JES and EIA: when is the unified environmental opinion addressed together with EIA?

What is the unified environmental opinion

The unified environmental opinion, abbreviated JES, is a binding opinion that consolidates multiple environmental requirements into one final statement. The aim is for the builder, investor, or designer not to have to obtain a series of separate opinions and statements under individual sectoral environmental laws for permitting purposes.

In practice, JES may cover areas such as:

• air protection,
• water protection,
• protection of the agricultural land fund,
• forest protection,
• waste,
• nature and landscape protection,
• interventions in significant landscape elements,
• tree felling,
• other environmental requirements depending on the nature of the project.

JES is therefore not a standalone study. It is an administrative output into which supporting materials and impact assessments of the project on individual environmental components are incorporated.

How JES relates to EIA

EIA is the process of assessing the environmental impacts of a project. It applies to projects that may have a significant impact on the environment, for example larger industrial, transport, energy, waste, mining, or development projects.

For projects subject to EIA, JES can be addressed in two basic ways:

The correct choice of procedure depends on the nature of the project, readiness of project documentation, scope of environmental impacts, authority requirements, and permitting strategy.

When JES follows on from EIA

JES follows on from EIA especially when the project is assessed under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and is subsequently to be permitted in proceedings for which JES is a required supporting document.

This typically applies to, for example:

• new industrial sites,
• changes to existing production operations,
• waste facilities,
• recycling centres,
• landfills and changes to their capacity,
• larger logistics or transport sites,
• energy projects,
• significant development projects,
• projects with impacts on air, noise, water, waste, soil, or nature.

In these cases it is not enough to assess EIA, JES, and follow-on permitting separately. It is necessary to ensure that data on capacity, operating hours, transport, exhausts, noise sources, waste management, and proposed measures are consistent across all supporting documents.

When it pays to address JES together with EIA

A joint procedure may be worthwhile especially when the project is well prepared and the investor has sufficiently specific project and environmental supporting materials available.

Advantages of a joint procedure may include:

• better coordination of environmental requirements,
• lower risk of inconsistencies between EIA and later JES,
• ability to address project conditions comprehensively,
• time savings in follow-on proceedings,
• clearer communication with authorities,
• earlier identification of problem areas,
• better linkage between specialist studies and project documentation.

A joint process makes sense mainly when the basic project parameters are already sufficiently clear:

• capacity,
• technology,
• location,
• transport connections,
• operating hours,
• emission sources,
• noise sources,
• waste handling,
• water management,
• interventions in nature, soil, or green areas.

If these data are unclear or the project is still changing significantly, a joint EIA and JES approach may be procedurally riskier.

When it may be more appropriate to address JES only after EIA

Separate JES after EIA may be more appropriate when significant project development, addition of alternatives, change of technical solution, or extensive comments from affected bodies and the public are expected during the EIA process.

This approach may be suitable for projects where:

• the final technical variant is not settled,
• capacity or scope of operation may change,
• the transport solution is unclear,
• not all specialist studies are complete,
• project documentation will be substantially refined,
• requirements for further measures can be expected,
• the solution will need to be adjusted according to the results of the screening procedure or the EIA opinion.

In such a case it may be more practical to obtain the result of the EIA process first and only then prepare the JES application on the basis of a more stable project solution.

What supporting materials are usually prepared for JES and EIA

For quality preparation of JES and EIA, it is important to have supporting materials organised and mutually aligned. This is not just about formal annexes, but about one coherent picture of the project.

The following materials are typically prepared:

The scope of supporting materials always varies by project type. A paint shop will have a different set of annexes from a recycling centre, residential development, landfill, or industrial site.

Why it is important to align noise, air, waste, water, nature, and transport

One of the most common mistakes in project preparation is that individual supporting materials are produced separately and are not sufficiently aligned with each other.

For example:

• the dispersion study assumes a different capacity from the technical report,
• the noise study uses different vehicle numbers from the transport supporting material,
• the EIA notification states different operating hours from the project,
• the operating rules work with a different number of exhausts from the project documentation,
• the waste section states different annual waste quantities from the technology chapter,
• the water-management solution does not match the actual layout of areas,
• the biological assessment does not reflect the current scope of intervention.

Such inconsistencies can lead to requests for supplementation, prolongation of proceedings, or weakening of the credibility of the whole documentation package.

For projects subject to EIA and JES, it is therefore important that all specialist annexes are based on the same input data. Basic project data must be uniform across the entire documentation.

Typical mistakes in preparing JES and EIA

Similar problems often recur when preparing supporting materials:

• it is unclear whether the project falls under EIA,
• it is not decided in time whether to address JES together with EIA or only after EIA,
• project documentation is not stable,
• capacities differ between annexes,
• technology is not described sufficiently,
• transport data are missing,
• noise and dispersion inputs are not aligned,
• waste arising in operation is not described,
• water-management solution is missing,
• interventions in green areas, agricultural land fund, forestry land, or natural values are not checked,
• annexes are prepared in isolation without coordination,
• supporting materials do not meet the requirements of the competent authority.

For larger projects it is advisable to carry out an initial screening first: what the project triggers from an EIA perspective, what JES will address, what specialist studies will be needed, and what data the designer or investor must provide.

Practical procedure for the investor or designer

If you are preparing a project that may require EIA or JES, we recommend the following steps:

1. Verify whether the project falls under EIA.
2. Find out whether JES will be needed for follow-on permitting.
3. Decide whether it is appropriate to address JES together with EIA, or only after the EIA opinion.
4. Prepare a uniform project description to be used by all specialist annexes.
5. Clarify capacities, operating hours, technology, transport, exhausts, and noise sources.
6. Check which environmental components may be affected.
7. Ensure linkage between the dispersion study, noise study, waste section, water-management solution, and natural-science supporting materials.
8. Continuously check that data in individual documents do not diverge.
9. Before submitting the application, verify that the documentation meets the requirements of the competent authority.

This procedure helps avoid a situation where a range of specialist annexes is prepared, but each works with different inputs.

When preliminary assessment pays off

Preliminary expert assessment pays off especially for projects where it is not clear which process will be most appropriate.

This typically applies when:

• the investor does not know whether the project falls under EIA,
• the designer needs to know which studies to incorporate into the schedule,
• the regional authority or building authority requests supplementary supporting materials,
• the project has several variants,
• an already permitted operation is being changed,
• the project builds on an older EIA or older permit,
• the project combines several impacts at once: noise, air, waste, water, nature, and transport.

In these cases it is advisable to set the procedural strategy first. Only then does it make sense to commission individual studies and documentation.

Summary

JES and EIA are closely linked for projects with more significant environmental impacts that also require follow-on permitting. JES can be addressed together with the EIA process, or only subsequently after the EIA opinion is issued. The correct choice depends on project readiness, scope of impacts, and requirements of the competent authorities.

The most important thing is to align all inputs: technology, capacities, operating hours, transport, noise, emissions, waste, water management, interventions in nature, and other environmental requirements. If these data diverge in the documentation, it can unnecessarily delay the permitting process.

We can help determine whether your project should be addressed separately, through JES, or in connection with EIA. Send us a basic project description, project documentation, or an authority requirement and we will propose the next steps.