ima. Smatraju se glavnim izvorom
one iš enja biosfere, WWF (2013.). U ekološkoj poljoprivredi zabranjena je uporaba
sredstava za zaštitu bilja ili je dozvoljena u iznimnim slu ajevima samo odre ena vrsta
kemikalija, dok se u konvencionalnoj poljoprivredi kao i na golf igralištima intenzivno
primjenjuju. Kod primjene sredstava za zaštitu bilja iznimno je važno pridržavati se
uputa propisanih od proizvo a kako bi štetan utjecaj na okoliš i ljudsko zdravlje bio
što manji.
Uporaba sredstava za zaštitu bilja na ispitivanim kulturama prikazana je u Tablici 2.
Tablica 2. Orijentacione ukupne koli ine preparata (pesticida) za zaštitu istraživanih
kultura
Kultura
Koli ina pesticida kg(l)/ha
KUKURUZ
5,5
OZIMA PŠENICA
8,5
TRAVNA
SMJESA
NA
GOLF
5,2
GRALIŠTU
Izvor: podaci dobiveni osobnom komunikacijom za kukuruz i ozimu pšenicu od tvrtke
Polygreen, podaci za golf igralište iz Studije utjecaja na okoliš izgradnje športsko rekreacijskog
centra s golf igralištem Sr (Ecoina, 2012).
Uzgoj monokultura i konstantna upotreba sredstava za zaštitu bilja te težnja prema
visokim prinosima uzrokuju pojavu šteto inja a time i ve u zaštitu biljaka.
Na golf igralištima važan je izgled i bujna vegetacija trave, te se pesticidi primjenjuju
tijekom cijele godine. U usporedbi sa analiziranim kulturama iz porodice Poacea na
golf igralištima se ne primjenjuje ve a koli ina sredstava za zaštitu bilja.
Voda
Voda je osnovni element društvenog i ekonomskog razvoja. Ekonomski razvoj treba se
bazirati na racionalnom korištenju svih resursa uklju uju i brigu za okoliš i zdravlje
ljudi. Jedan dio vode koji prolazi kroz tlo gubi se evapotranspiracijom, a dio otje e u
površinske tokove ili podzemnu vodu te na taj na in postaje potencijalni uzro nik
one iš enja zaliha vode. Me u najvažnijim ekološkim problemima golf igrališta je
potrošnja vode. Imaju velik zna aj u turizmu i cilj su kritikama tijekom sušnih razdoblja
kada su restrikcije pitke vode. Za postizanje kvalitetne trave na golf igralištima
navodnjavanje je potrebno tijekom cijele godine a naro ito u ljetnim mjesecima.
Proporcionalno veli ini golf igrališta raste i koli ina vode potrebna za navodnjavanje.
Veliki problemi nastaju tijekom ljetnih mjeseci u priobalnim podru jima jer nedostatak
prirodnih oborina i visoke temperature negativno utje u na izgled trave. Turizam u
Hrvatskoj uglavnom se bazira na primorskom dijelu, tako je u posljednjih godina
porastao i trend planiranja izgradnje golf igrališta na mjestima koja su u ljetne mjesece
oskudna vodom za lokalno stanovništvo i uzgoj hrane te je navodnjavanje golf igrališta
neprihvatljivo. Me utim njihovom izgradnjom popunjava se ponuda za elitini turizam
koji donosi ekonomski i turisti ki razvoj.
Ve nekoliko desetlje a golf industrija prepoznaje svoju odgovornost te reduciranjem
potrošnje vode postaje manje ovisna o pitkoj vodi za navodnjavanje. Golf industrija je
poduzela više pristupa problemu uklju uju i:
- uzgoj varijeteta trava koje imaju potrebu za manjom koli inom vode ili dobro
podnose manje kvalitetnu vodu,
- nove tehnologije koje poboljšavaju u inkovitost sustava za navodnjavanje,
- najbolje prakse u održavanju golf terena koje rezultiraju manjom potrošnjom
vode,
- upotrebu alternativnih izvora vode koji smanjuju ili eliminiraju korištenje pitke
vode,
- dizajn golf igrališta koji smanjuje zatravnjene površine koje za održavanje
zahtijevaju
velike koli ine vode i
- edukaciju voditelja golf igrališta i ostalih korisnika vode o mogu nostima
uporabe teku ih voda (USGA).
Koli ina vode potrebna za navodnjavanje ovisi o klimatskim uvjetima podru ja na
kojem se nalazi golf igralište, svojstvima korijenskog sustava trava, vrstama trava,
korištenju travnjaka kao i izvoru vode za zalijevanje. Kod odre ivanja potreba vode za
navodnjavanje golf igrališta, izra un potrebe za navodnjavanje temelji se na najve oj
dnevnoj potrebi u sušnom periodu, prema podacima USGA.
Kemijske zna ajke vode za navodnjavanje klasificiraju se prema problemima
zaslanjivanja, alkaliteta i toksi nosti. Od fizikalnih zna ajki vode za navodnjavanje
najvažniji su temperatura vode i koli ina suspendiranih estica. Stoga je potrebno
naglasiti da gospodarenje sustavom za navodnjavanje zapo inje na izvoru vode
analizom njene kvalitete.
U Hrvatskoj se pšenica uzgaja na velikim površinama i navodnjavanje nije uvriježeno,
tako er je sa ekonomskog stajališta navodnjavanje te kulture negativno, što esto
dovodi do smanjenja uroda uslijed suša. Dok je navodnjavanje kukuruza radi velikih
ljetnih suša ekonomski opravdano.
Ve inu potrebne koli ine vode kukuruzu osiguravaju oborine tijekom vegetacije ali i
oborine u jesensko-zimskom i ranom proljetno razdoblju prije sjetve kukuruza. Osim
ukupne koli ine kiša u vegetaciji kukuruza važan je i njihov raspored. Osobito su važne
kiše u tri ljetna mjeseca. U svakom od njih trebalo bi pasti 500 do 1500 m3/ha ili
prosje no 1000 m3/ha mjes no. Ra una se da kukuruz u cijeloj vegetacijii ukupno
potroši oko 5000-6000 m3/ha vode, Pucari (1997).
Pšenica ima najve e potrebe za vodom u predsjetvenoj obradi ili odmah poslije sjetve
(300-600 m3/ha vode), ovisno o vlažnosti zemljišta i meteorološkim prilikama. Zatim u
po etku vlatanja (300-600 m3/ha vode), Drezgi i sur. (1974).
U tablici 3. prikazane su potrebe ispitivanih kultura za vodom.
Tablica 3. Ukupne potrebe vode u vegetaciji istraživanih kultura
Kultura
voda
KUKURUZ
5000-6000 m3/ha
PŠENICA
700 m3/ha
TRAVNA
SMJESA
NA
GOLF
10 735 m3/ha
GRALIŠTU
Izvor: podaci za pšenicu: Drezgi P. i sur. (1974); za kukuruz: Pucari A. (1997); podaci za
golf igralište iz Studije utjecaja na okoliš za golf igralište Baštijunski brig Biograd n/m (2010).
Prikupljeni podaci pokazuju da je potrebna koli ina vode za optimalan rast i prinos golf
igrališta znatno ve a od potreba poljoprivrednih kultura. Navodnjavanje golf igrališta je
neophodno te je kao mjera zaštite u studiji utjecaja na okoliš propisano da se u slu aju
velike suše zalijevaju samo tee-eve i green-ove kako bi se sprije io negativan utjecaj na
okoliš.
Zaklju ak
U radu je razmatran utjecaj golf igrališta na okoliš, posebice na agroekosustav, tijekom
korištenja i održavanja travnatih površina. Radi usporedbe, obavljena su istraživanja i za
uzgoj odabranih poljoprivrednih kultura.
Analizirana je upotreba gnojiva, sredstava za zaštitu bilja te potreba za vodom za uzgoj
poljoprivrednih kultura, kukuruza i pšenice te travne smjese uzgajane na golf
igralištima. Iz analiziranih podataka vidljivo je da se podjednako dušika i fosfora
upotrebljava za ispitivane kulture, dok se kukuruz isti e s potrebom za kalijem.
Poljoprivredne kulture uzgajaju se isklju ivo radi prinosa te to opravdava gnojidbu. U
usporedbi sa analiziranim kulturama iz porodice Poacea na golf igralištima se ne
primjenjuje ve a koli ina sredstava za zaštitu bilja. Prema provedenom ispitivanju
potrebna koli ina za navodnjavanje golf igrališta znatno je ve a od potreba
poljoprivrednih kultura za vodom.
Može se zaklju iti da je zna ajno ve a potrošnja vode za navodnjavanje trave na golf
igralištima dok je gnojidba i ukupna primjena sredstava za zaštitu bilja podjednaka za
ispitivane kulture. S motrišta potrošnje analiziranih parametara nije zna ajna razlika da
bi se u postupku procjene utjecaja na okoliš golf tereni smatrali manje prihvatljivijim za
okoliš od intenzivne poljoprivrede. Tako er se može zaklju iti da procjene utjecaja na
okoliš mogu pridonijeti kvalitetnim rješenjima.
Literatura
[1] Alan C Gange, Della E Lindsay and J Mike Schofield, Royal Holloway (2003),
The ecology of golf, University of London and Oundle, Peterborough, UK,
Biologist
[2] Butorac A. (1999.), Op a agronomija, Školska knjiga Zagreb
[3] Centre for Science in the Public Interest (2005), Cruel Oil: How palm oil harms
health, rainforests and wildlife.
[4] usti L., Drož an M., Lali I., Majdek A., Herak usti M., Petek M., oga
L.(2011) Travni busen, zeleni izazov za budu nost - smjernice za gnojidbu.
Izvorni znanstveni rad, 46th Croatian and 6th International Symposium on
Agriculture. Opatija. Croatia str. 75- 79
[5] Direktivoa o zaštiti voda od one iš enja koje uzrokuju nitrati poljoprivrednog
podrijetla (91/676/EZ)
[6] Drezgi P., Jevti S., Stana ev S., Spasojevi B., Star evi Lj. (1974). Posebno
ratarstvo - prvi deo, Novi Sad.
[7] Ecoina, (2010), Studija o utjecajana okoliš izgradnje športsko rekreacijskog
centra s golf igralištem Sr , arhiva Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode
[8] Environmental impact of farming, dostupno na:
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/impacts/, [7. svibanj
2013.]
[9] Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu (2010) Studija utjecaja
na okoliš za golf igralište Baštijunski brig, Biograd n/m
[10]
GEO, Our Changing Planet, dostuno na:
http://www.golfenvironment.org/legacy/guidance/new-approach/changingplanet [28. srpanj 2012.]
[11]
Gnojibda pšenice, dostupno na
http://www.petrokemija.hr/Default.aspx?tabid=187 [27. srpanj 2012.]
[12]
Golf Course Industry; Ecosystem management; dostupno na:
http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/gci-091712-ecosystem-managementgolf.aspx [22. srpanj 2012.]
[13]
Golf's use of water, dostupno na: http://www.usga.org/Course-Care/Golfand-the-Environment/Water/Golfs-Use-Of-Water/, [7. svibanj 2013.]
[14]
Herak usti M., Petek M., usti S., Slunjski S., Pavlovi I., Ljubi
M., Horvat T. (2011) Optimalna ishranjenost travnog busena -preduvjet za
korištenje u krajobraznoj arhitekturi, Izvorni znanstveni rad, 46th Croatian and
6th International Symposium on Agriculture. Opatija. Croatia str. 89- 93
[15]
Leši R., Boroši J., Buturac I., usti M., Poljak M., Romi D. (2004)
Povr arstvo, Zrinski, akovec
[16]
Pospišil A. (2010), Ratartvo, Zrinski, akovec
[17]
Polygreen d.o.o. (2013)
[18]
Pucari A., Ostoji Z., uljat M, (1997), Proizvodnja kukuruza, Hrvatski
zadružni savez, Zagreb
[19]
Rice P. And Horgan B. (2010), Nutrient loss in runoff from turf: effect on
suface water quality, USGA Turfrgass and Environmental Research Committee
[20]
The Golf Course; Environmental issues; dostupno na: http://www.egagolf.ch/070000/070400.asp [27. rujan 2012.]
[21]
The Valderrama declaration, dostupno na: http://www.golfindustry.com/news/yeartodate/news99/valdec.html, [27. srpanj 2012.]
[22]
United States golf Association, dostupno na: www.usga.org [27. srpanj
2012.]
[23]
World Wildile Fund, dostupno na: www.pand.org [30. srpanj 2013. ]
[24]
Žganjar I., (2006), Elementi studije utjecaja golf terena na okoliš za
procjenu utjecaja na aroekosustav, diplomski rad
Impact of Golf Courses on Agroecosystem
Martina Lipovš ak1, Aleksandra Ani Vu ini 2, Nenad Mikuli
3
1
Ivana Mažurani a 3, Sisak, Croatia ([email protected])
University of ZagrebuFaculty of Geotechnics, Hallerova aleja 7, Varaždin, Croatia
3
Eko invest ltd., Draškovi eva 50, Zagreb, Croatia
2
Abstract
Golf course surfaces have their special functions. The green is an area of very closely
trimmed grass on relatively even, smooth ground surrounding the hole, allowing players
to make precision strokes on it. The green is typically surrounded by slightly higher
grass, and then by rough. This longer grass between the green and rough is known as the
fringe and is designed to slow and stop balls rolling along the green from an approach
shot or errant putt, preventing them from exiting the green. All the grass surfaces
require special treatment and use of fertilizers and plant protection agents.
During Environmental Impact Assessments of Golf Courses, both the public and the
experts are particularly focused on impacts of fertilizers and plant protection products
on the environment, namely the soil, surface and groundwater. The paper therefore
deals with the impact of golf courses on the environment, and agroecosystems in
particular, through extensive usage and maintenance of grass surfaces, use of fertilizers
and plant protection products. For comparison purposes, appropriate research was also
conducted for production of crops which also require application of fertilizers and crop
protection agents.
The obtained results contribute to a more objective impact assessment of golf courses
on agroecosystem (groundwater in extension), as compared to the potential crop
production at the same location.
Key words: golf courses, agroecosystem, crops, environment
Introduction
The golf courses are an unavoidable part of tourist attractions today. They have to
satisfy a series of requirements to be profitable for investors and interesting for
demanding clients. First is financial profitability. Costs for building and maintenance
are bigger than income from usage of the golf courses, in order to increase profit planed
apartments and even small settlements for rent or for sale to golf players are included in
the projects. Golf courses with apartment areas are taking relatively large surface (about
100 ha) and often in natural and/or agriculture part of natural environment.
Incorporating in natural landscape, which includes a special adjustment arranging
courses and other elements in a way not to influence natural values and biological
community during procedure, that is the special value added from European Golf
Association (EGA). Regardless of the studiously prepared documentation and rigorous
acts of nature and environment protection prescribed in the implemented procedure
during Environmental Impact Assessments, the public have a negative opinion towards
that procedure. One of most common arguments against golf courses is their alleged
unacceptable impact on soli and underground water (agroecosystem). Building golf
courses asks a question is it a real and quality intention for discussion. Today exists a
big need for food and also a need for elite tourism development. By regulations golf
courses must comply with certain demands for conservation of biodiversity and also
need to fit in the landscape as from other side agriculture doesn’t respect acts of
biodiversity nor fitting in landscape.
By doing intensive agriculture soli gets maximal utilization and variety of useful
organism get destroyed by using pesticides. Also there is the question of consumption
of the most precious natural resource, water, and how much agriculture like golf courses
contribute to pollution and consumption of underground water. Golf courses and
agricultural plants are taking large surface areas. The most interesting parcels of land
are located near desirable tourist locations for golf course investors. From the very
beginning of development of golf as a game there have been considerations and
questions of influence on environment and nature. Ecological balance sheet mostly
depends of location, form and type of measurements of course maintenance, and can be
positive or negative. On one end of scale there are courses in accordance with
ecological orientation, and on the other end of scale there are golf courses in area where
they are an organically foreign entity and also extensive resource consumers (ex. water)
or introduction of non-endemic plants, intensive usage of pesticides, and danger for
environment. Most common problem, except environment destruction is nitrates which
are inserted in sol by fertilization. Golf courses are also an ecological problem in
countries where golf tourism is in early development. Construction of golf courses
eliminates local farmers or endangers local water supply and creates deforestation.
According to Alan and co. (2003),
the number of recognition schemes now in
operation, golf clubs have realized that they are custodians of some very important areas
of land. Much ecological work needs to be done to fully understand how golf courses
affect biodiversity at a landscape scale. There is no denying that golf courses do occupy
large areas of land that could, in theory, be natural habitat. One important ecological
initiative produced by the Ecology Unit was the Valderrama Declaration (1999). This
was issued in November 1999 and identified the advantages of golfers and
environmentalists working together for ‘the benefit of golf, the environment and
people’. It was signed by representatives of the United States Golf Association (USGA),
the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, the European Golf Association, the
International Olympic Committee, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the United Nations
Environment Program and the European Commission.
Golf courses
Golf courses are specially adapted and adjusted areas for golf game. They are arranged
with different levels of tillage, from rough area to green area. Golf courses are arranged
in the following way: golf field, natural plants and cultivate plants.
First operation of construction of a golf course is that the abandoned or not used
agricultural land is repurposed. During the repurposing procedure the natural habitats
for plants and animals are destroyed. For saving natural biodiversity, it is very important
to keep a part of natural vegetation like shelter for wild animals. In Environmental
Impact Assessments special attention is paid to rare and protected plant and animal
species, as the study searches for the most suitable solution. Goal of intensive
agriculture is yield, and other organisms that are also part of the biodiversity are
neglected, on other side ecological agriculture is in accordance with the nature.
Area intended for golf courses can be used like agriculture land. According to WWF
(2013.), around 50% of the world's habitable land has already been converted to farming
land. Overall, farmland covers 38% of the world's land area. This area is still expanding.
It is predicted that in developing countries, a further 120 million hectares of natural
habitats will be converted to farmland to meet demand for food by 2050. This will
include land with high biodiversity value.
The biggest irrigation problem is in areas without adequate water in summer months.
Because of irrigation problems, golf courses are cost-effective in areas where there is
sufficient rainfall and need for irrigation is minimum. By choosing the appropriate areas
and adherence to strict regulations of United States Golf Association (USGA) methods
can achieve that golf courses contribute to the conservation of nature and positive
impact on the environment and economic development of the areas where they are
located. For this purpose, Environmental Impact Assessment procedures can certainly
contribute to quality solutions. Devastated and agriculturally unusable areas (eg.
remediation of landfills, inaccessible terrain, and great distance from populated places
...) can be used for golf courses. When courses are built in compliance with the
prescribed conditions they provide shelter for wild plant and animal species, and
become guardians of cultural and natural heritage.
Agriculture area
Agricultural ecosystems provide important habitats for many wild plant and animal
species, this is especially the case for traditional farming areas that cultivate diverse
species.
However, rising demand for food and other agricultural products has seen large-scale
clearing of natural habitats to make room for intensive monocultures.
According to WWF, when farming operations are sustainably managed, they can help
preserve and restore critical habitats, protect watersheds, and improve soil health and
water quality. But when practiced without care, farming presents the greatest threat to
species and ecosystems. Negative environmental impacts from unsustainable farming
practices include:
- Land conversion & habitat loss
- Wasteful water consumption
- Soil erosion and degradation
- Pollution
- Climate change
- Genetic erosion.
Fundamental tasks for agricultural tillage are: upgrading soli structure, weed control and
fertilization. One of the most important tasks of tillage is preserving moisture, when
activation of process infiltration started, surface runoff and evaporation. It should be
emphasized that making cultivated soil, respectively anthropogenization process is
starting with tillage, according to Butorac A. (1999.). Disadvantages of tillage are
bigger loss of moisture and increased possibility of soil erosion.
When natural vegetation is cleared and when farmland is ploughed, the exposed topsoil
is often blown away by wind or washed away by rain. It is estimated that since 1960,
one-third of the world’s arable land has been lost through erosion and other degradation.
The widespread use of genetically uniform modern crop varieties has caused
agricultural crops to lose about 75% of their genetic diversity in the last century. This
lost genetic diversity reduces the potential for modern crops to adapt to, or be bred for,
changing conditions – and so directly threatens long-term food security (WWF (2013.)).
The most important agricultural measures next to tillage are fertilization, protection
from pests and irrigation.
Fertilization
One of the most important agricultural measures is proper fertilization. With proper
fertilization high and stable yields, quality and profit are ensured. Soil is not an
inexhaustible resource to provide natural processes sufficient of nutrients for high
yields, it is necessary to compensate with fertilization presented or otherwise lost
nutritional elements.
Nutrition substances that plants use consist of mineral ions. Dissolved ions plants
extract from soil with roots, and along with carbon dioxide and water convert them into
food. Plants need macronutrients in relatively large quantities, such as nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium and sulfur. Micronutrients or trace
elements are equally important but they are required in smaller amounts. These are:
iron, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, molybdenum and chlorine. Fertilization as an
agricultural operation is necessary to maintain the functioning of the system soil-plant
due to receive nutrients and make the desired yield. All organic or mineral substances
witch enrich the soil, act as nutrients, act on increase of biological yield are fertilizers.
Fertilizers are necessary to use for insurance of the optimal yield, environment
protection and insurance of health safety of products. Balanced fertilization is one of the
important factors for intensive agriculture. Most soils require regular addition of
nitrogen to encourage good growth, phosphorus to help grow strong roots and
potassium that improves flowering and fruiting.
Basic fertilization for the large number of crops is with appropriate ratio of NPK
fertilization, which is also used for grass on golf courses and private plots. Fertilizers
are indispensable for growth and development of plants, although irregular use of
fertilizer has harmful impact on environment. Eutrophication is a process of enriching
surface water with nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur). This leads to increased
production of plant and animal life in the water and leads to changes in the aquatic
ecosystem and reduces dissolved oxygen.
The fertilizer application to agricultural crops, residential landscapes, and golf courses
maybe a source of nutrients to surface waters. As stated nitrates are most easily to
runoff from soil and by that they polluted the most valuable nature resource, water.
Monitoring of nitrates in water is specified through Directive (91/676/EZ) concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.
The aim of this Directive is reducing water pollution which is caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources, and prevents further pollution.
According to USGA regulation a huge grass density, turfs and roots of lawn on golf
courses enable filtration and purification of everything that fall into soil better than
other plants. By large density of stalk, turf and roots there is certain possibility that
excess unused fertilizers passes to underground mostly because of excessive
fertilization. Greens in this situation help to retain water so plant can use all nutrition.
Along data needed for fertilization of golf courses analyzed are also data for corn and
wheat fertilization which are also Poacea family and they have the similar need for
nutrition (Table 1.).
Table 1. Amount NPK-15-15-15 in basic fertilization
Plant/fertilizer
Nitrogen
(N) Phosphorus
kg/ha
(P2O5) kg/ha
CORN
150-200
100-120
WINTER WEATH
160-180
80-120
GRASS
MIXTURE
116-174
33-61
ON GOLF COURSES
Potassium
(K2O) kg/ha
120-180
80-120
83-116
Source: data for corn from Petrokemija; for wheat from Pospišil A. (2010); data for golf grass
from Environmental impact studies for golf course Baštijunski brig Biograd n/m (2010).
The analysis of collected data on the needs for basic nutrients found that need for
nitrogen and phosphorus in the studied cultures is equal, while corn highlight is the need
for potassium.
Nitrogen is the most important plant nutrient for all life processes in plants. With
nitrogen increase, leaching has significant effects on the environment such as an
increase of nitrate concentrations in surface and ground waters, eutrophication, which
results with reduction of biodiversity, acidification of soils and surface water deposition
of ammonia and nitrous oxide and an increase in the atmospheric content of nitrogen-Ioxides.
Phosphorus is important for plant growth, fruit quality and storage capability. Problems
that occur in the environment as a result of the application of phosphorus fertilizers are:
reducing stocks of phosphate rock, waste material that remains after their removal, the
undesirable elements in the rocks of phosphorus, phosphorus transport to streams and
their eutrophication that the environment can be devastating. Application of appropriate
breeding measures can reduce loss of phosphorus from the soil and reduce risk of
eutrophication such as: application of fertilizers based on soil analysis, the
establishment of buffer zones around areas or along streams that prevents leaching of
nutrients into watercourses.
Wheat and corn have equal needs for phosphorus. Corn is susceptible to a lack of
phosphorus in the first part of the vegetation. Development of the root system and wheat
tillering is effected by phosphorus. That is explained by the high demands of basic
fertilization of these cultures.
During lawn establishing phosphorus is especially critical. According to Teutsch and co.
(2000.) research, fertilization with 15-30 kg/ha phosphorus at depth of 2,5-5 cm
(directly under seed) there is advancement on fast root development and incensement of
young plants, especially on soils that are medium reach with phosphorus.
Potassium is located in plants in significant amounts in organic and inorganic
substances. Largest need for potassium is in corn and the least need is in grass on golf
courses. Corn has the largest need for potassium especially in the vegetation stage of
growth. Young grass plants have a relatively small need for potassium, but it is very
important for yield and consistency of lawn areas. Analyzed data is showing that there
is no significant aberration in amount of fertilizer applied on growth of agricultural
plants and on golf courses.
Pesticides
Trying to resist the growing criticism and opposition to golf courses and create a
positive image in public, golf offering fields without pesticides, "golf courses friendly to
the environment" or "sensitive golf courses". It is clear that such facilities do not exist,
since creating and maintaining a "perfect pitch" inevitably demands intensive use of
chemicals. Pesticides are a group of chemicals with the direct purpose of use in the
environment in order to suppress undesirable diseases, plant and animal pests in order to
protect agricultural and industrial plants. However the majority of pesticides not only
act on pests but also effect other plants and animals. Frequent use leads to loss of
biodiversity. Most of them are not easily degraded and they remain in the soil, are
rinsed to underground and surface waters thus polluting the environment. Pesticides
affect: contamination of soil, water on organisms and biodiversity. In the last 50 years
pesticides along with fertilizers have become the most wanted agricultural products. All
pesticides acts very harmful to ecosystems, many of them kill useful insects, fish, birds
and cause more harm than good. Most insects are useful or harmless, but they are
harmed with pesticide use. Unfavorable impact on so-called useful nitric bacteria in soil,
and consequence is depletion of soil. Many pesticides remains active in the environment
for months, years and even decades. Pesticides are considered a major source of the
biosphere pollution, WWF (2013.). In organic farming pesticides use is forbidden but
only a certain kind of chemicals is allowed in special cases, while in conventional
agriculture as in golf courses are applied intensively. During pesticide application it is
extremely important to follow instructions to avoid harmful influence on environment
and human health. The use of pesticide on analyzed crops is shown in table 2.
Table 2. Approximate total amount of chemicals (pesticides) for protection of the
studied plants
Plant
Amount of pesticides kg(l)/ha
CORN
5,5 kg/ha
WINTER WHEAT
8,5 kg/ha
GRASS
MIXTURE
ON
GOLF 5,2 kg/ha
COURSES
Source: data for corn and winter wheat from company Polygreen, data for golf grass from
Environmental impact studies for construction of sports and recreation center with a golf
course Sr (Ecoina, 2012).
Growing monocultures and continuous used of pesticides and desire for high yield cause
appearance of pests and also a greater plant protection. On golf courses, appearance and
lush vegetation of grass is important, and pesticides are applied throughout the year.
Compared to analyzed culture from Poacea family, there isn’t a considerably larger
amount of pesticides use on golf courses.
Water
Water is a basic element of social and economic development. Economic development
should be based on the rational use of all resources, including care for the environment
and human health. Part of water that passes through the soil is lost through
evapotranspiration, and parts flow into surface water or groundwater, thus becoming a
potential cause of contamination of water supply. The most important ecological
problem of golf courses is water consumption. In Croatia coastal areas, golf courses
require large amounts of irrigation water. Golf courses have a great importance in
tourism and they are a target of criticism during the dry periods when there are
restrictions of drinking water. For achieving the high-quality grass on golf courses,
irrigation is required throughout the year and especially during the summer months.
Proportionally to the size of golf courses the needed for irrigation is growing. Big
problems are occurring during the summer months in the coastal areas, because the lack
of natural rainfall and high temperatures negatively affect the appearance of the grass.
Croatian tourism is mainly based on the coast, so in recent years there has been an
increase in the trend of planning construction of golf courses in places that are, in the
summer months, scarce with water for the local population and farming and irrigation of
golf courses is unacceptable. However with the construction of golf courses there is a
completed offer for elite tourism what brings economic and tourism development. For
several decades golf industry recognizes its responsibility and reducing water
consumption becomes less dependent on potable water for irrigation. Golf industry has
taken several approaches to the problem, including:
- Growing grass varieties that have a need for a small amount of water or less well
tolerated quality water,
- New technologies that improve the efficiency of irrigation systems,
- Best practices in maintaining golf courses that result in lower consumption of water,
- The use of alternative water sources that reduce or eliminate the use of potable water,
- Design a golf course that reduces grassed surfaces to maintain require large amounts
of
water
and
- education of the heads of golf courses and other water users in the use of liquid water
(USGA).
Chemical properties of water for irrigation are classified according to the problems of
salinization, alkalinity and toxicity. The physical properties of water for irrigation water
temperature and the amount of suspended particles are the most important. Therefore, it
is necessary to emphasize that the management of irrigation system begins at the source
with water quality analysis. In Croatia, where wheat is grown on large areas and
irrigation is not popular, also from the economic standpoint irrigation of that culture is
negative, which often leads to reduced yields due to drought. While irrigation of maize
due to high summer droughts is economically justified.
Most of the necessary amount of water for corn is ensured by rainfall during vegetation
but also rainfall in autumn-winter and early spring period before seeding of corn.
Besides the total amount of rain in corn vegetation also their schedule is very important.
Especially important are rains in the three summer months. In each of them there should
be 500-1500 m3/ha rainfall or an average of 1000 m3/ha per month. It is calculated that
corn, throughout total vegetation period, spends about 5000-6000 m3/ha water, Pucari
(1997).
Wheat has the greatest need for water during seeding or immediately after seeding (300600 m3/ha of water), depending on soil moisture and meteorological conditions, than at
the tillering stage (300-600 m3/ha of water), Drezgi et al. (1974).
Table 3 depicts the total demand for water in the vegetation period of the studied
cultures
Table 3. The total demand for water in the vegetation period of the studied cultures
Palnt
Water consumption
CORN
5000-6000 m3/ha
WINTER WHEAT
700 m3/ha
GRASS
MIXTURE
ON
GOLF 10 735 m3/ha
COURSES
Source: data for wheat: Drezgi P. i sur. (1974); for corn: Pucari A. (1997); data for golf
grass from Environmental impact studies for golf course Baštijunski brig Biograd n/m (2010).
The collected data show that the required amount of water for irrigation of golf courses
is significantly greater than the need of agricultural crops.
Irrigation of golf courses is necessary, and as a measure of protection of the
environment the environmental impact study stipulates that in case of severe drought
only tees and greens should be irrigated in order to prevent a negative impact on the
environment.
Conclusion
In this paper we are discussing the impact of golf courses on the environment,
particularly on the ecosystem during usage and maintenance grass areas. For
comparison, the research was conducted also for selected crops. Analyzed was use of
fertilizers, pesticides and water consumption for irrigation of corn, wheat and grass
mixture grown on golf courses.
From the analyzed data it is evident that nitrogen and phosphorus is used equally in
tested cultures, while maize stands out with the need for potassium. Agricultural crops
are grown exclusively for yield and that justifies high fertilization needs. Compared
with the analyzed cultures from the Poacea family golf courses do not use higher
quantities of pesticides. According to the research the required amount of water for
irrigation of golf courses is much higher than the need of agricultural crops for water.
It can be concluded that is a significantly higher consumption of water for irrigation of
grass on golf courses while the total use of fertilizers and pesticides is equal to tested
culture.
From the aspect of consumption and analyzed parameters we conclude, in the process of
environmental impact assessment, that golf courses are not less environmentally
friendly than intensive agriculture. We can also conclude that the environmental impact
assessment can contribute to quality solutions.
Literature
[1] Alan C Gange, Della E Lindsay and J Mike Schofield, Royal Holloway (2003),
The ecology of golf , University of London and Oundle, Peterborough, UK,
Biologist
[2] Butorac A. (1999.), Op a agronomija, Školska knjiga Zagreb
[3] Centre for Science in the Public Interest (2005), Cruel Oil: How palm oil harms
health, rainforests and wildlife.
[4] usti L., Drož an M., Lali I., Majdek A., Herak usti M., Petek M., oga
L.(2011) Travni busen, zeleni izazov za budu nost - smjernice za gnojidbu.
Izvorni znanstveni rad, 46th Croatian and 6th International Symposium on
Agriculture. Opatija. Croatia str. 75- 79
[5] Direktivoa o zaštiti voda od one iš enja koje uzrokuju nitrati poljoprivrednog
podrijetla (91/676/EZ)
[6] Ecoina, (2010), Studija o utjecajana okoliš izgradnje športsko rekreacijskog
centra s golf igralištem Sr , arhiva Ministarstva zaštite okoliša i prirode
[7] Environmental
impact
of
farming,
from:
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/impacts/, [7. may 2013.]
[8] Fakultet strojarstva i brodogradnje Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu (2010) Studija utjecaja
na okoliš za golf igralište Baštijunski brig, Biograd n/m
[9] GEO,
Our
Changing
Planet,
from:
http://www.golfenvironment.org/legacy/guidance/new-approach/changingplanet [28. July 2012.]
[10]
Gnojibda
pšenice,
from:
http://www.petrokemija.hr/Default.aspx?tabid=187 [27. July 2012.]
[11]
Golf
Course
Industry;
Ecosystem
management;
from:
http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/gci-091712-ecosystem-managementgolf.aspx [22. July 2012.]
[12]
Golf's use of water, from: http://www.usga.org/Course-Care/Golf-andthe-Environment/Water/Golfs-Use-Of-Water/, [7. May2013.]
[13]
Herak usti M., Petek M., usti S., Slunjski S., Pavlovi I., Ljubi
M., Horvat T. (2011) Optimalna ishranjenost travnog busena -preduvjet za
korištenje u krajobraznoj arhitekturi, Izvorni znanstveni rad, 46th Croatian and
6th International Symposium on Agriculture. Opatija. Croatia str. 89- 93
[14]
Leši R., Boroši J., Buturac I., usti M., Poljak M., Romi D. (2004)
Povr arstvo, Zrinski, akovec
[15]
Pospišil A. (2010), Ratartvo, Zrinski, akovec
[16]
Polygreen d.o.o. (2013)
[17]
Rice P. And Horgan B. (2010), Nutrient loss in runoff from turf: effect on
suface water quality, USGA Turfrgass and Environmental Research Committee
[18]
Pucari A., Ostoji Z., uljat M, (1997), Proizvodnja kukuruza, Hrvatski
zadružni savez, Zagreb
[19]
The Golf Course; Environmental issues; from: http://www.egagolf.ch/070000/070400.asp [27. September 2012.]
[20]
The
Valderrama
declaration,
from:
http://www.golfindustry.com/news/yeartodate/news99/valdec.html, [27. July2012.]
[21]
Uher D.,(2013), Agronomski fakultet Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu
[22]
United States golf Association, from www.usga.org [27. July 2012.]
[23]
World Wildile Fund, from: www.pand.org [30. July2013.]
Waste Management Centre of the County of Zadar: Environmental
Impacts and Environmental Protection Measures
Antun Schaller1, Indira Juratek1
APO Ltd. Environmental Services – Member of HEP Group, Savska cesta 41, Zagreb, Croatia
([email protected])
Abstract
Waste Management Centre of the County of Zadar is planned to be established on the
site of abandoned quarries near Donje Biljane (Town of Benkovac). The Centre presents
the core of the planned waste management system in the County. Respecting site
characteristics, essential meteorological-climatic features and nature of the Centre itself,
possible environmental impacts of the Centre, including also noise, vibrations and
odours are described in the article. Respective environmental protection/mitigation
measures are also elaborated. They encompass both constructional and operative
mitigation actions to be undertaken in the period of the Centre operation and accidental
situations.
Key words: environment, waste, impacts, measures
Introduction
The new age of waste management practice in Croatia is expected to be based on some
12-15 county/regional waste management centres, covering the entire country. The
centres have been anticipated by “National Waste Management Strategy” (Official
Gazette, No. 130/05) [1] and “National Waste Management Plan for the Period 20072015” (Official Gazette, No. 85/07, 126/10, 31/11) [2] and are incorporated into a newly
established integral waste management system. Main goals of this system are: (a) to
reduce waste quantities at all, (b) to achieve as low as reasonably achievable waste
quantities for landfilling, (c) to transform the waste for landfilling into inert state that
would not be harmful for the environment and human health, (d) to extract the most
reasonably achievable amounts of secondary raw materials from the waste. It means that
fresh waste should be properly collected and partially sorted (separated) prior to be
received in waste management centres. After being received in the centre, the input
waste is expected to be subdued to final separation, e.g. by detaching of hazardous
components from prevailing non-hazardous municipal waste quantities that are foreseen
to be properly processed in a way to obtain desired outgoing fractions, such as
secondary raw materials (e.g. ferrous and non-ferrous metals), compost, solid recovered
fuel (SRF) and either inert, bio-dried and stabilised material suitable for landfilling on
the site (this option is expected to be applied in the case of Zadar County Waste
Management Centre), or methanogenic fraction, intended for biogas production in
“bioreactor” cells and consequent on-site energy production. Described waste
processing products present standard outgoing fractions emerging from mechanicalbiologic waste treatment. Mechanical-biological treatment is supposed to be applied at
all waste management centres throughout Croatia, except in the city of Zagreb, where
waste incineration plant figures as a more probable option. Waste types, different of
municipal waste (e.g. construction waste), are also foreseen to be received in the waste
management centres and then appropriately processed (recycled). Special waste types
(e.g. tires) along with hazardous components of municipal waste will be – after being
stored in appropriate sections of the centres – periodically removed from the site by
authorised institutions. The expected establishment of the waste management centres
implies also the completion of waste-collection system throughout the respective county
(region). In each county a few transfer-stations will be organised at previously chosen
sites of the area involved. By opening of centres, all existing operational landfills are
supposed to be simultaneously recovered (restored) and closed for the purpose.
Having in mind the complexity of waste management centres (that are rather industrial
facilities than landfills), it seems self-explanatory to raise a question on extent of
possible impacts to the environment and human health that would be provoked by the
operation of centres. It is important in particular for the reason that roughly a half of
Croatian national territory is characterised by an ecologically sensitive, permeable
lithology, composed of carbonate rocks (limestone, dolomite etc.), morphologically
expressed as karst area. For that reason it seems to be useful to analyse possible
environmental hazards that could arise by operation of the Waste Management Centre
of Zadar County (in further text: Centre), planned to be established in karst area of
Ravni kotari, in north Dalmatia. The measures to mitigate these impacts are also found
worthy to be described. Possible environmental impacts deriving from the Centre
operation, as well as respective protection/mitigation measures, are elaborated in
“Environmental Impact Assessment Study of Waste Management Centre in Zadar
County” [3].
Site of Waste Management Centre of Zadar County
The Waste Management Centre of Zadar County is planned to be organised on the site
of abandoned quarries of “Busišta 2” and “Busišta 3”, some 2 km from the settlement of
Donje Biljane (94 inhabitants). It is situated in the heart of karst area of Ravni kotari, 20
km east of the city of Zadar (70,674 inhabitants) and 20 km northwest of the town of
Benkovac (2,863 inhabitants). The site is situated in the municipal territory of
Benkovac. The nearest major settlement to the site is municipal centre of Zemunik
Donji (1,542 inhabitants; 5 km from the site). Within 5 km radius around the site there
are 6 settlements with total 4,170 inhabitants (after census 2011), while in the radius
distance of 10 km there are 22 settlements with total population of 13,019. Hence, the
mean population density of the area limited by 10 km radius around the site of the
planned Centre is 41 inhabitants per km2. It is somewhat less than the mean population
density of the Zadar County at all (45 inhabitants/km2) and a bit more than a half of
mean population density of entire Croatia (79 inhabitants per km2). The site is situated
close to the highway Zagreb-Zadar-Split (500 m) and is some 5 km distant to the
railway Knin-Zadar. In addition, the Zadar Airport is situated some 7 km south-east of
the site. By the network of local and regional roads the site of the planned Centre is
well-connected with all major settlements in the County.
The site is situated on a gently karst slope, formed in Eocene alveoline limestone, at an
altitude of 137-157 m. Water-table is determined at depth 59-66 m. Groundwater flows
from SE toward NW with velocity 0.8-1.1 cm/s. The respective area is incorporated into
3rd water-protection zone of the Zadar water-supply area. Due to prevailing secondary
porous limestone, there are no surface streams reported in the area: almost all surface
waters are being infiltrated into ground. The area is composed of five minor tectonic
blocks, bounded by normal and reverse faults. Local seismicity does not exceed the
maximum expected earthquake intensity of V MCS (Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg scale)
for the 50-years return period. The site area belongs to semi-humid to humid
Mediterranean, moderate warm pluvial climatic type (Csa climate in Köppen climatic
categorisation). It is characterised by a mean annual precipitation of 877 mm. Since the
landscape of the site area is predominantly open, it suffers particularly of north-east
wind (bora), blowing on the site in 20 % wind occurrences. The wind may be
sometimes exceptionally strong.
With respect to the above mentioned, it comes out that major possible impacts that
could emerge from the planned Centre operation are mostly related to the groundwater
quality: exactly as in other karst regions worldwide, the groundwater is also in this case
the most sensitive environmental component.
Planned operational units of the Waste Management Centre
There are following operational units of the Waste Management Centre, planned to be
established on an area of total 420,000 m2 (i.e. 42 ha): (a) entry zone, (b) waste sorting
facility, (c) mechanical-biological waste treatment facility (MBT), (d) temporary
storage area for bulky waste and hazardous components derived from municipal waste,
(e) area for collection and treatment (recycling) of construction waste, (f) non-hazardous
waste landfill for bio-dried and stabilised material, representing a processed fraction of
municipal and non-hazardous industrial waste, (g) inert waste landfill for e.g. nonrecyclable components of construction waste, (h) waste-water treatment facility, (i)
waste-water and rainwater drainage systems and (j) biogas treatment unit, equipped with
gas-flare. It is foreseen that the Centre would be operational in a 30-years period (20162045) at least. In this period it is expected some 2,800,000 t of municipal solid waste
(93,000 t/year) and 200,000 t of non-hazardous industrial waste (6,700 t/year) to be
received and processed in the Centre. However, only 620,000 t of municipal solid waste
and 40,000 t of non-hazardous industrial waste are supposed to be landfilled in nonhazardous waste landfill at all. Furthermore, some 4,000,000 t of construction waste are
planned to be also received in the Centre: 70 % of the waste is expected to be processed
(i.e. recycled), while remaining 30 % or 1,200,000 t will be landfilled in the inert waste
landfill. Finally, the amount of some 315,000 t of processed sludge from waste-water
treatment facilities operating in the Zadar County, are also foreseen to be landfilled in
the non-hazardous waste landfill during the 30-year long designed operational period of
the Centre. In order to avoid any additional possible impact to groundwater,
representing the most sensitive ecological component of the site area, and having in
mind that the site is situated in the 3rd water-protection zone of Zadar water supply area,
“bioreactor” cells for production biogas from methanogene waste processing fraction of
the mechanical-biological waste treatment, are excluded from the final option of the
waste processing system foreseen to be operating in the Centre.
Outgoing processing products and emissions
There are several categories of processing products outgoing from particular facilities
operating in the planned Centre (expected mean annual amounts are given in brackets):
solid recovered fuel /SRF/ (26,000 t), bio-stabilised waste fraction for landfilling
(20,000 t), recyclable metals (2,500 t), PVC (1,400 t), compost (3,800 t), recyclable
construction waste (110,000 t) and non-recyclable construction waste for landfilling in
the inert waste landfill (46,000 t).
Mass-balance among expected annual waste input to the Centre on the one hand, as well
as outgoing recyclable products and outgoing materials to be landfilled on the other,
shows that out of total 240,000 t of input waste, some 144,000 t (60 %) are recyclables,
while 66,000 t (28 %) are wastes to be landfilled on the site. Mass-difference of some
30,000 t (12 %) refers to emissions. The only input waste material expected to be
completely landfilled in the Centre, are some 12,500 t/year of pre-treated sludge,
remained after waste-water treatment in water purification facilities throughout the
County.
There are three facilities in the Centre expected to be main possible emission sources:
(a) mechanical-biological waste treatment facility; (b) non-hazardous waste landfill; (c)
biogas flare and (d) waste water treatment facility.
Bio-filter, baghouse filter and the input waste collecting pool, including water-screens
to be operating at entrance doors, are determined as emission spots in the mechanicalbiological treatment facility. In regular MBT operation it is annually expected some
2,000 t of leachates from bio-filter and waste collecting pool intended for purification in
waste- water treatment facility, while some 22,000 t of purified, odourless water vapour
will be emitted from the bio-filter to the atmosphere.
Non-hazardous waste landfill is designed to receive some 900,000 t of bio-stabilised
MBT fraction and 300,000 t of pre-treated sludge, remained after treatment in water
purification facilities of the County during the expected 30-years period of the Centre
operation. For this purpose a total capacity of the landfill will be 1,300,000 m3. There
are two environmentally relevant emissions from the landfill to be considered: (a) 6,000
t of leachates a year and (b) 17,000 t of rainwater superficially drained from the landfill.
Both emissions may potentially threaten groundwater. Therefore they both will be
collected by respective, separate drainage systems and will be taken to the waste-water
treatment facility.
Biogas flare is intended to incinerate biogas generated in anaerobic environment of the
landfill body and transported to the flare by landfill degasification system. As biogas is
composed predominantly of methane (CH4) – but containing in minor scales also carbon
dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), hydrogen (H2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) – the air
emission after gas incineration on the flare consists mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water vapour (H2O) that are in expected amounts and frequencies of emitting not
assessed as a significant threaten to the air quality.
As it is described, all expected emissions emerging from the operating facilities in the
Centre are expected to be appropriately managed, so that neither the emission of
purified water vapour and carbon dioxide to the air, nor leachates originating in the nonhazardous waste landfill, will not be allowed to endanger environment and human
health. It also should be mentioned that bio-dried/bio-stabilised fraction outgoing from
MBT facility that is assigned for landfilling on the site, represents a low permeable
material itself. Therefore, but also due to additional characteristics of the waste, it is not
expected to generate any environmentally harmful leachates.
Environmental impacts and protection/mitigation measures
Besides mentioned possible impacts, there are also some specific impacts that could
directly or indirectly threaten environment and/or human health and safety during the
Centre operation. Some of them are: noise, strange odours, dust and mud, fire,
contagious diseases that could be spread by animals being in direct contact with the
open fresh waste, impacts to landscape amenities, impacts to the national ecologic
network, impacts to natural and cultural heritage, etc. With regard to these impacts there
are two main groups of measures aiming to protect/mitigate determined impacts: (a)
designed measures that are incorporated in the facilities' design itself, e.g. seal layers
(bottom and superficial) of landfills, landfill degasification system, flare for biogas
incineration, bio-filters, as well as designed internal under-pressure state and waterscreens at waste entrance doors in MBT facility, separate drainage systems for rainwater
and leachates to be established throughout the Centre to conduct waste waters to the
waste-water treatment facility and/or to oil separator, waste-water treatment facility
itself, etc. and (b) action measures that are based on prescription of what, when, how
and why to undertake in order to prevent possible undesirable and/or harmful impacts to
the environment and human health.
In the light of the above mentioned, there are following significant environmental
impacts and respective protection/mitigation measures to be applied during the Centre
operation:
I. Soils and groundwater
A. Impacts
1. Due to improper storage of wastes and hazardous waste substances, participating in
municipal waste above all, soil and groundwater could be polluted through leakage
and consequent infiltration of waste affected rainwater.
2. Due to inadequate management of polluted waste-water fractions emerging in regular
operation of facilities (MBT facility and non-hazardous waste landfill, above all), it
is possible to occur infiltration of polluted rainwater, sanitary water and processing
waste-water (including leachates) into soil and groundwater.
3. Inappropriately managed waste-water, remained after wheel washing, may penetrate
to soil and groundwater and pollute them both.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. Drainage and treatment of sanitary and processing waters, as well as leachates
originating during the Centre operation, should be established as appropriated
separate systems.
2. Sanitary waste waters will be conducted through appropriated separate internal
drainage system toward collecting pool for sanitary waters, from where they will be
periodically evacuated by tank lorries to the waste-water treatment facility in Zadar
(there is no sewage system expected to operate on the site).
3. Processing waste waters (waters from MBT waste collection pool, water screens and
leachates from bio-filter in MBT facility, as well as leachates from non-hazardous
waste landfill) will be conducted through appropriated separate internal drainage
system to the processing waste-water pool, from where it will be drained toward
waste-water treatment facility to be purified up to the level of sanitary waters, which
will then transported by tank lorries to the waste-water treatment facility in Zadar.
4. Rainwater originating on clean surfaces (e.g. roof structures) will be collected by an
appropriated separate internal drainage system and then through percolation wells to
the environment.
5. Rainwater polluted on surfaces such as parking area, wheel-washing area,
weighbridge, recycle backyards, etc. will be conducted by road side-channels and
drainage system for polluted rainwater to oil separator and then, after purification, it
will be either discharged to the environment (soils), or re-circulated to the Centre as
the fire-extinguishing water.
6. Received waste to the Centre will be temporary stored in appropriated area, equipped
with a proper seal layer to prevent any possible infiltration of leachates to
surrounding soils and groundwater.
7. Received hazardous waste components originating in municipal waste will be
temporary stored on appropriated permeable and roofed surfaces, until periodical
consignments to authorised collecting parties.
8. Non-hazardous landfill will be equipped with: (a) the bottom impermeable seal
system consisting of 50 cm thick clay layer, double geo-membranes and bentonite
„carpet“ surface (GCL); (b) superficial (final) impermeable seal system consisting of
two geotextile layers and a 60 cm thick clay layer between them, as well as of
superficial re-cultivation layer (this covering system will be placed not before
completion of landfilling in respective parts of the landfill body, while interim lowpermeability layers are expected to be used to cover daily dumped waste); (c) system
of peripheral two separated discharge channel systems: one to receive polluted
rainwater and other to receive leachates. Both waste-water discharge systems will
separately conduct waste-waters toward the on-site waste-water treatment facility.
9. Recycling back-yard, garages, workshops and wheel-washing area will be equipped
with oil separating devices. Purified water from recycling back-yard, garages and
workshops will be then discharged into the environment, while water from wheelwashing area after oil separation is supposed to be conducted to appropriated
impermeable collecting pool. All areas mentioned will be fitted out with an
impermeable floor surface.
10. Waste sludge from oil separators will be regularly collected in appropriated
containers and periodically overtaken by authorised collecting institutions.
II. Air quality
A. Impacts
1. Air quality could be threaten only if bio-filter, water-screen and under-pressure
maintaining systems in the MBT facility would fail.
2. Due to irregular waste dumping into landfill body, i.e. if fresh waste would be left
open and uncovered for a longer period, it is possible to occur strange odours.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. Possible air pollution from the MBT facility will be prevented by properly designed
and well-maintained: (a) bio-filters for purification of gaseous substances, taken from
the waste bio-drying process, but prior to discharge them into atmosphere; (b) short
opening of automatic entrance doors during throwing of input waste into collecting
pool; (c) activation of water-screens during the periods of throwing waste from
refuse vans into waste collection pool, and (d) state of under-pressure in the MBT
internal processing area. Water-screen, under-pressure state of internal area, as well
as bio-filter, will also contribute to prevent spreading of strange odours and dust to
the outside area.
2. Spent bio-filters will be treated in the same way as the waste fraction < 150 mm.
After mixing with the mentioned waste fraction, they will be transformed into biostabilised waste.
3. Regular daily covering of dumped waste will prevent spreading of strange odours
from the landfill to the environment.
4. Degasification system to be established in the non-hazardous waste landfill should be
properly and continuously controlled and maintained.
III. Wind, noise and traffic
A. Impacts
1. Uncovered waste, left out of control for a longer period prior to dumping in landfill,
may be affected by wind and consequently spread throughout the surrounding area.
2. Due to irregular operation or lack of maintenance of some facilities (e.g. MBT), it is
possible an increased level of noise to be generated, that would affect surrounding
area (noise surpassing intensity of 80 dB(A) along the borderlines of the Centre is
not allowed).
3. Due to lack of regularly performed wheel washing prior to refuse van leaves the
Centre, it is possible to occur sedimentation of dust and mud on public roads that
could severely threaten public traffic safety.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. Waste dumped in the landfill body should be covered by protection layers, made of
inert material, on daily basis. Blowing the waste away will be prevented by regularly
used protective mobile fences on appropriate sections of landfill body during waste
dumping process.
2. The MBT facility building will be constructed as a completely sound-proof structure.
3. By purchasing, using and well-maintaining appropriately designed devices in MBT
facility (as well as in all other operating areas in the Centre), noise surpassing
allowed level will be disabled. To prevent any increased level of noise, it is
necessary to apply only properly maintained vehicles, work machinery and other
operational equipment. For same reason, driving speed for vehicles being used in the
Centre will be limited.
4. Around the entire area of the Centre will be established an appropriated “green zone”
to serve as an additional protective measure to disable noise propagation to
surroundings.
IV. Landfill stability
A. Impacts
1. Due to inadequate performance of fringe slopes of the landfill body, it is possible to
occur instability or lateral erosion of the landfill, resulting in sliding of dumped
waste down-slope, or even in cracking of interim (daily) layers and superficial
sealing layer system (where and when applicable). This occurrence could
consequently lead to soil and groundwater pollution.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1.Lateral slopes of the landfill body should be designed in the way that their inclinations
do not exceed the value of horizontal/vertical interrelation of 4H:1V.
2.In order to increase stability of fringe slopes, i.e. to prevent processes of erosion and
derasion along the slopes, but also to make possible the access of dustcarts and
machines for compaction of unloaded and spread-out waste, lateral slopes of the
landfill body should be preferably designed in the way to incorporate a few metres
wide terrace steps. The daily dumped waste should be covered with an inert earth
material along entire suficial area of respective part of the landfill body and afterwards
compacted by machinery.
3.Through regularly undertaken inspections of cover layer along the full (finished)
sections of the landfill body, to identify possible damages, occuring on the surface of
cover layer. Control of the surficial area of landfill body should be undertaken once a
year by geodetic surveying. Any damages recorded should be immediately fixed
(removed).
V. Flora and fauna
A. Impacts
1. Throughout the area of the Centre, vegetation cover will be permanently removed
(excluding artificial green zones to be established). However, this impact is
reasonably acceptable, since it is limited to a relatively small area, where flora has
already been removed due to local quarries that had been operating for a long time.
2. Due to irregular waste dumping into landfill body, i.e. leaving fresh waste open and
uncovered for a longer period, animals (rodents, insects, birds etc.) searching for
food could appear on the landfill and thus, consequently, may spread pathogenic
bacteria (i.e. contagious diseases) to population living in surrounding area.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. Regular daily covering of dumped waste will prevent approach of animals to open
waste heaps.
2. An appropriate reticular fence around the Centre will disable approach of rodents,
mammals and other animals (excluding birds) in search for food to the landfill area.
VI. Landscape amenities
A. Impacts
1. Although rehabilitation of existing quarries by filling them up with properly designed
and managed landfills means a positive landscape transformation of the local
landscape, any subsequent deviation of regular, i.e. prescribed practice, or e.g.
surpassing the allowed height of landfill bodies, could have adverse impacts to local
landscape amenities.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. Waste management practice throughout the Centre should be performed strictly in
accordance with prescribed procedures and any alteration or deviation in respect to
designed state is not allowed.
VII. Accidental situations
A. Impacts
1. Due to inadequate operational measures and improper maintenance of facilities in the
Centre, it is possible to occur accidental situations, such as fires and explosions,
penetration of leachates into soil and groundwater, accumulation of large amounts of
fresh waste out of control, breakdown of energy and water supply etc. Breakdown of
electric energy supply for a longer period could – e.g. due to disabling a gas pump
that draws biogas toward the flare – cause the failure of landfill degasification system
and, consequently, fire or explosion of methane accumulated in the landfill body may
occur.
2. In cases of an inadequate managing with waste on the landfill it is possible to occur
waste inflammation or self-inflammation of dumped waste, including also internal
smouldering of waste inside the landfill body that would lead to extensive fire.
B. Protection/mitigation measures
1. A permanent, 24-hours custody service, as well as appropriated fire-prevention
equipment and fire-extinguishing water, internal and external hydrant systems,
independent on-site power generating unit (for cases of possible electricity supply
breakdowns), internal and external alert systems, medical emergency equipment,
protective outfit, etc., will be enabled for any possible accidental situation.
Conclusion
As it is elaborated above, the possible impacts of the Centre to the environment and
human health are observed by respective environmental impact assessment study [1]
and corresponding protection/mitigation measures were also defined. However, prior to
regular operation, it is indispensable to prove operational capability of designed
facilities from the viewpoints of both their efficiency and real impacts to the
environment in circumstances of full operational load. It is expected to be achieved
through prescribed trial operation. Thus, the entire Centre, as a complex operational
unit, will be both verified and validated. By verification, the static or “as built” state of
particular facilities (engines, devices) will be determined. Facilities are supposed to be
checked with respect to their own design and permits approved (e.g. dimensions of
buildings, characteristics of purchased equipment by type, quality, power, producer
etc.). Responsibility for possible non-conformities determined during verification
consequently may lie on constructors or, in some cases, on authorities, responsible for
issuing of permits. Verification is conducted through technical inspection to prove
acceptance of corresponding facility, engine etc. Validation is related to inspection of
the facility performance in terms of its dynamic reaction to maximum designed load. It
is always performing after verification is already conducted. Through validation is
checked whether the facilities or engines meet operational (functional) requirements. It
refers not only to keeping the facility’s integrity itself, but also to all possible
influences, such as environmental impacts themselves, that the facility (engine) could
produce under load. Responsibility for checked possible failures during validation lies
on designer.
Finally, it should be emphasised that no unacceptable impacts to the environment and
public health are expected to be caused by the Centre operation, if all proposed
mitigation, i.e. protection measures would be strictly and continuously conducted.
After the Centre start-up, the performance of an adequate monitoring programme is
assessed to be of the highest importance from the viewpoint of environmentally safe
operation of the Centre.
Literature
[1] National Waste Management Strategy (Official Gazette, No. 130/05)
[2] National Waste Management Plan for the Period 2007-2015 (Official Gazette,
No. 85/07, 126/10, 31/11)
[3] Environmental Impact Assessment Study of the Waste Management Centre of
Zadar County. APO Ltd. Environmental Services. Zagreb, 2013.
Environmental Impact Assessment of Metallurgical Waste: Trepça
case study in Kosovo
Mihone Kerolli-Mustafa1, Violeta Lajqi-Makolli2, Letafete Latifi3
1
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Maruli ev trg 19,
Zagreb, Croatia ([email protected])
2
Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Republic of Kosovo, Prishtina, Republic of
Kosovo
3
Hydro meteorological Institute of Kosovo, Prishtina , Republic of Kosovo
Abstract
Kosovo mining operations played a significant role during the past two decades. These
activities cover a range of diverse environmental impact in water quality, soil, air, toxins
in tailing damps and other components. The issue of environment protection has never
been treated and regulated before in systematic manner. Trepça mining possess a
serious public health problem due to lack of proper waste management, uncontained
tailing damps and lack of facilities for treating metallurgical waste. Discharge from
open tailing damps, eroding, contaminated buildings are found to be the main source of
contamination of air, soil and water in Mitrovica region, were the Trepça mine is
located. This study addressed the current situation of metallurgical waste in Trepça. It
has found a number of areas were remediation actions need to be taken in order to
reduce the health hazard of community living there and increase the regional socioeconomic stability. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken to
assess the human, environmental and socio-economical parameters of the environment
surrounding Trepça complex area.
Key words: metallurgical waste, environmental contamination, remediation actions,
environmental impact assessment.
Introduction
A different type of chemical industry waste poses one of the biggest environmental
concern, as well as being an economic burden to society [1-3]. These industrial
processes generate a huge amount of waste. Once this waste is generated it must be
collected, treated and disposed of [4-6]. Inappropriate waste disposal leads to a potential
pollution hazard. Our society must consider waste management as one of the priorities
by supporting it to develop a financial and environmental sustainable system that will
respond to present and future needs of the citizens and economy. Several tools have
been developed in order to assess the environmental, economic and social effects of
waste management systems [7, 10]. The EIA has become an universal approach for
evaluating and assessing the mining, waste and other projects on the environment. The
Kosovo environmental legislation is new, however the national legislation continue to
fulfill the European Union (EU) requirements in process of integration into the EU [7].
The implementation of national legislation in the light of the EU legislation is one of the
main challenges ahead.
All the policies and strategies in Kosovo are being drafted by government institutions –
ministries at their department levels. Most policies drafted within the last 3 years were
the result of cooperation with international organizations, and are fragmentized in areas
according to the agenda of multilateral and bilateral donors [2]. The environmental
legislation in Kosovo provides EIA as an instrument for identification and evaluation of
environmental impacts of developed projects and Strategic Environemntal Assessment
(SEA) as an instrument of governmental decision–making. Both the EIA and SEA
contains number of features such as screening procedure through determining whether
an EIA/SEA will be required for certain projects/plans or not. Consultations and public
participations are forming the integrating part of the EIA procedure. Public participation
requirements and especially the EIA procedure, including the decision-making process
are more formalized. Another interesting feature is the formation of EIA” external
experts”, that have proven expertise in EIA.
While, the Kosovo regulatory system of environmental protection appeared to be quite
advanced [8] and balanced with the EU requirement, the system can however be
significantly improved if:
- Additional audit requirements are introduced. Such an approach would
harmonize the Law on Environment Protection47 and EIA/SEA laws.
- Support training efforts that will increase capacity are developed by Ministry of
Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP)48. Guidance and training is essential
in this respect, in enhancing the national professional capacity for EIA, through
induction and ongoing programs.
- Establish an EIA consultant market that may improve the quality of the EIA
reports.
- Promote a national environmental strategy and help develop an action plan
through direct involvement of municipalities.
- Improve public participation in environmental decision making through access
to information, environmental communication, and education.
Current Environmental Impact Assessment Legislation in Kosovo
Law on Environmental Impact Assessment49- The aim of this Law is to prevent or
mitigate adverse impacts of proposed public and private projects and thereby contribute
to the safeguarding and improvement of the environment, the protection of human
health, and the improvement of the quality of life [9]. The law contains 42 Articles. This
Law regulates procedures for the identification, assessment and reporting of the
environmental impacts of certain proposed projects. According to the law the
environmental authorities are the municipalities in whose area a proposed project is
intended to be situated, the authorities compiling and maintaining data on the state of
the environment in Kosovo and other bodies which Ministry considers that can be
included in the process of the proposed project. The Ministry or other authority is
obliged to provide available data and information to the applicant, within fifteen (15)
days from the day it receives the request. The Ministry shall be sure that the public is
informed about the proposed project through at least one local daily newspaper edited in
the territory that will be affected by the planned project, and through electronic media.
If during the review of an EIA Report, it is determined that the proposed project is
47
Law on Environmental Protection 2009/03-L-025, http://www.kuvendikosoves.org
http://mmph.rks-gov.net/
49
Law
on
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
2010/03-L-214,
http://www.kuvendikosoves.org
48
likely to cause significant transboundary environmental impacts then the Ministry shall
inform the affected country or countries about the arrangements. The project for which
the Decision on Environmental Consent has been issued is monitored by MESP through
the environmental protection Inspectors. The law contains a list with the projects that
requires the EIA (Annex I).
Law on Strategic Environmental Assessment50- SEA was first introduced into the
Kosovo national legislation in 2004 in the Environmental Protection Law Nr.2003/09
[9]. The law refers to the strategic environmental assessment of certain plans and
programs and ensures high level for protection of the environment and human health.
Methodology for SEA procedure is separated from the EIA. The SEA process contains a
number of stages such as: screening, scoping, prediction, mitigation, preparation of
environment impact statement, consultations, decision making and monitoring. SEA
shall be carried out for certain plans or programs when exist possibility that realization
are likely to have significant environmental effects.
Municiality role in EIA process
Law on Environmental Protection Article 3 provides municipalities with more exercise
responsibilities for those environmental matters, which originate or are likely to
originate within the territory of such municipality. This includes harmonization with the
Aarhus Convention51 that states “protection of environment is not solely a matter for
which central level organs are concerned with” [10,11]. This gives more responsibilities
to municipal authorities in backing the environmental protection, but sill no EIA is
completed in the municipal level. The EIA remains the responsibility of MESP.
Municipalities in Kosovo such as Mitrovica are issuing the formal environmental
consent only for the small projects that don’t need an EIA. It is recommended that
municipalities should request advice from the Institute for Nature and Environmental
Protection, which already has a sector dealing specifically with EIA.
Trepça Case study
Waste management is a major challenge for Kosovo due to poor management and
disposal, little interest in reducing the quantity and hazardousness waste or recycling.
Particular tailing waste surrounding the Trepça Mining Complex in Mitrovica, are the
main concern of this study.
50
Law
on
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment
2010/03-L-230
http://www.kuvendikosoves.org
51
The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (hereinafter to be referred as Aarhus
Convention) is an international normative framework with occupies a profound place in
the
discourse
of
environmental
international
law.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/aarhus/
Figure 1. Location of metallurgical tailing waste in Mitrovica
Mitrovica is a north-eastern city of Kosovo, it has a long history of lead and zinc
metallurgy productions were unfortunately these mining operations have resulted in
negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The heavy metals that were mined
in Trepça were lead, zinc, silver and gold. With the reserves of Lead, Zinc, Bauxite,
Nickel, Silver and Gold Trepça is known as one of the biggest mining complexes in
Europe [1, 5, 12]. Even though Trepça has not been in operation since 2000, the Trepça
Mining Complex is identified as one of the biggest environmental hot spots in the
region with toxic/acidic effluents, uncontained waste rock, contaminated building
facilities, dust emissions and unsecured working environments, poorly contained and
unstable tailings wastes. Mining and mineral processing in Mitrovica has been
characterised by large open tailing damps with a large amount of waste disposed. At
present industrial waste tailing dumps and opencast mines cover more than 10 000
hectares. It is estimated that over 40 000 000 million tons of waste are accumulated in
tailings within the Mitrovica region. However, unsolved environmental problems are
considered as major obstacles for the region that prevent potential economic benefit.
Further development of chemical industry sector is hampered by lack of investment and
luck of environmental management. There are poor monitoring systems that measure
the environmental impact of industrial waste. Another fact that reflects the monitoring
system is also lack of proper equipment for waste rehabilitation. For the environmental
assessment to be effective, data collection and analysis are very important in order to
ensure the effectiveness and accuracy of the monitoring system.
The impact of metallurgical waste on environment
Significant environmental impacts have been investigated such as: soil, surface water,
ground water and socio-economic impacts. Investigation site is metallurgical wastes
dump in Mitrovica Industrial Park (MIP). MIP is situated very close to the residential
area of southern part of the Mitrovica town, 20 m next to the banks of Sitnica River.
This park comprises of zinc refinery, battery factory, fertilizer factory and around 35 h
covered with industrial waste. The wind direction during sampling time was south-west
to north- east.
Impact on Soil
Within the sampling framework we took soil samples every 30 m along with the wind
direction, including two samples from the metallurgical tailing waste (Table 1).
Table 1. Metallurgical Waste tailing analysis (%)
Sample
Type of Waste Origin
Origin
TS 1
Zinc
metallurgy Zinc refining
waste
TS 2
Jarosite
waste
process Zinc refining
Composition
%
Zn 22
Pb 4
Cd 0.14
Cu 0.74
Fe 30
Pb 3.5
Cu 0.28
Zn 3.5
Cd 0.015
Note: Total concentrations were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). The
accuracy and analytical precision were determined using analyses of GSJ Geochemical
Reference Material (JR-3 and JSy-1) and triplicate samples in each analytical set.
Every soil sample is separated with different depths 20 cm, 40 cm and 60 cm. The
results of soil sample analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Soil sample analysis (mg/kg)
Sample Distance Depth
pH
m
cm
5.9
SS1
30
20
6
40
6.1
60
6
SS2
60
20
6.1
40
6
60
6.2
SS3
90
20
6.1
40
6
60
6.3
SS4
120
20
6.2
40
6.1
60
6.4
SS5
150
20
6.2
40
6
60
6.7
SS6
180
20
6.7
40
6.5
60
Zn
Pb
Ni
Cd
Cu
9866
9799
7566
6328
5277
4344
6950
6544
6199
5940
5280
4977
5530
4420
3388
4236
3933
3155.5
5427.7
2800
2377.4
5150.5
4977.7
1233.1
4969
3799.5
1855.4
4472.1
3577.7
1400.9
4320
3355
900
5120.2
3233
880
136
121
103
111
105
126
146
136
103
107
104
126
126
128
110
118
121
116
346.4
333.2
334.5
344.2
323
357
229.5
109
85
180.4
147
111
124.4
116
78
98.3
57
61
253
250
247.6
245.2
236
210
230.5
210
157
262.5
154.5
121
166.3
65
54
149
84
56
Note: Soil Screening Levels (SSL) set by US EPA, 2002 and NYS DEC, 2007 soil cleanup
objective values are used to compare the results.
From the table 2 we can find out that: 1) the pH is lower at the closer distance to the
tailings; 2) for the 20 cm depth the highest concentration of Zn, Cd, Pb, Cu and Ni was
found at the distance 30 m to the tailing metallurgical waste; 3) for the 40 cm depth the
concentration of Zn, Pb, Cu, Ni and Cd occurred to be lower compared to the 20 cm
depth; 4) the same situation was recorded with the 60 cm depth were the concentration
of the metals decreases; 5) the concentration of metals decreases in 60 m, 90 m, 120 m,
120 m and at the 180 m distance. Considering the wind effects, the highest
concentrations of metals was measured in 20 cm topsoil samples. Analysis of 8 samples
showed that the concentrations of heavy metals related to the presence of metallurgical
waste (Pb, Zn, Cd, Cu and Ni) decreased with depth and in a long tract (180 m). The
analyses also show that the concentration of Pb, Zn and Cd in all soil samples taken
exceeds the limits of US EPA ( Pb 400 mg/kg, Cd 70 mg/kg) and NYS DEC ( Zn 2200
mg/kg) while the concentrations of Cu and Ni are under the limits (Cu 270 mg/kg and
Ni 140 mg/kg). Furthermore the higher concentration of Pb, Zn and Cd as main
contaminants possesses a serious health concern.
Impact on Surface water
The metallurgical waste in Mitrovica Industrial Park has a big impact in the water
quality of Sitnica River. The water quality of the river is considered very low due to the
contamination with heavy metals. The water is contaminated in such level that it cannot
be used for any supply. Field sampling of the surface water close to the Mitrovica
Industrial Park were taken. Seven surface water samples were collected from Sitnica
River. Another two samples are taken from the rainwater ponds in the jarosite tailing
(Figure 1). The results of field sampling are shown on table 3 and table 4.
Table 3. Quality of surface water
Parameters
Sample SW1
s
Turbidity
NTU
3.36
pH
7.53
Electrical
µScm- 1857
Conductivity
1
Ammonium ion
mg/l
0.85
mg/l
0.010
Nitrite
6
Nitrate
mg/l
1.5
Sulphates SO42mg/l
74.9
Phosphate PO3-4 mg/l
0.129
Manganese
Hardness
Alkalinity
Chloride
Acidity
mg/l
ºdH
mval/l
mg/l
mval/l
0.175
47.6
27
20
0.075
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
SW7
84
7.74
1197
6.67
7.89
956
2.48
7.94
821
1.2
7.96
828
12.9
8,57
15.2
5,76
505
4.05
0.60
5
22.6
1200
870
0.55
0.05
5
7.8
nd
298
nd
25
55.2
27
500
10 3
53.5
35
150
0.02
0.03
0.47
0.05
0.00
1
2.48
94.8
0,01
0.19
0.05
0.00
1
0.55
55.8
nd
0.1
0.009
8
6.2
80
0.271
0.352
42
52
20
0.075
0.4
0.010
2
3.3
80
0.12
0.037
53.2
2
800
0.025
Cd
Cu
mg/L
mg/L
1
0.02
1
0.02
0.002
0.02
Ni
Pb
Zn
CN total
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
0.001
0.7
2.2
0,01
0.001
1.15
2.35
0,01
0.001
0.05
0.23
0,01
0.98
0.01
0.95
0.07
3.3
79.8
2.87
3
0.01
2
21
53
20
0.07
5
0.00
4
0.02
0.00
1
0.04
0.1
nd
2.1
76.7
2.98
8
0.00
2
53.2
1
160
0.03
0.00
4
0.05
0.00
1
1.97
0.12
0,01
Note: Total concentration of the Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu and Ni was determined in accordance with CSN
EN (Czech national standard – European standard) ISO 11885 using ICP spectrometry. The
results were compared with WHO water quality guidelines, 2011 (Pb 0.01 mg/L, Cd 0.005
mg/L, Ni 0.02 mg/L, Zn 5 mg/L and Cu 1-2 mg/L).
The detected concentration of Pb and Cd are above the Standards for Drinking Water
Quality. While, the concentration of Zn, Ni and Cu are below the WHO standards. As
result the Sitnica river is polluted and it can’t be used for irrigation, recreation, or even
for industrial purposes without prior treatment.
Figure 1. Rain water pond in jarosite tailing.
Table 4. The analysis of rainwater ponds in the jarosite tailing.
Parameters
Unit
Sample 1
Electrical Conductivity
µScm-1
3.5
NO3
mg/L
0.68
2SO4
mg/L
8520
PO3-4
mg/L
4.35
Cd
mg/L
45.3
Cu
mg/L
0.05
Ni
mg/L
0.001
Pb
mg/L
1.55
Zn
mg/L
4270
Sample 2
2.45
45
64560
0.1
20100
0.05
0.001
4.32
23200
The samples from the rainwater ponds show high concentration of heavy metals. Direct
contact of surface water with the waste material resulted with high vales of metals
released.
Impact on Groundwater
The heavy metal concentration is very important indicator for the groundwater quality.
In order to assess the quality impacts of metallurgical waste in groundwater two
samples are collected. Sample GW1 is located at 4 m depth, 3 m from Sitnica River and
sample GW2 is located at 6 m depth and 3 m from the river. The results are presented in
table 5.
Table 5. Ground water analysis
Parameters
pH
Cd
Cu
Ni
Pb
Zn
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
GW1
5.9
1.44
0.18
0.001
0.06
155.13
GW 2
5.75
3.14
6.11
0.002
0.18
162.13
The highest ground water pollution with heavy metals occurred in sample GW2 which
is 20 m close to the tailing. The results show that the ground water in Mitrovica is
heavily contaminated mainly with lead, zinc and cadmium. According to the results,
such ground water can’t be used for any purpose. The results of this study agree with
the findings of other studies performed in Mitrovica region [1, 5, 13].
Impact on Socio-Economic Environment
The presence of existing tailings in Mitrovica is potential harmful to the environment,
especially for people living in the surrounding area. It posed and still poses a real
danger on regard to direct exposure pathways to heavy metals present in dust, soil,
water and MIP premises. Trepça is socially owned company that owns the existing
tailings. The biggest problem that Trepça is facing today besides the unsolved owning
status is also the luck of financial resources to deal with the environmental legacy.
Furthermore this problem doesn’t presents a big effect only on health, but it has an
impact on employment, human resources, land use and environmental conditions as
well. Today the company is strategically re-aligned but further tasks could focus on
sustainable development of the mining sector by realizing regulations in the field
working safety, waste management including law and regulations for privatization of
Trepça and establishment of a structure for organizing budgets from different financial
sources in cooperation with Ministries, Municipality of Mitrovica, international
donations and Trepça Mining Complex. Whether the mining industry remains a key
industry for Kosovo, this question still exists.
Remediation strategies
Remediation strategies require a detail economic and social evaluation of Trepça,
necessary planning process on regard to establishment of a Recycling Center for Waste,
and building up a waste water treatment for the region [4, 13]. Further education for
Trepça workers – on environment and waste management, contaminated site
investigation, feasibility studies, soil and groundwater remediation, supervision of
clean-up projects is needed.
Conclusion
This study started with an environmental assessment and providing an overview of the
soil, water and ground water pollution. The environmental assessment identified number
of problem areas, such as:
- contamination of soil in the MIP surrounding area by deposition of suspended
dust from tailings waste during high wind events,
- contamination of surface water from tailings materials eroding and groundwater
discharging,
- contamination of groundwater by metals leaching from the tailings waste.
The implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment in Trepça is to be seen as an
important opportunity to create a stable process of assessing the environmental impacts
and increase the environmental policy integration. Whether the Kosovo’s new
environmental legislation will result in better environmental assessment practice in
Trepça case, it will depend upon the content and quality of new governmental
regulations and guidelines. Further training programs and performance evaluation of
new instruments and their adjustments were shown to be necessary. For the
implemetation of an accurate environemtal assessment nessesary steps have to be
fullfilled:
- phase I / phase II of Environmental Assessment
- environmental studies
- environmental permitting
- supervision of environmental projects
- outsourcing of environmental services
Literature
[1] Abaza H., Bisset R., Sadler B. Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic
Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach, the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2004): 39-63
[2] Advisory Board on Environment Protection. Environment in Kosovo. KFOS
European magazine on Environment. 2011 (4): 4-9
[3] Bellinger E., Lee N., George C., Padured A. Environmental assessment in
countries in transition. CEU Press. (2000): 1-208
[4] Cheremisinoff N.P. Handbook of solid waste management and waste
minimization technologies. Elsevier Science. (2003): 23-92
[5] Deconta. Consulting services for Environmental Assessment and Remedial
Action Plan for Mitrovica Industrial Park. UNDP. (2009): 2-209
[6] EPA. Waste Analysis at Facilities That Generate, Treat, Store and Dispose of
Hazardous Wastes. ECDIC. 2002 (11): 2-37
[7] European Commission. Guidance on EIA-Screening. EC.(2001)
[8] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-screening-full-text.pdf.
(17.03.2013)
[9] European Commission. Progress Monitoring Report on Kosovo. EC. (2011): 4446
[10]
Kosovo Assembly laws, http://www.kuvendikosoves.org. (15.03.2013)
[11]
Morris P., Therivel R. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment.
UBC Press. (2009): 297-305
[12]
Regional Environmental Center Assessment Report. The transposition of
the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (The Aarhus
Convention) with the legislation of Kosovo (2006): 6-37
[13]
Rydergren A., Montelius M. Environmental Remediation at Paddock
Tailings Area, Gracanica, Kosovo. Sida Evaluation. 2004 (04): 7-40
[14]
Zoi Environment Network. Case Study on Lead and Heavy Metal
contamination in Mitrovica, Kosovo. UNEP (2010): 3-26
Oporaba otpada iz TE Plomin C-500
Nirvana Frankovi Mihelj1, Vladimir Jelavi 2, Juraj Šipuši
3
1
Fond za zaštitu okoliša i energetsku u inkovitost, Ksaver 208, Zagreb, Hrvatska
([email protected])
2
Ekonerg – Institut za energetiku i zaštitu okoliša, Koranska ulica 5, Zagreb, Hrvatska
3
Sveu ilište u Zagrebu, Fakultet kemijskog inženjerstva i tehnologije, Maruli ev trg 19, Zagreb,
Hrvatska
Sažetak
Studija o utjecaju na okoliš zahvata rekonstrukcije TE Plomin – zamjena postoje eg
bloka 1 s blokom C u cilju modernizacije i pove anja kapaciteta (SUO TEP C),
predvi a da otpad nastao u procesu izgaranja ugljena te pri pro iš avanju dimnih
plinova treba što je mogu e više oporabiti u proizvodnji cementa, betona i/ili koristiti za
ostale namjene, a samo višak trajno zbrinuti na odlagalištu nusproizvoda u Plominu. U
SUO TEP C obra ena je mogu a upotreba nusproizvoda šljake, pepela i gipsa u
proizvodnji portland cementa, te provedena analiza postoje ih i budu ih potreba
doma e cementne industrije.
U ovom radu istražena je dodatna mogu nost materijalne oporabe šljake, pepela i
otpadnog gipsa, glavnih nusproizvoda iz TE Plomin, u proizvodnji kalcij
sulfoaluminatnog cementa (CSAC), hidratnog veziva koji se može koristiti umjesto
portland cementa (PC).
Metodom rendgenske difrakcije (XRD) odre en je kvalitativni mineraloški sastav
pripravljenog veziva, te je odre ena savojna i tla na vrsto a morta CSAC. Na temelju
bilance tvari i energije procesa proizvodnje CSAC i PC ustanovljeno je da proizvodnja
1 t CSAC zahtijeva oko 0,60 t manje sirovina, dok je popratna emisija CO2 iz sirovina i
goriva manja za 0,31 do 0,48 t. Na osnovi rezultata istraživanja slijedi da je proizvodnja
CSAC iz proizvodnih otpadnih materijala TE Plomin mogu a, a ujedno se na taj na in
zbrinjava velika koli ina otpada na održivi na in.
Klju ne rije i: kalcij sulfoaluminatni cement, TE Plomin C-500, zbrinjavanje otpada,
ložišni pepeo, otpadni gips
Uvod
U termoelektrani Plomin (TE Plomin) planira se provesti rekonstrukcija dijela pogona
što podrazumijeva zamjenu postoje e TE Plomin 1 (TEP 1) s zamjenskim blokom TEP
C u cilju modernizacije i pove anja ukupnog kapaciteta. Zamjenski blok TEP C imat e
snagu 500 MW, a rekonstrukcijom e umjesto današnjih 335 MW instalirane snage na
lokaciji biti 710 MW. Stavljanjem u pogon TEP C, tijekom 2015. ili 2016. godine iz
pogona e iza i TE Plomin 1.
TEP C je koncipirana potpuno u skladu s na elima i preporukama koje proizlaze iz
uputa EU o primjeni najboljih raspoloživih tehnika (NRT) za velika ložišta. Izraz
„najbolje raspoložive tehnike“ vode e je na elo EU Direktive Vije a 96/61/EC
(2010/75/EU) o integralnom suzbijanju i kontroli one iš enja (IPPC – Integrated
Pollution Prevention and Control) u smislu „najdjelotvornijega i najnaprednijega
stupnja razvoja onih aktivnosti i operativnih metoda koje nazna uju prakti nu
primjerenost tehnika za osiguranje osnova pri odre ivanju grani nih vrijednosti emisija
za sprje avanje ili, gdje to nije mogu e, smanjivanje emisija i utjecaja na okoliš kao
cjelinu“.
Sadašnji osnovni energent termoelektrane je uvozni kameni ugljen sa sigurnom
dobavom zbog velikih zaliha ravnomjerno raspore enih u politi ki stabilnim zemljama
(ravnomjernije nego zalihe nafte i plina), te se za TEP C tako er planira koristiti uvozni
kameni ugljen istih svojstava kao za postoje e postrojenje. Prema okvirnoj
kategorizaciji koju koristi Institut za istraživanje ugljena Me unarodne agencije za
energiju ovo energetsko postrojenje može se svrstati u tzv. elektrane „blizu nulte
emisije“.
Za zahvat rekonstrukcije TE Plomin Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i prirode provelo je
postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš i utvr ivanja objedinjenih uvjeta zaštite okoliša.
Rekonstrukcija TE Plomin u sklopu koje se gradi blok C-500 sastoji se od proizvodnoenergetskog postrojenja i infrastrukturnih sustava koji su obra eni u Studiji o utjecaju
na okoliš [1] (SUO), a mjere zaštite okoliša koje utvr uje SUO odnose se na nominalnu
kontinuiranu snagu (NCR) od 500 MW na generatoru i maksimalnu kontinuiranu snagu
(MCR) 515 MW na generatoru, za energent uvozni kameni ugljen, iji je raspon
vrijednosti osnovnih svojstava (projektom dozvoljene vrijednosti) prikazan u Tablici 1.
Tablica 1. Svojstva uvoznog ugljena
Veli ina
Jedinica
Donja ogrjevna vrijednost, Hd
MJ/kg
Pepeo
% mase
Vlaga
% mase
Hlapivo
% mase bez vlage i pepela
Sumpor
% mase
Dušik
% mase
Klor
% mase
Najniže
24,0
8
6
25
0,3
1,2
0,01
Najviše
29,3
15
15
45
1,5
1,85
0,45
Prilikom izbora tehnologije izgaranja ugljena, analizirane su razli ite varijante. Analize
u okviru SUO pokazale su da relativno nizak trošak ulaganja, visok energetski stupanj
djelovanja i visoka pouzdanost postoje ih komercijalnih postrojenja daju prednost
termoelektrani superkriti nih parametara stanja pare s izgaranjem ugljene prašine
(SCPC) pred ostalim tehnologijama izgaranja ugljena (npr. izgaranje u fluidiziranom
sloju (FBC), izgaranje u kisiku (Oxy-fuel) ili tehnologiji rasplinjavanja ugljena
(IGCC)).
Zna i, TEP C je predvi ena po konceptu suvremenih termoelektrana iste tehnologije
na ugljen s ciljem da se pogonom novog bloka smanji utjecaj na okoliš. Ukupan teret
emisije štetnih tvari u atmosferu biti e manji nego danas, a lokacija e se krajobrazno
unaprijediti (otvoreni deponij ugljena zamjenjuju silosi).
Smanjenje emisije one iš uju ih tvari u zrak predvi aju korištenje mokrog postupka
odsumporavanja s vodenom suspezijom vapnenca dok e se za smanjenje emisije NOx
primijeniti gorionici s niskim NO x i stupnjevanim dovo enjem zraka te primjenom
selektivne kataliti ke redukcije (SCR) koja ima u inkovitost iznad 80 %.
Prema ocjeni prihvatljivosti za okoliš zahvata rekonstrukcije TE Plomin, u dijelu koji se
odnosi na stvaranje i zbrinjavanje otpada tijekom rada Bloka C, slijedi da e najve e
koli ine otpada nastati kao nusproizvod izgaranja ugljena (šljaka i pepeo) te
nusproizvod obrade dimnih plinova (gips i filtarski kola ), te upu uje na njihovu
ponovnu uporabu u gra evnoj industriji.
Prema katalogu otpada iz Uredbe o kategorijama, vrstama i klasifikaciji otpada s
katalogom otpada i listom opasnog otpada [2] šljaka (klju ni broj otpada 10 01 01),
pepeo (klju ni broj otpada 10 01 02) i gips (klju ni broj otpada 10 01 05) ubrajaju se u
neopasni otpad, odnosno mogu se koristiti kao sekundarne sirovine bez negativnog
utjecaja na zdravlje ljudi i okoliš.
Rezultati analiza radioaktivnosti šljake i pepela ukazuju da se predmetni nusproizvodi
mogu koristiti za gra evinske svrhe, a otpad e se odvoziti u cementare brodovima, te
samo u slu aju nemogu nosti takvog iskorištenja odlagati na postoje em odlagalištu
šljake i pepela. U SUO TEP C obra ena je mogu a upotreba nusproizvoda šljake,
pepela i gipsa u proizvodnji portland cementa, te provedena analiza postoje ih i budu ih
potreba doma e cementne industrije.
Cilj ovoga rada jest istražiti dodatne mogu nosti materijalne oporabe nusproizvoda iz
TE Plomin u proizvodnji specijalnog cementa ijom se proizvodnjom može smanjiti
emisija stakleni kih plinova [3].
Referentna elektrana TEP C-500 e godišnje za 7 600 sati rada na nazivnom optere enju
od 500 MW proizvesti približno 114 179 tone pepela, 12 698 tona šljake i 62 291 tona
gipsa, CaSO4 2H2O, što je spram sadašnje proizvodnje dva do tri puta više.
Tablica 2. Bilanca krutih tvari TEP C-500 [1]
Ugljen
Materijal
Jedinica
Najgori
Ugljen
t/god
1 193 170
Pepeo
t/god
160 969
Šljaka
t/god
17 897
Gips
t/god
101 192
Referentni
1 085 918
114 179
12698
62 291
Najbolji
974 563
70 069
7 797
16 538
Prema rezultatima prikazanim u Tablici 2, vidljivo je da u budu em radu TE nastaje
velika koli ina lebde eg pepela koji je potencijalno zanimljiv kao dodatak klinkeru
portland cementa tijekom mljevenja, ponajviše zbog vrlo sitnih estica i pucolanske
aktivnosti. Ipak, postoji mogu nost da se odre eni dio (nus)proizvedenog lebde eg
pepela ne e mo i plasirati kao pucolanski dodatak cementu zbog malog udjela amorfne
faze, zato jer je zbog promjenjivih svojstava ugljena i/ili režima izgaranja i trenutne
snage pe i, došlo do kristalizacije kvarca i mulita u lebde em pepelu. Stoga je znatno
otežano budu e gospodarenje lebde im pepelom. Šljaka, tj. ložišni pepeo u pravilu nije
interesantan cementarama zato jer se sastoji od ve ih i aglomeriranih estica pepela te
još može sadržavati i estice neizgorenog ugljena. Gips se može uporabiti kao dodatak
portland cementu tijekom mljevenja i nastaje u koli ini dovoljnoj za cjelogodišnju
potrebu svih hrvatskih cementara. Jedna od dodatnih mogu nosti oporabe svih
navedenih otpadnih materijala, pepela, šljake i gipsa je proizvodnja kalcij
sulfoaluminatnog cementa, CSAC. Kalcij sulfoaluminatni cement se intenzivno
istražuje unazad nekoliko godina stoga što je za njegovu proizvodnju potrebna znatno
manja koli ina energije nego za proizvodnju portland cementa (PC) [4], te otuda i
njegova klasifikacija kao niskoenergetski cement (engl. „low energy cement”).
Literaturni pregledi stanja i perspektive industrije cementa, posebice s obzirom na
utrošak sirovina i emisiju CO2, esto navode mogu e alternative portland cementu, te se
redovito isti e veliki potencijal kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa [5]. U Kini se godišnje
proizvede oko milijun tona kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa prema odgovaraju em
nacionalnom standardu [6]. Proizvodnja kalcijevog sulfoaluminatnog cementa temelji se
na žarenju/pe enju odgovaraju e smjese sirovina pri temperaturi od 1200-1300 °C pri
emu nastaje Kleinov spoja, 4CaO 3Al2 O3 SO3. Dodatkom vode kalcij
sulfoaluminatnom cementu, Kleinov spoj reagira sa vodom i otopljenim gipsom
dodanim tijekom mljevenja kalcij sulfoaluminatnog klinkera. Kao glavni produkti
reakcije hidratacije nastaju kalcijev monosulfat aluminat hidrat i etringit, uz nešto
aluminatnog gela [4]:
4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3 + 2 CaSO4 2H2O + 34 H2O
4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3 + 24 H2O
6CaO Al2O3 3SO3 32H2O + 4 Al(OH)3 (1)
4CaO Al2O3 SO3 18H2O + 4 Al(OH)3 (2)
Glasser i Zhang [7] su na temelju ove kemijske reakcije (1) izra unali optimalnu
koli inu gipsa koju treba dodati kalcij sulfoaluminatnom klinkeru, što iznosi 20-25 %
od mase klinkera. Na taj na in gips nastao u procesu odsumporavanja oporablja se ne
samo za pripravu klinkera kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa, nego se klinkeru dodaje još
i zna ajna koli ina gipsa tijekom mljevenja. Za usporedbu može se spomenuti da
dodatak gipsa portland cementu iznosi naj eš e oko 3.5 % mas., te nikako ne prelazi 5%
mas. Iz svega navedenog slijedi da se proizvodnjom kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa
rabi veliki udio industrijskih otpadnih materijala kao sirovina uz nižu temperaturu
rotacijskih pe i i manju emisiju CO2 [4].
Materijali i metode
Priprava kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa
Za pripravu kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa uporabljeni su industrijski otpadni
materijali: ložišni pepeo termoelektrane na ugljen, gips i troska elektri nih pe i za
taljenje elika. Kona ni kemijski sastav smjese sirovina podešen je dodatkom boksita i
kalcita (Tablica 3), ponajviše s obzirom na rezultate istraživanja fazne i kemijske
ravnoteže u sustavu CaO-Al2O3-SO3-SiO2-Fe2O3 autora Sahu i Majling [8]. Homogena
smjesa je prenesena u kerami ke lon e za žarenje te žarena u industrijskoj plinskoj
pe i na temperaturi od 1170 °C tijekom 3 sata. Pripravljeni klinker je nakon hla enja
relativno porozan i krhak te se lako melje.
Tablica 3. Sastav smjesa sirovina za pripravu kalcijevog sulfoaluminatnog cementa [9]
Komponenta
uzorak b4
uzorak b3
uzorak B4
25%
25%
18%
Gips
22%
10%
18%
Ložišni pepeo
25%
25%
46%
Vapnenac
8%
13%
18%
Boksit
20%
27%
0%
Troska elektri ne pe i
Karakterizacija kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa
Kvalitativni i kvantitativni fazni sastav klinkera odre en je rendgenskom difrakcijskom
analizom na ure aju XRD-6000 proizvo a Shimadzu, Japan. Pripravljene prizme od
morta CSAC izva ene su iz kalupa nakon 24 h, te dalje njegovane u vodi, sve do
trenutka odre ivanja savojne i tla ne vrsto e, nakon 2 i 28 dana njege.
Rezultati i rasprava
U smjesi sirovina za proizvodnju kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa, gips je glavni izvor
sulfata potrebnih za nastanak Kleinova spoja, 4CaO 3Al2 O3 SO3. U ovom su radu za
pripravu CSAC, uz otpadni gips, uporabljena i dva druga industrijska nusproizvoda:
ložišni pepeo od gorenja ugljena i troska elektri nih pe i za proizvodnju elika, dok je
kona ni sastav postignut dodatkom vapnenca i boksita. Budu i da šljaka i pepeo imaju
vrlo sli an kemijski sastav oba se otpadna materijala mogu uporabiti za pripravu CSAC.
Sastav smjese sirovina za pripravu kalcij sulfoaluminatnog klinkera utje e na kona ni
mineralni sastav pripravljenog klinkera CSAC, te je na taj na in mogu e utjecati na
vrijeme vezanja, razvoj vrsto e, kona ne vrsto e mortova te na postojanost volumena,
tj. da li tijekom vremena dolazi do ekspanzije ili stezanja pripravljenog mineralnog
veziva. U Tablici 3 prikazana su tri odabrana sastava CSAC koji se razlikuju prema
udjelu boksita kao potencijalno najskuplje komponente u smjesi sirovina. Nakon
homogenizacije i paljenja mineraloški sastav kalcij sulfoaluminatnog klinkera odre en
je metodom rendgenske difrakcijske analize (Slika 1), ukazuju i na prisutnost: Kleinova
spoja, 4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3, sulfospurita, 5CaO 2SiO2 SO3, anhidrita, CaSO4, belita,
2CaO SiO2, feritne faze, 4CaO Al2 O3 Fe2O3 i perovskitu sli nih faza koje sadrže titan
3CaO Fe2O3 TiO2. Interesantno je primijetiti velike koli ine belita i sulfospurita u
pripravljenim uzorcima zbog relativno velikog udjela SiO2 (ponajviše iz pepela). Belit i
sulfospurit hidratiziraju vrlo polako te vrsto i cementa pridonose tek u kasnijem
razdoblju hidratacije.
500
uzorak b4
Ca4Al6SO16 Kleinov spoj
Ca5Si2SO12 Sulfospurit
Intenzitet / CPS
400
CaSO4 Anhidrit
Ca4Al2Fe2O10 Feritna faza
300
Ca2SiO4 Belit
Ca3Fe2TiO8 faze sl. perovskitu
200
100
0
10
20
30
2
40
50
CuK / °
Slika 1. Rezultat rendgenske difrakcije klinkera uzorka b4 potvr uje nastanak Kleinova
spoja karakteristi nog za kalcij sulfoaluminatni cement.
Maseni udio Kleinova spoja u pripravljenim CSA cementima odre en je ranije
kvantitativnom difrakcijom rendgenskih zraka [9] te iznosi od 27 do 32 % mase uzorka.
Budu i da je optimalni udio Kleinova spoja izme u 30 – 40 % [4,7] zaklju ujemo da je
proizvodnja kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa alternativni i ostvarljiv put smanjenja
koli ine navedenih industrijskih otpadnih materijala, pri emu se dobiva proizvod
pogodan za manje zahtjevne primjene gdje nisu potrebne visoke vrsto e. Budu i da cilj
ovog rada nije bio optimiranje sastava klinkera CSAC radi postizanja visokih vrsto a
nego je usmjeren prema oporabi što ve e koli ine industrijskog otpada, zadatak
poboljšanja vrsto e pripravljenih veziva svodi se ne uporabu ve e koli ine boksita koji
je me utim i najskuplja komponenta smjese sirovina, te je njegov udio u smjesi sirovina
namjerno vrlo nizak.
Poluindustrijskom pripravom šarži od po 5 kg klinkera kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa
raspolagalo se sa dovoljno materijala za sveobuhvatna laboratorijska ispitivanja
karakteristi na za pra enje procesa proizvodnje portland cementa [9]. Kalcij
sulfoaluminatni cement pripravljen je iz klinkera dodatkom 5 odnosno 10% mase gipsa
kako bi se ispitala vrsto a prema normi HRN EN-197-1:2005. Izmjerene tla ne
vrsto e iznose nešto manje od 20 MPa nakon 28 dana hidratacije dok savojne vrsto e
iznose nešto više od 3 MPa. Tako er, interesantno je primijetiti neuobi ajenu okoladnu
boju cementnog morta (Slika 2). Boja kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa najviše ovisi o
koli ini i stupnju oksidacije spojeva željeza, te se mijenja od žuto-sme e do tamno
sme e, ovisno o po etnom sastavu i uvjetima paljenja.
Slika 2. Prikaz standardnog trodjelnog kalupa napunjenog mortom CSAC.
U Tablici 3 navedena su tri odabrana sastava kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa.
Uporabljene sirovine pokazuju sljede i gubitak mase pri žarenju: gips tijekom žarenja
gubi dvije molekule vode što ini gubitak od 20,9% po etne mase gipsa, prethodno
osušen lebde i pepeo ne pokazuje zna ajan gubitak mase tijekom žarenja, vapnenac
tijekom žarenja gubi 44% svoje mase, boksit tijekom žarenja gubi odre enu koli inu
vode što u ovom slu aju iznosi 10%, a troska tijekom žarenja ne gubi na masi, ak je
mjerljivo pove anje mase uslijed djelomi ne oksidacije spojeva željeza, što je
zanemareno. Temeljem navedenog mogu e je izra unati masu klinkera CSAC koja se
dobije žarenjem 100 kg smjese sirovina sastava navedenog u Tablici 3.
Tablica 4. Primjer prora una mase klinkera CSAC nakon žarenja za zadani sastav
smjese sirovina prema Tablici 3, za uzorak b4. Ra unski rezultati u dobrom su slaganju
s rezultatima termogravimetrijske analize smjese sirovina [9]
Komponenta
ostatak
uzorak b4
poslije
žarenjem
žarenja
0,791
25%
19,8
Gips
1,000
22%
22,0
Ložišni pepeo
0,560
25%
14,0
Vapnenac
0,900
8%
7,2
Boksit
1,000
20%
20,0
Troska elektri ne pe i
suma
100,0
83,0
Analogno, sastav b3 daje ostatak od 82,5%, a sastav B4 daje ostatak mase klinkera od
74,2% po etne mase smjese sirovina. Uzme li se u obzir da udio Kleinova spoja iznosi
oko 30% mase klinkera, tada optimalni dodatak gipsa prema stehiometriji jednadžbe (1)
iznosi 16,9% mase klinkera. U ovom slu aju, nakon dodatka optimalne koli ine gipsa,
masa pripravljenog kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa iznosi 97,0%; 96,4% odnosno
86,7% od po etne mase uporabljenih sirovina. Budu i da je sastav b3 sli an sastavu b4,
u daljnjem se tekstu uspore uju samo sastavi b4, B4 i portland cement. Gubitak mase je
posljedica izlaska vode i CO2 iz smjese sirovina tijekom žarenja, a najve a je koli ina
nastalog CO2 u slu aju sastava B4 koji sadrži i najviše vapnenca. Konkretno, emisija
CO2 iz sirovina iznosi 113 kg/t CSAC sastava b4, te 233 kg/t CSAC sastava B4. Ostatak
emisije CO2 pri proizvodnji dolazi od goriva, no detaljan prora un bilance toplinske
energije nije mogu na temelju dostupnih podataka. Stoga emo se poslužiti analogijom
sa procesom proizvodnje portland cementa i primijetiti da teoretska koli ina topline
potrebna za proizvodnju 1 t klinkera PC iznosi 1,794 GJ, dok se u praksi utroši oko 3,1
do 3,6 GJ/t klinkera PC [11]. Masa vapnenca za proizvodnju klinkera PC iznosi oko
1090 kg (uz prosje ni udio CaO u klinkeru od 61%), za što je potrebno ak 1,94 GJ
toplinske energije iz goriva, a pri tome se emitira 480 kg CO2 iz vapnenca te se utroši 65
kg visokokvalitetnog ugljena. Proizvodnjom 1 t CSAC sastava B4 ili b4 utroši se 474
odnosno ak 747 kg manje vapnenca nego za proizvodnju 1 t portland cementa (Tablica
5).
Tablica 5. Bilanca tvari i energije procesa proizvodnje kalcij sulfoaluminatnog cementa
i portland cementa. Budu i da ne postoje dostupni relevantni podaci za detaljan
prora un, pretpostavljeno je da se svi procesi pri zagrijavanju i hla enju odigravaju
analogno procesima proizvodnje portland cementa (bilanca topline)
CSAC sastava b4
CSAC sastava B4
PC, w(CaO) = 61%
m(sirovina) = 1000 kg
m(sirovina) = 1000 kg
m(sirovina) = 1600 kg
m(CaCO3) = 250 kg
m(CaCO3) = 460 kg
m(CaCO3) = 1090 kg
m(klinkera) = 830 kg
m(klinkera) = 742 kg
m(klinkera) = 1000 kg
Dodatak pri mljevenju
m(CaSO4 2H2O) = 140 kg m(CaSO4 2H2O) = 125 kg
m(gips+CaCO3) = 85 kg
m(CSAC) = 970 kg
m(CSAC) = 867 kg
m(PC, CEM I*) = 1085 kg
Emisija CO2 iz sirovina
m(CO2) = 110 kg/t m(CO2) = 202 kg/t sirovina m(CO2) = 480 kg/t
sirovina
sirovina
m(CO2) = 113 kg/t CSAC m(CO2) = 233 kg/t CSAC
m(CO2) = 442 kg / t PC
Energija potrebna za raspad CaCO3 (1t vapnenca 1,78 GJ)
Q(CaCO3) = 0,445 GJ/t Q(CaCO3) = 0,819 GJ/t sir. Q(CaCO3) = 1,94 GJ/t sir.
sir.
Q(CaCO3) = 0,459 GJ/t Q(CaCO3) = 0,945 GJ/t Q(CaCO3) = 1,79 GJ/t
cem.
cem.
cem.
ušteda Q vs. PC = 1,33 GJ ušteda Q vs. PC = 0,84 GJ ušteda Q vs. PC = - GJ
**
ušteda m(ugljena) = 43 **ušteda m(ugljena) = 28 kg ušteda m(ugljena) = - kg
kg
m(CO2 iz ugljena) = -157 m(CO2 iz ugljena) = -102 m(CO2 iz ugljena) = - kg
kg
kg
Sveukupno smanjenje emisije CO2 u usporedbi sa PC (iz sirovina i goriva) za 1 t
veziva
m(CO2) = 486 kg/t CSAC m(CO2) = 311 kg/t CSAC
*
- kvaliteta portland cementa, klasa CEM I koja sadrži više od 95% klinkera
- uz donju ogrjevnu vrijednost ugljena od 30 MJ/kg
**
Uz jednaku efikasnost procesa proizvodnje CSAC u analognim tehnološkim ure ajima
kao i za proizvodnju PC, može se re i da je potrebno 0,84-1,33 GJ toplinske energije
manje za proizvodnju 1 t CSAC (na ra un manjeg utroška toplinske energije za raspad
vapnenca). Ovo nadalje zna i da je potrebno oko 28 do 43 kg manje visokokvalitetnog
ugljena donje ogrjevne vrijednosti 30 MJ/kg za svaku tonu CSAC, što nadalje daje
manju emisiju CO2 od 102 do 157 kg/t CSAC. Potrebno je napomenuti da je klinker
portland cementa tek nakon mljevenja uz dodatak oko 3,5% gipsa i do 5% vapnenca
proizvod kvalitete CEM I, prema HRN EN 197-1:2005 normi. Ostale kvalitete PC
sadrže manji udio klinkera, te primjerice CEM II/A sadrži izme u 80-95% klinkera dok
CEM II/B sadrži izme u 65-79% klinkera. Ovo je potrebno imati na umu pri usporedbi
proizvodnje PC i CSAC koja je pregledno prikazana u Tablici 5. Na temelju usporedbe
CEM I prosje nog udjela CaO od 61% i CSAC sastava b4 i B4, vidljivo je da
proizvodnja CSAC omogu uje zna ajne uštede sirovina i energenata uz manju emisiju
CO2.
Zaklju ak
Sukladno ocjeni prihvatljivosti za okoliš zahvata rekonstrukcije TE Plomin, u dijelu koji
se odnosi na zbrinjavanje otpada i koji upu uje na materijalnu oporabu otpada u
gra evnoj industriji, može se zaklju iti da se glavne otpadne tvari lebde i pepeo i gips,
mogu oporabiti u proizvodnji portland cementa, odnosno da se dodatkom vapnenca i
boksita, ložišnom pepelu i gipsu, može pripraviti novo vezivo kalcij sulfoaluminatni
cement i na taj na in zbrinuti veliku koli ina otpada na održivi na in. U pripravljenim
uzorcima CSAC maseni udio glavne mineralne faze, Kleinov spoj, iznosi oko 30%
mas., a mort pripravljen na standardni na in, prema HRN EN 197-1, postiže tla nu
vrsto u od gotovo 20 MPa. Usporedbom bilance tvari i energije potrebne za
proizvodnju CSAC i portland cementa, ustanovljeno je da se proizvodnjom CSAC
mogu posti i zna ajne uštede sirovina i energenata uz manju emisiju CO2, odnosno da
se proizvodnjom niskoenergetskog cementa može doprinijeti zahtjevima za o uvanjem
sastavnica okoliša, kao i za proizvodnjom na održivi na in.
Literatura
[1] Ekonerg – Institut za energetiku i zaštitu okoliša d.o.o.: Studija o utjecaju na
okoliš zahvata rekonstrukcije TE Plomin – zamjena postoje e TE Plomin 1 u
cilju modernizacije i pove anja kapaciteta, Zabreb, prosinac 2010.
[2] Uredba o kategorijama, vrstama i klasifikaciji otpada s katalogom otpada i
listom opasnog otpada (2005) Narodne novine 50, Zagreb.
[3] Shi C., Jim nez A.F., Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit
of an alternative to Portland cement, Cement and Concrete Research 41 (2011)
750-763.
[4] Odler I. Special Inorganic Cements, E&FN Spon, New York, 2000.
[5] Gartner E.M. Potential improvements in cement sustainability, 31 st Cement and
Concrete Science Conference, Novel Developments and Innovation in
Cementitious Materials, 12-13 September 2011, Imperial College London,
United Kingdom, Paper 15.
[6] Zhang L., Su M., Wang Y. Development of the use of sulfo- and ferroaluminate
cements in China, Advances in Cement Research 11 (1999) 15-21.
[7] Glasser F. P., Zhang L. High-performance cement matrices based on calcium
sulfoaluminate–belite compositions, Cement and Concrete Research 31 (2001)
1881-1886.
[8] Sahu S., Majling J. Phase compatibility in the system CaO-SiO2-Al2O3-Fe2O3SO3 referred to sulphoaluminate belite cement clinker, Cement and Concrete
Research 23 (1993) 1331-1339.
[9] Frankovi N.M.: Oporaba otpadnog gipsa u pripravi specijalnog cementa,
Doktorski rad, Fakultet kemijskog inženjerstva i tehnologije, Zagreb, listopad
2012.
[10]
Chung F. H. Quantitative interpretation of X-ray diffraction patterns of
mixtures. II. Adiabatic principle of X-ray diffraction analysis of mixtures,
Journal of Applied Crystallography 7 (1974) 526-531.
[11]
Kohlhaas B. Cement Engineers' Handbook, 4th Ed., Bauverlag GmbH,
Wiesbaden and Berlin, 1983.
Reuse of waste from power plant Plomin C-500
Nirvana Frankovi Mihelj1, Vladimir Jelavi 2, Juraj Šipuši
3
1
Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund, Ksaver 208, Zagreb, Croatia
([email protected])
2
Ekonerg – Institute for Energy and Environment, Koranska street 5, Zagreb, Croatia
3
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Maruli ev trg 19,
Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
Due to larger power, increased amounts of wastes will be formed by the modernized
Power Plant Plomin. Ash from coal combustion and gypsum formed by purification of
flue gases are considered to have great environmental impact and it is thus advised,
based on the documented Study, to reuse as much is possible of these materials,
possibly in the production of cement, concrete and/or used for other purposes.
Production of calcium sulfoaluminate cement (CSAC) as a relatively new type of binder
that can be produced from “TE Plomin” wastes, such as ash and gypsum and used
instead of portland cement had been studied.
In this paper, the potential benefits offered by CSAC production from the bottom ash
and gypsum generated in the process of wet flue-gas desulfurisation of thermal plant
Plomin are outlined. Qualitative mineral composition of CSAC had been determined by
X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) compressive and flexural strength of standard mortar
had been determined. In conclusion, CSAC production offers an alternative and feasible
way of industrial waste minimization.
Keywords: calcium sulfoaluminate cement, Power Plant Plomin C, waste minimization,
bottom ash, waste gypsum.
Introduction
In order to modernize existing power plant Plomin, Croatia, and increase its capacity,
novel block C is to replace older block 1. The power of new block C will be 500 MW
giving the overall power of 710 MW instead of currently available 335 MW of installed
power. When block C will be fully operated, then, during year 2015. or 2016., old block
1 will be shut down. Block C is designed in full accordance with the Best Available
Techniques for big incinerators (BAT) issued by EU Commission. „Best Available
Techniques“ is guiding principle of EU Commission Directive 96/61/EC (2010/75/EU)
regarding the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). New power plant will
continue to use the same quality of imported coal. It is worth noting that coal supply is
less prone to disturbances due to its widespread occurrence. According to the Coal
Industry Advisory Board of the International Energy Agency classification, this power
plant belong to the „near zero emission“ group.
As a base for power plant reconstruction and upgrade, Croatian Ministry of
Environmental and Nature Protection conducted a study about its future environmental
impact and gave specifications of integrated pollution prevention and control policy.
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) deals with both block C-500 and other
infrastructural objects construction [1] and proposes methods for environment
protection under the assumption of coal fuel (properties given in Table 1) and
continuous 500 MW power operation.
Table 1. Properties of imported coal
Property
Measurement unit
Min.
Lower heating value, Hd
MJ/kg
24,0
Ash
% mas.
8
Moisture
% mas.
6
Volatile
% mas. dry basis, without 25
ash
Sulfur
% mas.
0,3
Nitrogen
% mas.
1,2
Chlorine
% mas.
0,01
Max.
29,3
15
15
45
1,5
1,85
0,45
The technology of powdered coal combustion and supercritical state of steam (SCPC)
had been selected among various available technologies analyzed within Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) because of relatively low investment cost, high energy efficiency
and high reliability of existing commercial power plants. Other power generation
technologies considered were: fluidized bed combustion (FBC), oxygen assisted
combustion (Oxy-fuel) and coal gasification technology (IGCC).
Thus, block C-500 is of modern design comparable with other novel/advanced coal
fired power generation plants incorporating clean technology and of lower
environmental impact. Overall harmful emissions in the atmosphere will be lower than
today bringing about local environmental improvements, for example, coal storage silos
instead of open dump.
Harmful emissions in the atmosphere will be reduced by wet desulphurisation of flue
gases in limestone suspension and application of low NOx burners with gradual air
supply combined with selective catalytic reduction of NO x (SCR) with efficiency over
80 %.
Large amounts of coal burning residues, bottom ash and fly ash, along with gypsum and
filter cake produced in flue gases treatment process has to be reused to the maximal
possible extent in the construction industry. According to the waste categorization [2],
bottom ash (assignation number 10 01 01), fly ash (assignation number 10 01 02) and
gypsum (assignation number 10 01 05) are not harmful and can be reused as secondary
raw material without harmful impact on human health and environment.
Measured radioactivity of bottom ash and fly ash is low enough to reuse these waste
materials for construction purposes and it is expected that shipping to the buyers is
likely possible. Dumping of these wastes at the site location is last option. Possibilities
of reuse of bottom ash, fly ash and gypsum for the production of Portland cement
regarding the present and future capabilities of domestic cement industry had been
analyzed within Environmental Impact Study.
Aim of this work is to investigate further possibilities of material reuse of the
aforementioned wastes produced during the regular production of power plant Plomin
for production of non portland cement, namely calcium sulfoaluminate cement, CSAC.
CSAC is regarded as likely candidate non portland cement that could contribute to the
efforts of global CO2 emissions reduction [3].
According to the reference scenario, block C-500 will produce annually, during 7600
work hours at nominal 500 MW power rating, approximately 114 179 t of fly ash, 12
698 t of bottom ash, and 62 291 t of gypsum (CaSO4 2H2O), quantities about two to
three times greater than current production.
Table 2. Mass balance of solid waste materials of block C-500 [1]
Coal quality
Measurement
Material
unit
Worst
Reference
t/y
1 193 170
1 085 918
Coal
t/y
160 969
114 179
Fly ash
12698
t/y
17 897
Bottom ash
t/y
101 192
62 291
Gypsum
Best
974 563
70 069
7 797
16 538
According to the results shown in Table 2, large quantity of fly ash will be obtained
during the future operation of power plant. Fly ash is highly interesting material as an
addition to portland cement clinker during milling, mostly because of small average
particle size and its pozzolanic activity. However, if the fly ash obtained during coal
combustion contains small fraction of amorphous phase it will be of no value for cement
producers. Since the fly ash is not produced but is unwanted waste, its properties could
vary for several reasons: coal quality variations, powder burning regime/residence time
or variable operating power could induce quartz and mullite crystallization in fly ash.
Thus, future ash management could be cumbersome. Bottom ash is not so attractive to
the cement producers because it contains larger, agglomerated particles and unburned
coal particles. Gypsum could be used as setting regulator of portland cement, but its
quantity is so great that it suffices annual cement production in the Republic of Croatia.
One possible way of the wastes (Table 2) reuse is production of calcium sulfoaluminate
cement, CSAC. Calcium sulfoaluminate cement is hot research topic during last few
years mainly because it needs less energy than portland cement production [4], and is
also classified as low energy cement. Numerous literature reviews of current and future
cement industry status and perspective, especially regarding the consumption of raw
materials and CO2 emission highlights the possible role of CSAC in the future [5].
Annual production of CSAC in PR China is about one million t, and it is produced
according to the national standards [6]. Production of CSAC is based on burning of raw
meal at temperatures of 1200-1300 °C yielding Klein compound 4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3.
Klein compound reacts with water and dissolved gypsum added to the CSAC clinker
during milling. Main hydration products are calcium monosulfo aluminate hydrate,
hydrous alumina gel and ettringite [4]:
4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3 + 2 CaSO4 2H2O + 34 H2O
4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3 + 24 H2O
6CaO Al2O3 3SO3 32H2O + 4 Al(OH)3 (1)
4CaO Al2O3 SO3 18H2O + 4 Al(OH)3 (2)
Optimal addition of gypsum had been calculated by Glasser and Zhang [7] based on
chemical reaction (1), and is frequently quoted as 20-25 % by mass of clinker. It follows
that gypsum formed during flue gas desulfurization could be reused for CSAC clinker
production and additional gypsum addition to the clinker during milling is possible. For
comparison, the portland cement production needs less than 5% of gypsum, usually
about 3.5% by mass of clinker. It is likely that CSAC production could absorb large
quantities of industrial waste materials as raw materials at lower operating temperatures
and lower CO2 emission [4] than for Portland cement production.
Materials and methods
Preparation of CSAC
Bottom ash, gypsum and electric arc furnace slag were used for CSAC preparation.
Final chemical composition was adjusted with bauxite and limestone addition (Table 3),
taking into account results of phase and chemical equilibria investigations in five
component system CaO-Al2O3-SO3-SiO2-Fe2O3 by Sahu and Majling [8]. Homogenous
mixture was transferred to ceramic crucibles and fired in industrial gas furnace at
temperature of 1170 °C during 3 hours. Clinker obtained is porous, fragile and easily
milled.
Table 3. Raw meal composition for CSAC preparation [9]
Component
sample b4
sample b3
25%
25%
Gypsum
22%
10%
Bottom ash
25%
25%
Limestone
8%
13%
Bauxite
20%
27%
Electric arc furnace slag
sample B4
18%
18%
46%
18%
0%
Characterization of CSAC
Qualitative and quantitative phase composition of prepared clinker samples were
determined by X-ray diffraction analysis using XRD-6000 apparatus (Shimadzu, Japan).
After 24 h moist air cure in standard molds, the samples were demoulded and further
cured under water up to the moment of compressive and flexural strength determination
at 2 and 28 days, according to the HRN EN-197-1 standard.
Results and discussion
Gypsum is main source of sulfates needed for Klein compound, 4CaO·3Al2 O3·SO3
formation. Bottom ash and electric arc furnace slag, EAFS, were another two industrial
wastes used for CSAC preparation. Final chemical composition was adjusted by
limestone and bauxite addition. Due to the very similar chemical composition of the fly
ash and bottom ash, CSAC preparation is possible from both waste sources. Raw meal
composition influences final mineral composition of CSAC which in turn determines
also setting time, volume stability, strength gain and final strengths obtained. Three
selected compositions of CSAC raw meals are shown in Table 3 differing in bauxite
mass fraction. Bauxite is likely most expensive raw material used and its weight fraction
is deliberately kept low. After homogenization and firing, mineralogical phase
composition of CSA clinker is determined by X-ray diffraction analysis. From the
Figure 1, it follows that sample b4 contains Klein compound, 4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3,
sulfospuritte, 5CaO 2SiO2 SO3, anhidrite, CaSO4, belite, 2CaO SiO2, feritte phase,
4CaO Al2O3 Fe2O3 and perovskite like phase of composition 3CaO Fe2O3 TiO2. The
presence of less active minerals is also important, for example belite and sulfospuritte.
Large quantities of these minerals formed due to the presence of silica, mostly from ash
and contribute to the strength gain at latter ages.
500
sample b4
Ca4Al6SO16 Klein compound
Ca5Si2SO12 Sulfospurite
Intensity / CPS
400
CaSO4 Anhidrite
Ca4Al2Fe2O10 Ferite phase
Ca2SiO4 Belite
300
Ca3Fe2TiO8 Perovskite like phase
200
100
0
10
20
30
2
40
50
CuK / °
Figure 1. Result of X-ray diffraction analysis of clinker b4 confirms the presence of
Klein compound characteristic of CSAC.
Mass fraction of Klein compound in CSA clinkers prepared had been determined by
quantitative XRD analysis previously [9] and ranges between 27 to 32 %. Since the
optimal mass fraction of Klein compound in nonexpansive CSAC is between 30 to 40
% [4, 7] we conclude that it is possible to reuse various industrial wastes as raw
materials for CSAC production. The strength of these materials is not very high and
they are suitable for nonconstructive applications. Since the aim of this work was reuse
of industrial wastes, the strength increase could be achieved at the cost of lower waste
materials reuse and increased bauxite proportion which is economically unfavorable.
Pilot scale preparation of 5 kg batches of CSA clinker enabled comprehensive
laboratory testing similar to the Portland cement testing [9]. CSAC prepared from the
clinker by 5 and 10% by mass gypsum addition showed compressive strength after 28
days somewhat less than 20 MPa and flexural strength of about 3 MPa, as determined
according to the HRN EN-197-1:2005. The CSAC prepared showed chocolate brown
color, as shown in Figure 2. The color of CSAC mostly depends on the quantity and
state of oxidation of iron compounds and changes from brownish yellow to dark brown,
depending also on the initial composition and firing conditions.
Figure 2. Standard mould filling with CSAC mortar.
Three selected compositions of CSAC raw meals are shown in Table 3. The raw
materials used in this work show following mass loss on ignition. Gypsum losse two
molecules of water during ignition which accounts for 20.9% of ignition loss. Dry fly
ash does not show ignition loss, limestone losses one molecule of CO2 due to
decomposition, resulting in the ignition loss of 44%, while bauxite used in this study
losses about 10% of its mass. EAFS even shows some mass gain due to the oxidation of
iron compounds but it is disregarded. All individual ignition losses are summarized in
Table 4 and serve as a basis for mass balance calculation.
Table 4. Example of CSAC mass balance calculation for composition b4 taken from
Table 3. The calculated values are in good agreement with experimental
thermogravimetric measurements [9]
Component
factor
sample b4 after ignition
0,791
25%
19,8
Gypsum
22%
22,0
1,000
Bottom ash
0,560
25%
14,0
Limestone
0,900
8%
7,2
Bauxite
1,000
20%
20,0
EAFS
total
100,0
83,0
By the same calculation, the composition b3 result in 82.5% clinker content and
composition B4 gives only 74.2% clinker content. If the mass fraction of Klein
compound is 30%, then optimal gypsum addition calculated from stoichiometry of eq.
(1) equals 16.9% of CSA clinker mass. By taking into account gypsum addition, final
mass of CSAC is 97.0%; 96.4% and 86.7% for compositions b4, b3 and B4
respectively. Because composition b3 is similar to composition b4, only compositions
b4 and B4 are further compared to the portland cement. Mass loss is consequence of
water and CO2 losses from the raw materials, and the largest quantity of CO2 is emitted
from the composition B4 which contains the greatest fraction of limestone. Emission of
CO2, based on 1 t of raw materials is equal to 113 kg and 233 kg for compositions b4
and B4 respectively. The rest of CO2 emission from fuel combustion is uncertain
without detailed heat balance which is not possible to make from the available literature
data. However, if it is assumed that heat balance is similar to the Portland cement
production process, then we could concentrate our attention to the limestone
decomposition heat requirements. Quantity of heat needed for 1 t of PC production is
1.794 GJ while in practice 3.1 to 3.6 GJ of heat is consumed [11]. Mass of limestone for
1 t of PC production is about 1090 kg taking into account average chemical composition
of PC clinker of 61% by mass of CaO. For decomposition of limestone one needs 1.94
GJ of heat from the 65 kg of coal and CO2 emission from the limestone alone is 480 kg.
For production of 1 t of CSAC according to the composition B4 and b4 one needs about
474 and 747 kg less of limestone than is needed for 1 t of PC production (Table 5).
Table 5. Mass and heat balance of CSAC and PC production process. Since the detailed
data needed for heat balance calculation is not available it is assumed that other
processes during heating and cooling are similar to the PC production process.
CSAC compositon b4
CSAC composition B4
PC, w(CaO) = 61%
m(raw meal) = 1000 kg
m(raw meal) = 1000 kg
m(raw meal) = 1600 kg
m(CaCO3) = 250 kg
m(CaCO3) = 460 kg
m(CaCO3) = 1090 kg
m(clinker) = 830 kg
m(clinker) = 742 kg
m(clinker) = 1000 kg
Addition during final milling
m(CaSO4 2H2O) = 140 kg
m(CaSO4 2H2O) = 125 kg
m(gypsum+CaCO3) = 85
kg
m(CSAC) = 970 kg
m(CSAC) = 867 kg m(PC, CEM I ) = 1085 kg
Emission of CO2 from raw meal
m(CO2) = 110 kg/t raw
m(CO2) = 202 kg/t raw
m(CO2) = 480 kg/t raw
meal
meal
meal
m(CO2) = 113 kg/t CSAC
m(CO2) = 233 kg/t CSAC
m(CO2) = 442 kg/t PC
Heat energy for limestone decomposition (1t limestone 1,78 GJ)
Q(CaCO3) = 0.445 GJ/t
Q(CaCO3) = 0.819 GJ/t r. Q(CaCO3) = 1.94 GJ/t r.m.
r.m.
m.
Q(CaCO3) = 0.459 GJ/t
Q(CaCO3) = 0.945 GJ/t
Q(CaCO3) = 1.79 GJ/t
cem.
cem.
cem.
savings Q vs. PC = 1.33 savings Q vs. PC = 0.84 GJ
savings Q vs. PC = - GJ
GJ
**
**
savings m(coal) = 43 kg
savings m(coal) = 28 kg
savings m(coal) = - kg
m(CO2 from coal) = -157
m(CO2 from coal) = -102
m(CO2 from coal) = - kg
kg
kg
Total decrease of CO2 emission (from raw meal and coal) for 1 t of inorganic
binder
m(CO2) = 486 kg/t CSAC
m(CO2) = 311 kg/t CSAC
*
*
- quality of Portland cement, class CEM I with at least 95% by mass of clinker
- lower heat value of coal equal to 30 MJ/kg
**
The same efficiency of CSAC production in analogous process units as for PC
production could result with 0.84 to 1.33 GJ heat savings per 1 t of CSAC. This
difference is mainly due to the less limestone needed for CSAC production. This also
means about 28 to 43 kg less of coal (lower heat value of coal equal to 30 MJ/kg) and
further reduction of CO2 emission from fuel of 102 to 157 kg. However, one has to bear
in mind that PC clinker is milled with the addition of 3.5% of gypsum and up to 5% of
limestone giving the PC of CEM I quality according to the HRN EN 197-1:2005 norm.
Other qualities of PC contain even less mass fraction of clinker, for example CEM II/A
contains between 80 to 95% by mass of clinker and CEM II/B contains between 65 to
79% by mass of clinker. One has to bear in mind this fact when comparing CSAC and
PC production, shown in Table 5. From the comparison of CEM I quality of PC and
CSAC of compositions b4 and B4, significant savings of raw materials and fuel could
be obtained with less CO2 emission.
Conclusion
Ash and gypsum from the power plant operation could be reused in Portland cement
production, but when properly mixed with limestone and bauxite large quantities of
these waste materials could be reused for new inorganic binder production, namely
calcium sulfoaluminate cement (CSAC). Weight percent of Klein compound,
4CaO 3Al2O3 SO3 in the prepared samples of CSAC is about 30%, giving also
compressive strength of mortar prepared according to HRN EN 197-1 of almost 20
MPa. From the comparison of ordinary portland cement and CSA cement production
process mass and energy balances, it follows that significant savings are possible, both
of raw materials and fuels during CSA cement production. CSA cement production
generates lower CO2 emission and production of this “low energy “cement can
contribute to the requirements of environmental protection and sustainable
development.
Literature:
[1] Ekonerg – Energy and Environmental Protection Institute d.o.o.: Environmental
impact assessment study for reconstruction of TE Plomin – replacement of
existing TE Plomin 1 with goal of modernization and enlargement of capacities,
Zagreb, December 2010.
[2] Regulation on categories, types and classification of waste with a waste
catalogue and list of hazardous waste (OG No. 50/05, 39/09), Zagreb.
[3] Shi C., Jim nez A.F., Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit
of an alternative to Portland cement, Cement and Concrete Research 41 (2011)
750-763.
[4] Odler I. Special Inorganic Cements, E&FN Spon, New York, 2000.
[5] Gartner E.M. Potential improvements in cement sustainability, 31st Cement and
Concrete Science Conference, Novel Developments and Innovation in
Cementitious Materials, 12-13 September 2011, Imperial College London,
United Kingdom, Paper 15.
[6] Zhang L., Su M., Wang Y. Development of the use of sulfo- and ferroaluminate
cements in China, Advances in Cement Research 11 (1999) 15-21.
[7] Glasser F. P., Zhang L. High-performance cement matrices based on calcium
sulfoaluminate–belite compositions, Cement and Concrete Research 31 (2001)
1881-1886.
[8] Sahu S., Majling J. Phase compatibility in the system CaO-SiO2-Al2O3-Fe2O3SO3 referred to sulphoaluminate belite cement clinker, Cement and Concrete
Research 23 (1993) 1331-1339.
[9] Frankovi N.M. Reuse of waste gypsum in production of special cement,
Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Zagreb,
Croatia, October 2012.
[10]
Chung F. H. Quantitative interpretation of X-ray diffraction patterns of
mixtures. II. Adiabatic principle of X-ray diffraction analysis of mixtures,
Journal of Applied Crystallography 7 (1974) 526-531.
[11]
Kohlhaas B. Cement Engineers' Handbook, 4th Ed., Bauverlag GmbH,
Wiesbaden and Berlin, 1983.
Studije vizualnih promjena u krajobrazu uzrokovanih planiranom
izgradnjom
Sonja Jurkovi
Arhitektonski fakultet,
([email protected])
Sveu ilišta
u
Zagrebu,
Ka
eva
26,
Zagreb,
Hrvatska
Sažetak
U okviru Procjena utjecaja na okoliš, jedna od vrlo važnih, a esto zanemarenih uloga
ima Studija vizualnih promjena koje su posljedica intervencija u prostoru. I onda kada
se takve Studije izra uju, njihov utjecaj na procjenu opravdanosti nekih intervencija u
prostoru su minimalne. Zanemarivanje tog segmenta istraživanja je posljedica ne
shva anja koliko bi se takvim Studijama moglo poboljšati o uvanje vizualnih
vrijednosti u prostoru i uklapanje izgradnje u prostor. Uvažavanje argumenata zaštite
vrijednih vizura doprinosilo bi uvanju identiteta nekog prostora. Takve su Studije
neophodne, naro ito onda, ako se radi o zanimljivim krajolicima koji su resurs turisti ke
ponude.
Cilj rada je da se pokaže kako se zbog zanemarivanja negativnih vizualnih promjena
gubi doživljajna vrijednost prostora. Istražuje se razne metode koje se koriste u
Studijama, te pokazuje kako se koriste razni postupci da se opravda izgradnja.
Efikasnost procijenjenih šteta na promijenjenu sliku krajobraza ne može se mjeriti s
agresivnijim ekonomskim argumentima koji obi no prevladavaju u donošenju odluka.
Ne pori i injenicu da je izgradnja nove prometne ili društvene infrastrukture
neophodna, Studije vizualnih utjecaja na planirane promjene takvom izgradnjom
pokazuju, kako bi se mogle umanjiti štete vizualnih promjena, odnosno kako bi se one
mogle sprije iti ili barem znatno ublažiti. Pritom profesionalna etika stavlja izra iva e
Studija u ulogu da u svojim postupcima ne opravdavaju investitore ni njihov interes, ve
objektiviziraju štete u promijeni postoje eg vizualnog identiteta prostora.
Klju ne rije i: vizualne analize, utjecaj na krajobraz
Uvod
Izlaganje o Studijama vizualnih promjena unutar Procjena utjecaja na okoliš razmatra
ulogu takvih Studija i njihova u inkovitost u objektivnom ocjenjivanju prikladnosti
nove izgradnje u nekom prostoru.
Prikladnost ili uklapanje novih intervencija u neki prostor i postoje i krajobraz, naoko je
subjektivna procjena utjecaja. Me utim, ve se dugo koriste takve metode koje
objektiviziraju procjene, za prihva anje ili neprihva anje neke izgradnje.
Kao i Procjena utjecaja na okoliš i Studije vizualnih promjena novijeg su datuma.
Javljaju se tek u drugoj polovici prošlog stolje a. To ne zna i da se stajališta o
vizualnom djelovanju unesene izgradnje nisu uvijek ugra ivala u planiranu arhitekturu i
izgradnju, te procjenjivale urbanisti ko - prostorne posljedice takve gradnje.
Može se ak tvrditi da je vizualnost i vidljivost tj. vizualne vrijednosti nove izgradnje
bila osnovni poticaj autorima koji su osim funkcije gradnje, težili stvaranju novih
oblikovnih vrijednosti u prostoru.
Naru itelji gradnje (od vladara i državnika do korporacijskih predstavnika) esto su od
arhitekata tražili isticanje novog i preoblikovanje postoje eg, bilo naglašavanjem i
nametanjem, kako bi se unijele poruke vlasti, financijske mo i, ili društvene važnosti.
Tako se izgradnjom iskazivala poruka novim simbolima.
Osjetljivost na vizualne promjene u prostoru ovisila je o društvu i vremenu. Posebna
osjetljivost na promjene koje ugrožavaju okoliš, javlja se tek razvojem novih ekoloških
pokera iz ranih godina 20-tog stolje a. Od tada se traži sagledavanje dugoro nih
posljedica u prostoru koje ovjek svojim intervencijama unosi u okoliš.52 Tako se
obazrivost prema okolišu, kao op e prihva en zahtjev, javlja zaista kasno, tek kada su
loše posljedice, posebno velikih promjena (hidroelektrana npr.) ostavile u prostoru
drasti ne promjene. Upozorenje su se širila od izdvojih pokreta „Zelenih“, sve do
ugra ivanja Procjena utjecaja na okoliš u propisanu planersku legislativu, odnosno u
procedure izrade prostorno planskih dokumenata.
Obavezne Studije i Procijene utjecaja na okoliš trebali bi prije gradnje ustanoviti kakve
e biti posljedice te izgradnje na ukupne promjene u prostoru.
Danas se takve Procjene me unarodno zahtijevani i obvezuju i instrumenti analiza i
ocjena utjecaja promjena uzrokovanih izgradnjom. One služe da se sprije e za društvo i
za prirodu nepoželjne posljedice. One sigurno nisu tek „alibi“ za izgradnju.
Studije vizualnih promjena uzrokovanih izgradnjom unutar Procjena utjecaja na okoliš
analiziraju promjene doživljajnih vrijednosti, te gubitak vizualne ugodnosti nekog
prostora.53 One trebaju ocijeniti koliko su nove intervencije nepoželjne, ili prihvatljive,
s obzirom na promijenjene slike u prostoru koja e se dogoditi, te ocijeniti i nove
vizualne vrijednosti unesene izgradnjom. Istovremeno, one trebaju pokazati da
promjene izgradnjom ne e poništavati autohtoni vizualni doživljaj, te da ne e ranjavati
povijesno oblikovan kulturološki ambijent prostora.
Metode i postupci izrade Studija vizualnih promjena u krajobrazu
Utjecaj nove izgradnje i njen utjecaj na vizualne promjene, naro ito one nepovoljne, u
urbanom pejzažu i prirodnom krajoliku, nije tek pitanje oblika ni materijala, nije tek
odnos prema vidljivosti slika i eventualnih štetnih vizualnih promjena, ve je to ocjena
doživljaja promjena koje su posljedica novo oblikovanog u prostoru. U suštini, to je
pitanje procjena ukupnog smisla promjena.
Pritom se ocjenjuje i doživljajna snagu nataloženih simboli nih vrijednosti i slika u
prostoru, na koje je ljudi reagiraju. Ljudi promjenu ocjenjuju negativno, ako one štete
slikama na koje su navikli i koje potvr uju baštinjeni razvoj u prostoru. Slike nastale
tokom povijesnog razvoja, a prisutne su u postoje em ambijentu, uvaju se kao dokaz
prostorne posebnosti i osobnosti. esto se gubitak tih poznatih slika može se iskazati
kao svojevrsni „strah od gubitka identiteta“ kako je to nazvao Žmega V. (SMS 2010).
Zada a je vizualnih analiza koje se rade u Studijama, kako postoje eg ambijenta, tako i
mogu ih promjena, da ocijene što ini specifi nost i prepoznatljivost nekog prostora, te
da pokažu kako bi se gubile doživljajne vrijednosti prostora, ukoliko bi se unosile one
promjene koje ne bi uzimale u obzir naslije eni karakter tog prostora.
52
Ecbo G. (1969), The Landcsape We See, mc.Grow-Hill book company, New York
Postoji neuskla enost u nazivima ovih Studija. Mijenjaju se termini, a nekad i
namjena. Po nekad postaju dio nekih drugih studija. Nekad se Studije vizualnih utjecaja
koje nova izgradnja donosi u prostor i krajobrazu rade su samostalno. Nekad se
teSstudije izra uju unutar cjelovite Procijene utjecaja na okoliš, te se tada nazivaju i
Vizualne analize promjena na sliku krajolika. U nekim slu ajevima se radi samo o
dijelovima Studije utjecaja izgradnje na krajobraz .
53
Gubitak doživljajnih vrijednosti može se dogoditi ako se unose oblici i materijali koji
nisu u duhu baštinjenog, nego se unose vrijednosti nametnute globalizacijom ukusa koji
se širi po svijetu. Unose se standardizirane predodžbe nekog lažnog ukusa u kome
prevlada ki . Tako se mogu izgubiti specifi nosti i autohtoni ambijent pa dovesti do
nametnutih i neprepoznatljivih slika u prostoru.
Prvi teorijski poticaji za vizualne analize u prostoru javljaju se u Americi i Engleskoj u
60tim godinama prošlog stolje a. Tri su temeljne knjige iz tog razdoblja: Slika grada
Lynch K. (1960), te Pogled sa ceste Crow S. (1960) i. Slike sa prometnica Appleyard D
(1964).54
Ove knjige su dale polazišta za razvoj metoda analiti kog vizualnog razlaganja krajolika
i urbanih aglomeracija. Definirani su elementi koji ine sliku nekog prostora, vezuju i te
elemente na doživljaje, funkciju gra enja i o itavanja prostora. Postavila se strukturalna
matrica koja tuma i na in za procjenu i vrednovanje vizualnih slika po njihovoj
važnosti i upe atljivosti. Ovakve metode traže razlaganje vizualnih doživljaja na
elemente, zatim ponovno sastavljane cjelokupnog doživljaja prostoru. Elementi su:
akcent, linija razdvajanja, perspektiva planova i praznih ploha, prostornost i sklopovi
volumena. Oni se vezuju na doživljaje kao: doživljaj prepoznavanja i isticanja,
obilježavanja simbola, mogu nost orijentacije i osje aj itkosti, spoznaje veli ina i
udaljenosti, a sve u funkciji prepoznavanja i pam enja prostornih slika i doživljaja. Ove
analize se lako mogu primjenjivati na sve prostore. One su oslonac daljnjim proširenim
analizama pri osmišljavanju ukupne prostorne uskla enosti s unesenim promjenama.
Takve analize su nezaobilazni instrument razlaganja djelovanja prostornih slika, u cilju
razumijevanja prostornih tvorevina i ambijenata, te tuma enja kako se prostor
percepcijski doživljava55.
Slika 1. Razlaganje krajobraza, Sonja Jurkovi
u:Krajolik-sadržajna i metodska podloga Krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske
54
1. Appleyard D., Lynch K., Meyer J.R. (1964), The view from the Road, M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge
2. Crow S. ( 1960), The Lanscape of Roads, The Architectural Press, London
3. Lunch K. (1960), The image of the City, Cambridge, London
55
Jurkovi S. (1993), Promjene vizualnih vrijednosti krajolika gradnjom
infrastrukturnih trasa, „ Prostor“Vol. 1.br.1, str.127-143
Slika 2. Razlaganje krajobraza, Sonja Jurkovi
Nakon ovih po etnih postupaka slijedio je razvoj takvih analiza sa novim digitalnim
alatima i ra unalnim tehnikama koje su proširile i ubrzale postupke. Ipak, prve
deskriptivno grafi ke metode (od razlaganja slika do tuma enja njihovog djelovanja)
ostaju i dalje ugra ene u suvremene metode vizualnih analiza56.
Mnogobrojni primjeri pokazuju da su kompjuterske tehnike samo sredstvo bržeg i
inkovitijeg rada na studijama. Me utim, tuma enje u inaka promjena na pojedine
slike krajobraza treba obrazložiti ne samo slikom, ve treba opisati utjecaj tih promjena
na budu i doživljaj promatra a u prostoru uzrokovanih novom izgradnjom. Kao primjer
navodimo da se u Novom Zelandu za Studije utjecaja novih trasa prometnica na okoliš
traži postupak procijene psiho-socioloških u inaka i reakcija na promjene koje nose
nove prometnice.57
Studije vizualnih utjecaja na promjene u prostoru daju argumentaciju opravdanosti neke
izgradnje u prostoru, jer e se tek kroz uzimanja u obzir utjecaja promijenjenih slika na
krajobraz, mo i potpuno procijeniti ukupan utjecaj na okoliš.
Studije vizualnih promjena na nekim primjerima kod nas
Studija vizualnih utjecaja promjena na krajobraz za autocestu cestu Krapina-Macelj
(UIH)58 spada u po etke vizualnih analiza kod nas. Te se Studije rade u 80-tim
godinama prošlog stolje a. Tako je i za izgradnju nove prometnice Krapina – Macelj
ra ena takva studija procjene utjecaja na krajolik.
U okviru Studija utjecaja na okoliš za velike infrastrukturne objekte radile su se takve
studije za sustav hidroelektrana na Dravi59. Još prije toga ra ene su za Prostorni plan
ure enja Spomen parka Kumrovac60 vizualne analize krajolika kao svojevrsna
krajobrazna osnova tog prostora. Za Sudiju utjecaja na okoliš kanala Dunav Sava
tako er su ra ene vizualne analiza uz prijedlog ure enja obala uz trasu kanala.61
56
Gašparovi S. (2003) doktorska disertacija: Autocesta i vrijednost krajolika –
mogu nost i razotkrivanje
slojevitosti prostora, Arhitektonski fakultet Zagreb
57
Visual Landscape Qualities, www. Planning.nsw. gov.au/---/ 06_0118_riveroak;
Analysis Methodology www.dmp.wa.gov.au/…/ Apednix_9_western_
58
Studija utjecaja na okolinu autoceste E 59 Macelj-Krapina – utjecaj na pejzaž (1990)
59
Prostorni plan sistema hidroelektrana na Dravi (1979), te Studija promjena pejzaža
izgradnjom hidroelektrane
HE Drava - Novo Virje (1990), Zavod za urbanizam Arhitektonskog fakulteta
Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu
60
Prostorni plan Spomen parka Kumrovac (1975), Zavod za urbanizam AF zagreb
61
Krajobrazno ure enje trase kanala Dunav-Sava (1996), Urbanisti ki zavod Osijek
Slike 3. i 4. Ure enje obala kanala Dunav Sava
Devedesetih se rade studije obilaznica Osijek, Požega Plitvica, Studija za koridor
autoceste 5c i dr.62 Ve samo ovi primjeri pokazuju novu osjetljivost planera i
naru itelja za takve studije63.
Ipak, nakon desetlje a od izrade Studija vizualnih utjecaja promjena na krajobraz, može
se re i da one nisu znatno utjecale na stvarno oblikovanje promjena koje je izgradnja
unosila u prostor. To su više bile svojevrsni dodatak Procjenama utjecaja na okoliš,
neka vrste zadovoljavanja obaveza propisanih zakonom. One su u neku ruku samo
umirenje savjesti da se i o krajobrazu vodilo ra una prilikom intervencija u prostoru.
Rasprava i rezultati
Tvrdnju koliko vizualne analize utje u na odlu ivanje o promjenama u prostoru,
pokazati emo na jednom aktualnom primjeru, i to na primjeru prostora platoa Sr iznad
Dubrovnika, odnosno na studijama procijene utjecaja na okoliš za igralište golf. Do sada
je izra eno etiri Studije i to za razne naru itelje. Jedan naru itelj je investitor, drugi
Županija, tre i grad Dubrovnik, etvrti grupa autora. Iako te Studije nisu imale bitno
razli ite analize i rezultate (jer vidljivo je zaista isto), ipak, u tuma enju rezultata,
odnosno ocijeni štetnosti ili prihvatljivosti izgradnje, zaklju ci su se razlikovali.
62
1. Studija utjecaja na krajolik obilaznice Osijeka (1997), Zavod za urbanizam Osijek
2. Studija utjecaja na krajolik obilaznice Požega (1997), Zavod za urbanizam Osijek
3. Studija utjecaja na krajolik na novu obilaznicu Plitvica (1995), Urbing Zagreb
4. Studija utjecaja na krajolik Koridor autoceste 5c (1997), Zavod za urbanizam
Osijek
63
Jurkovi S. (1999, Perceptivne vrijednosti krajobraza Hrvatske – Studija za vizualno
detrminiranje krajobraza,
u: Krajolik: sadržajna i metodska podloga krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske, ur. Furlan
Zimmermann N., Salaj
M., Ministarstvo prostornog ure enja, graditeljstva i stanovanja, Zavod za prostorno
planiranje, str 121-166
Kako je to mogu e? To je zbog osnovnih polazišta naru itelja tih studija. Investitorima
npr. ne smeta izgradnja, kao ni budu im korisnicima kojima ne smeta izloženost
pogledima, jer vidjeti Dubrovnik na dlanu je velika privilegija, pa se to moglo pozitivno
ocjenjivati. Grad se zalagao za investicije, a Županija je trebala štititi vrijednost
krajobraza.
U Studiji za županiju64 osnovno je bilo istražiti što je s vizurama tj. pogledima iz
Dubrovnika na Sr , te kako e eventualna izgradnja djelovati na poznate slike tog
prostora? Taj pogled na bilo Sr a je svakako najosjetljiviji.
Slika 5. Studija utjecaja na plato Sr a - pogled iz Dubrovnika
Slika 6. Pogled na plato Sr a
U nekim drugim studijama se osjetljivost ugrožavanja pogleda kamuflira ocjenama (od
2 do +3). Što u odlu ivanju zna e snižene ocijene, do kada su niske ocijene
prihvatljive?
Tražio se pomak izgradnje od bila na Sr u, ali to odmicanje izgradnje zanemaruje i
umanjuje druge utjecaje promjena izgradnjom.
Postavlja se osnovno pitanje: kome promjena smeta? I tu je razlika u ocjenama utjecaja
promjena izgradnjom u ovom studijama. Razlike u zaklju cima iskazuju nepomirljivost
strana, i ne nazire se kompromisno rješenja izme u planirane izgradnje i njenog
izbjegavanja. Nekad promjena ne mora biti direktno vidljiva, ali se ipak nju želi izbje i.
To je promjena kojom se mijenja ukupni ambijent i smisao korištenja prostora.
Izgradnjom se otu uje pravo gra ana na postoje i naslije eni identitet, koji se vrije a
aktom trajne promjene ne eg što se stolje ima štitilo. U slu aju Dubrovnika to je plato
Sr a, prostor koji natkriva Grad i koji je njegova prirodna Akropola. Taj se zajedni ki
prostor mijenja u tržišno konzumerski proizvod. Tu se smještava nešto pravdaju i se
gospodarskim dobitkom, jer se o ekuje zarada od prodaje nekretnina, ali na ra un
javnog prostora koje bi trebalo zaštititi.
Umjesto zaklju aka
Vratiti emo se na teorijska razmatranja i napustiti ovaj primjer vizualnog utjecaja
eventualnih promjena na slike krajobraza. Studija i ocjena zaštite vizura ionako ne e
mo i utjecati na odluke o gradnji, ve e odlu ivati argumenti politike, gospodarskog
opravdavanja investicija, kao i pravna sigurnost kupca.
Treba se vratiti pitanju i diskusiji o smislu procjena vizualnih utjecaja i potrebi da se
takve studije rade. One su potrebne i nisu tek izrada stru ne podloge, ni neki „l,art pur
64
Studija vizualnih utjecaja eventualnih promjena na platou Sr a na ukupnu sliku grada
Dubrovnika (2012),
Zavod za urbanizam AF Zagreb
l,art“ stav, niti neki sentiment za izgubljenim vremenom, prostorom i slikom. Te studije
su širenje znanja o svijetu koji nas okružuje, kojem pripadamo i za koji odgovaramo.
U tim se studijama skrbimo za o uvanje lijepog i ugodnog u prostoru, bilo onog
prirodnog ili stvorenog.
Studije pokazuju da se slike oko nas ne smiju uniformirati op om globalizacijom koja
pretvara autohtoni prostor u „poljepšan prostor“ odnosno unesene strane predodžbe o
lijepom. Studije trebaju pokazati kako da ambijentu koji ima svoju osobnost i
naslije enu zavi ajnosti, dodamo nove elemente sa likovnim i estetskim vrijednosti.
Tako e se izgra ivati potrebna etika prema prostoru.
Izra iva i Studija ne bi smjeli samo pogodovati naru iteljima studija, koji su naj eš e
investitori.
Studije moraju što objektivnije pokazati kako e promjene izgradnjom djelovati na
vizualni doživljaj prostora i procijeniti gubitak postoje ih vizualnih vrijednosti, a za
nove promjene ove Studije trebaju ocijeniti što e promijene donijeti u prostor kao novu
vizualnu vrijednost
Izra iva i Studija se moraju držati visokih eti kih normi i prostor promatrati kao ranjivu
kategoriju, te posebno preporu iti kako se rane moraju zacijeliti. Tako e se graditi
budu i svijet u kome su moralne vrijednosti odnose i na prihva anje ograda koje ne
dopuštaju baš svaku izgradnju u prostoru. Nije sve dopustivo pri novoj izgradnji, jer
postoje i takve promjene koje nisu primjerene nekom prostoru.
Na kraju možemo istaknuti slijede e zaklju ke:
1. Treba težiti objektivnom pristupu u procijeni vizualnih promjena, uz prihva anje
onih promjena koje se mogu uskladiti s postoje im prostorom i koje e stvoriti nove
vrijednosti.
2. Treba zaštiti one vizualne vrijednosti prostora, odnosno krajobraza, koje su
jedinstvene, te posebne kao kulturna baština krajolika i koje predstavljaju memoriju
prostora.
3. Potrebno je unaprijed napraviti krajobraznu osnovu prostora koja e odrediti
vizualne vrijednosti postoje eg krajolika.
4. Gra ani imaju pravo na o uvanje vrijednih i prisvojenih slika svog prostora, a i
njihovi se argumenti trebaju uvažavati u odlu ivanju u ukupnoj kona noj procijeni za ili protiv - nekih intervencija u prostoru.
5. Stru ni argumenti i argumenti javnosti trebali bi se mo i uskladiti.
Literatura
[1] Gašparovi S. (2003). doktorska disertacija: Autocesta i vrijednost krajolika –
mogu nost i razotkrivanje slojevitosti prostora, Arhitektonski fakultet Zagreb
[2] Jurkovi S. (1993). Promjene vizualnih vrijednosti krajolika gradnjom
infrastrukturnih trasa.
[3] „Prostor“ Vol.1.br.1:str. 127-143
[4] Jurkovi S. (1996). Krajobrazno ure enje trase kanala Dunav-Sava, Studija
utjecaja na okoliš kanala Dunav – Sava, Urbanisti ki zavod Osijek
[5] Jurkovi S. (1999). Perceptivne vrijednosti krajobraza Hrvatske – Studija za
vizualno determiniranje krajobraza, Krajolik: sadržajna i metodska podloga
krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske, Ministarstvo prostornog ure enja, graditeljstva i
stanovanja, Zavod za prostorno planiranje, str. 121-166
[6] Jurkovi S. (2012) Studija vizualnih utjecaja eventualnih promjena na platou
Sr a na ukupnu sliku grada Dubrovnika, Zavod za urbanizam prostorno
planiranje i pejzažnu arhitekturu Arhitektonskog fakulteta u Zagrebu
Assessment of the Visual Impact of Changes Resulting from Planned
Construction
Sonja Jurkovi
Arhitektonski fakultet University of Zagreb, Ka
eva 26, Zagreb, Croatia ([email protected])
Abstract
The role of the assessment of the visual impact of changes which are the consequence of
interventions in space is very important, though often neglected. As a consequence,
when such studies are developed, their influence on the estimation of the justifiability of
some interventions in space is minimal. Neglecting them is the lack of understanding of
the level to which the application of such studies could improve the preservation of the
quality of incorporation into space. The appreciation of arguments regarding the
protection of valuable sights would contribute to the maintenance of a space’s identity.
Such studies are essential, especially in case of interesting landscapes which constitute
resources for tourism offerings.
The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how neglecting visual changes can lead to losses
in the experiential value of space. The paper investigates various methods used in such
studies and shows the use of various procedures in order to justify construction. The
arguments regarding the impact of estimated damage resulting from changes in the
landscape cannot measure up to the more aggressive economic arguments which are
usually dominant in decision-making. Without denying the fact that the new
constructions are indispensable, the assessment of visual impact on planned changes,
which would be the consequence of such constructions, shows how the damage from
visual changes could be mitigated, prevented, or significantly decreased. In doing so,
professional ethics does not allow the authors of such assessments to justify investors’
interests in the course of such processes; it rather objectivises the damage caused by
changes to the existing visual identity of a space.
Keywords: Visual analysis, Impact on Landscape
Introduction
This presentation on the assessments of the visual impact of changes in the area of
environmental impact assessment considers the role of such assessments and their
efficiency in the objective evaluation of the appropriateness of new construction in a
particular space.
The appropriateness or fitting of new interventions into a space and the existing
landscape constitutes a seemingly subjective impact assessment. However, methods that
enable objective assessments, leading to the acceptance or non-acceptance of a
construction project, have been used for a long time.
Just like the environmental impact assessment and assessment of the visual impact of
changes, they represent a relatively recent development, appearing as late as in the
second half of the 20th century. This, however, does not mean that the positions on the
visual impact of introduced construction had not been part of planned architecture and
developments before, or that the urban and spatial consequences of such developments
have not always been assessed.
One can even claim that the visual and visible properties, i.e. the visual values of new
developments, have served as the basic incentive to authors who aspired not only to
achieve the function of the development, but to create new form-relevant values in
space as well.
The people commissioning developments (from country leaders and statesmen to
corporate representatives) frequently requested architects to emphasise the new and
reshape the existing, either by underlining or imposing, in order to introduce the
message of authority, financial power or social importance. Therefore, developments
were used to send a message by using new symbols.
Sensitivity to visual changes in space depended on the society and the times. A special
sensitivity to changes that endanger the environment appeared only with the
development of new environmental movements in the early 20th century. That was
when the long-term consequences in space caused by the interventions of man in the
environment were first sought65. Therefore, consideration towards the environment, as
a generally accepted requirement, appeared very late, only when the negative
consequences, and by this we especially refer to the consequences of great changes
(such as those of hydroelectric plants), introduced drastic changes in the environment.
Warnings were spread from specific “green” movements to the inclusion of
environmental impact assessments in mandatory planning legislation, i.e. procedures for
the elaboration of spatial planning documents.
Mandatory studies and environmental impact assessments should determine the
consequences of such development on total change in space prior to the beginning of the
construction.
Nowadays, such assessments are internationally required and binding instruments for
the analysis and assessment of the influence of changes caused by new developments.
Their aim is to prevent unwanted consequences for both the society and nature. They
are most certainly not just an “alibi” for construction.
The aim of the assessment of the visual impact of changes resulting from construction
within the area of environmental impact assessment is to analyse the changes in
experiential values and the loss of positive visual experience of a certain space66. Their
goal is to evaluate the degree to which new interventions are unwanted or acceptable,
considering the changes that the image in space would undergo, and also to evaluate
new visual values introduced with the development. At the same time, they should show
that the changes introduced by the development would not cancel the autochthonous
visual experience or compromise the historically shaped cultural ambience of the space.
Methods and procedures for the elaboration of studies of the visual changes in
landscape
The impact of new developments and their influence on visual changes, especially
negative ones, in the urban and natural landscape is more than a question of shape and
material, more than a question of their relation to the visibility of images and possible
negative visual changes – it is an assessment of the manner in which changes, which
65
Ecbo G. (1969), The Landscape We See, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
The names of such studies are not harmonised. Terminology, and sometimes the
purpose, differ. Sometimes they become part of different studies. Sometimes, the
studies of visual impacts introduced by new developments into space and landscape are
made independently; sometimes, such studies are made as part of a comprehensive
environmental impact assessment and are then called visual analyses of change in
landscape image. In some cases, these are only parts of studies of development
influence on landscape.
66
originate from the newly shaped items in space, are experienced. In its essence, it is the
matter of assessing the total sense of the changes.
In so doing, the experiential strength of settled symbolical values and images in the
space, to which people react, is evaluated. People tend to rate change as negative if it
detriments the images they are used to, the images which confirm the inherited
development in space. The images originating from historical development and are
present in the existing ambience are kept as proof of the specificities and personality of
the space. The loss of such familiar images can often be expressed as a “fear of identity
loss” of a kind, according to Žmega , V. (SMS 2010).
The aim of visual analyses performed as part of such studies, of both existing ambiences
and possible changes, is to determine the elements that make a space specific and
recognisable, as well as to show that the introduction of those changes which fail to take
into consideration the inherited character of the space would cause a loss in the
experiential values of space.
The loss of experiential values can take place in the case of introduction of shapes and
materials which are not in accordance with the spirit of the inherited features of that
particular space, i.e. in the case of the introduction of values imposed by the
globalisation of tastes. The consequence of such globalisation is the introduction of
standardised images of some fake taste, dominated by kitsch. This may lead to a loss in
specificities and autochthonous ambience, resulting in imposed and unrecognisable
images in space.
The first theoretical impulses towards visual analyses in space appeared in America and
the United Kingdom in the 1960s. There are three books that represent fundamental
literature for the period: The Image of the City by Lynch, K. (1960), The Landscape of
Roads by Crowe, S. (1960), and The View from the Road by Appleyard, D (1964)67.
These books provided an origin for the development of analytical visual breakdown
methods relevant to landscapes and urban agglomerations. They defined the elements
which make up the image of a space, relating those elements with experiences,
construction and space disclosure functions. A structural matrix was set up, interpreting
the manner of the assessment and evaluation of visual images in accordance with their
relevance and distinction. Such methods require a breakdown of visual experience into
elements, and subsequent reassembly of the entire experience in space. Such elements
are: accent, line of separation, perspective of plans and empty planes, spatiality and
volume assemblies. They are related with experiences such as: recognition and
emphasis, symbol marking, possibility of orientation and feeling of legibility,
understanding of sizes and distances, the purpose of all of the above being the
recognition and remembering of spatial images and experiences. These analyses can
easily be applied to all spaces. They are the foundation of further expanded analyses
when working out the total spatial harmonisation with entered changes. Such analyses
are a mandatory instrument of the analysis of spatial images’ effect, its goal being the
understanding of spatial entities and ambiences, and interpretation of the way in which
space is experienced in the realm of perception68.
67
1. Appleyard, D., Lynch, K., Meyer, J. R. (1964), The View from the Road, M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge
2. Crow, S. ( 1960), The Landscape of Roads, The Architectural Press, London
3. Lunch, K. (1960), The Image of the City, Cambridge, London
68
Jurkovi S. (1993), Promjene vizualnih vrijednosti krajolika gradnjom infrastrukturnih
trasa, “Prostor“, Vol. 1., no. 1, pp.127-143
Figure 1. Landscape breakdown, Sonja Jurkovi
in: Krajolik-sadržajna i metodska podloga, Krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske
Figure 2 Landscape breakdown, Sonja Jurkovi
These initial procedures were followed by the development of such analyses with the
help of new digital tools and computer techniques, by virtue of which the procedures
were elaborated and accelerated. However, the first descriptive and graphical methods
(from image breakdown to the interpretation of their impact) have remained part of
modern visual analysis methods69.
There are numerous examples that show that computer techniques are only a means
towards a quicker and more efficient study elaboration. However, the interpretation of
the impact of changes on individual landscape images must be elaborated not only in
images, but in the form of a description of the impact of those changes on the future
experience of the observer in space caused by new developments. To give an example,
to make a study of the impact of new roads on the environment in New Zealand, an
assessment of the psychological and sociological impact and reaction to the changes
introduced by new roads is requested70.
The assessments of visual impacts regarding changes in space offer arguments to justify
some developments in space, since only taking into account the impact of changed
images on the landscape will allow the complete evaluation of the overall impact on the
environment.
69
Gašparovi S. (2003) doktorska disertacija: Autocesta i vrijednost krajolika –
mogu nost i razotkrivanje slojevitosti prostora, Arhitektonski fakultet Zagreb
70
Visual Landscape Qualities, www.Planning.nsw.gov.au/---/ 06_0118_riveroak;
Analysis Methodology www.dmp.wa.gov.au/…/Apednix_9_western_
Assessment of the visual impact of changes on several examples from Croatia
Assessment of the visual impact of changes on the landscape regarding the construction
of Krapina – Macelj motorway (UIH)71 is one of the first visual analyses in Croatia.
Such studies were elaborated in late 1980s. Therefore a landscape impact study was
elaborated for the construction of the new Krapina – Macelj motorway.
As part of environmental impact assessment, such studies were made for large
infrastructure facilities – hydroelectric plants on the Drava River 72. Even before that,
visual landscape analyses were part of spatial planning for the construction of the
Kumrovec Monumental Area73 as a landscape foundation of a kind for that space.
Visual analyses were also made for the environmental impact assessment of the Dunav
– Sava canal, plus a suggestion for the construction of the banks along the canal
route74.
Figure 3.and 4. Construction of the banks along the Dunav – Sava canal
In the 1990s, studies were made for the Osijek beltway, Požega beltway, Plitvice
beltway, motorway 5c corridor study, etc.75 These examples alone show the new
sensitivity of planners and commissioning parties for such studies76.
71
Studija utjecaja na okolinu autoceste E 59 Macelj – Krapina – utjecaj na pejzaž
(1990)
72
Prostorni plan sistema hidroelektrana na Dravi (1979), and Studija promjena pejzaža
izgradnjom hidroelektrane HE Drava – Novo Virje (1990), Zavod za urbanizam
Arhitektonskog fakulteta Sveu ilišta u Zagrebu
73
Prostorni plan Spomen parka Kumrovac (1975), Zavod za urbanizam AF zagreb
74
Krajobrazno ure enje trase kanala Dunav-Sava (1996), Urbanisti ki zavod Osijek
75
1. Studija utjecaja na krajolik obilaznice Osijeka (1997), Zavod za urbanizam Osijek
2. Studija utjecaja na krajolik obilaznice Požega (1997), Zavod za urbanizam Osijek
3. Studija utjecaja na krajolik na novu obilaznicu Plitvica (1995), Urbing Zagreb
4. Studija utjecaja na krajolik Koridor autoceste 5c (1997), Zavod za urbanizam
Osijek
However, after decades have passed from the elaboration of the assessments of the
visual impacts of changes on the landscape, it can be said that, in reality, they did not
have a significant influence on the shaping of changes which development introduced
into space. They were more of an addition to environmental impact assessments,
meeting legal obligations of sorts. In a way, they only served to appease guilty
consciences by providing the feeling that landscape was also taken into consideration
when making interventions in space.
Discussion and results
How much visual analyses affect decisions regarding changes in space will be shown on
a real example – the example of the Sr plateau overlooking Dubrovnik, i.e.
environmental impact assessment studies for the golf course. Four studies have been
elaborated for different clients. One of them is an investor, the second client is the
County, the third is the City of Dubrovnik, and the fourth client is a group of authors.
Even though the analyses and results of those studies did not differ significantly (since
what is visible does not change), the conclusions still differed when it came to the
interpretation of results, i.e. the evaluation of the adversity or acceptability of
construction.
How can it be? The reason for this was the basic starting point of the clients. The
investors, for instance, have no problem with the construction, just like the users, who
do not mind exposure to view since having Dubrovnik in plain view is certainly a
privilege, hence the positive evaluation. The City advocated investments, and the
County was supposed to protect the value of the landscape.
The fundamental point of the study for the County77 was to investigate what happens
with the vistas, i.e. views from Dubrovnik toward Sr , and how potential development
would impact the familiar scene. This view of the top of Sr is certainly the most
sensitive.
Figure 5. Study of impact on the top of Sr – view from Dubrovnik
Figure 6. View of the Sr plateau
76
Jurkovi , S. (1999, Perceptivne vrijednosti krajobraza Hrvatske – Studija za vizualno
detrminiranje krajobraza, in: Krajolik: sadržajna i metodska podloga krajobrazne osnove
Hrvatske, ed. Furlan Zimmermann N., Salaj M., Ministarstvo prostornog ure enja,
graditeljstva i stanovanja, Zavod za prostorno planiranje, pp. 121-166
77
Studija vizualnih utjecaja eventualnih promjena na platou Sr a na ukupnu sliku grada
Dubrovnika (2012),
Zavod za urbanizam AF Zagreb
In some other studies, the sensitivity of compromising the view is camouflaged by
grades (ranging from 2 to +3). What do low grades mean for decision-making – when
were low grades acceptable?
Moreover, it was requested that the development moves away from the top of Sr , but
such relocation would neglect and diminish other impacts of the change originating
from development.
The basic question here is: who has a problem with change? This is where the
difference in the evaluations of the impacts of the change originating from development
in these studies stem. The differences in conclusions reflect the irreconcilable nature of
the sides and there is no indication that a compromise would be found between the
planned development and its avoidance. Sometimes, change does not have to be directly
visible, but there is still a wish to avoid it. This is a change that modifies the entire
ambience and the point of the use of that particular space. Construction steals the right
of locals to the existing inherited identity which is insulted by making irreversible
changes to something that has been under protection for centuries. In Dubrovnik’s case,
this is the Sr plateau, the space that overlooks the city, its natural Acropolis. This
community space is turned into a market consumer product. Something is located here
under the guise of economic profit, expecting gain from the sale of real property, but at
the expense of public space that should be protected.
In lieu of a conclusion
Let us now go back to the theoretical deliberations and abandon this example of the
visual impact of potential changes on the landscape images. The study and evaluation of
vista protection will not have any influence on decisions regarding construction – the
decisive points will be arguments brought to the table by politics, economic justification
of investments, and the legal security of buyers.
A return is necessary to the issue of and discussion on the point of visual impact
assessments and the need for such studies. The studies are necessary and are more than
the elaboration of an expert basis, or some “l’art pour l’art”, or a sentiment for lost
times, space and image. Such studies represent the spreading of knowledge of the world
that surrounds us, to which we belong and for which we are responsible.
By doing such studies, we ensure the preservation of the beautiful and the pleasant in
space, whether it be natural or man-made.
Studies show that images that surround us should not be uniformed by way of general
globalisation which turns autochthonous space into a “beautified space”, i.e. into the
imported sides of the image of the beautiful. Studies are supposed to show how to add
new elements carrying visual and aesthetical value to an ambience with a personality
and inherited domicile status of its own. This will lead to the construction of a special
ethics toward the space.
Study authors should do more than serve the purposes of the clients, who are usually
investors.
The goal of studies is to demonstrate in the most objective possible manner how
changes introduced by development would impact the visual experience of the space
and to evaluate the loss of existing visual values; when it comes to new changes, these
studies should evaluate what such changes would introduce into space as new visual
values.
Study authors must adhere to high ethical norms and observe space as a vulnerable
category, especially giving recommendation as to the ways in which wounds can be
healed. In this way a future world can be built, where moral values include the
acceptance of boundaries which prevent us from doing just any modifications in space.
Not everything can be allowed when it comes to new developments because there is
such a thing as change which is not appropriate for a particular space.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. We should strive to an objective approach in the evaluation of visual changes,
accepting those changes that can be reconciled with the existing space and which
will create new values.
2. We should protect those visual values of space, i.e. of the landscape, which are
unique and special, such as the cultural heritage of the landscape, and which
represent the memory of the space.
3. It is necessary to create a landscape foundation of the space in advance, thus
determining the visual values of the existing landscape.
4. Citizens have the right to preserve valuable and appropriated images of their space,
and their arguments should be taken into account when making decisions and
making the final evaluation – for or against – regarding some interventions in space.
5. It should be possible to reconcile expert arguments and arguments of the public.
Literature
[1] Gašparovi , S. (2003). Doctoral dissertation: Autocesta i vrijednost krajolika –
mogu nost i razotkrivanje slojevitosti prostora, Arhitektonski fakultet Zagreb
[2] Jurkovi , S. (1993). Promjene vizualnih vrijednosti krajolika gradnjom
infrastrukturnih trasa,
[3] “Prostor”, Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 127-143
[4] Jurkovi , S. (1996). Krajobrazno ure enje trase kanala Dunav – Sava, Studija
utjecaja na okoliš kanala Dunav – Sava, Urbanisti ki zavod Osijek
[5] Jurkovi , S. (1999). Perceptivne vrijednosti krajobraza Hrvatske – Studija za
vizualno determiniranje krajobraza, Krajolik: sadržajna i metodska podloga
krajobrazne osnove Hrvatske, Ministarstvo prostornog ure enja, graditeljstva i
stanovanja, Zavod za prostorno planiranje, pp. 121-166
[6] Jurkovi , S. (2012) Studija vizualnih utjecaja eventualnih promjena na platou
Sr a na ukupnu sliku grada Dubrovnika, Zavod za urbanizam prostorno
planiranje i pejzažnu arhitekturu Arhitektonskog fakulteta u Zagrebu
Zahvaljujemo sponzorima! We thank our sponsors!
AREA URBIS
www.huszpo.hr
ISBN 978-953-57772-1-2 (online)

T U Ž B A

Tužba - hrvatsko društvo za zaštitu ptica i prirode

Tužba - hrvatsko društvo za zaštitu ptica i prirode

Cistolitotomija - Klinika za urologiju KBC Osijek

ovdje. - Goran Klepac

Cjenik - Zagreb

LETZ (Loop excision of transformation zone)

Europass CV

KIRETAŽA (Dilatatio et curettage

Sudjelovanje javnosti - Druga regionalna konferencija o procjeni

Tabla 2 - Tuvina - Ušće Rijeke Karišnice