Notes
Jill Jean-Francois Morales: Arla Foods have 22 production sites in Denmark with a diverse production. Overall, we have a good communication and cooperation with the agencies although there are areas of improvement. I have read the report and made some reflections about some possible points of discussion.
On page 31 there’s talk about “eternal permits” and “time limited permits”. I noticed the overall statement is that there’s a common work to reduce the emissions and other environmental effects of the permitted activities like it is done in Norway – in this case I think that for the rest of our countries that are part of the EU this would be bad. As an example, Arla started “taking the elephant to pieces” by having pilot sessions and taking all the different areas that were bad, like noise, water, etc. and looked at our sites. We came up with a pilot plan that was up to legislation and if it worked, we rolled it out to other sites that fall under the same umbrella. It has worked perfectly and we have biweekly dialogues regarding this.
Another point of reflection from the report has to do with a conversation with a fellow Dane concerning autonomous municipalities that sometimes forget to spar with environmental agencies when drawing up plans. When they change their local plans, they do not always inform the agencies. Decisions could then be made on old/outdated information. As an industry that could lead to discrepancies and complicate the process due to necessary re-negotiation. That is something Arla has noticed and want to discuss the communication problems while keeping the autonomy.
Another point, about page 33 of the report, is some relevant examples from Arla. There can be a change/increase in production, maybe a site produces milk and yoghurt but it has been decided that it should start producing cream too, it can alter the original permission as it could be a significant change. [Time is running up for the discussion]. To summarize the industry perspective on this matter: the communication with agencies is very good. One thing that is difficult is to know when it is needed or not needed to apply for an environmental impact assessment.
Matti Kattainen: One thing that is important from the NGO point of view is the lack of resources in authorities. When things fall in between chairs for the authorities and a lack of communication it is a problem. It affects how the civil society views the legitimacy of the legal system. In general, many things are good but there are rooms for improvement. In Finland the hottest areas are mining and questions affecting Sami people. It is common in Finland that when the application comes you must renew it many times and there’s a lack of information, and that takes time. We have many separate authorities in for example mining and they may be lacking some opinions. NGOs lack resources, only a couple of lawyers etc. and with separate authorities it is much harder to keep up with all different cases, there are for example many new projects in Lapland. With one authority for all permits it would be a lot easier for everyone.
To summarize, I think it should go more to the comprehensive permitting process in Finland. Some laws have been amended in Finland this spring so you should look at those, like nature conservation act and mining act.
Ally Johansdottir: Very interesting comparison in the report and a few surprises. As written in the report the systems and constitutional traditions are not the same between countries. There are differences in legal cultures. This plays a role. It caught my attention. There’s a misunderstanding in Iceland about how the EIA is conducted in Denmark and Norway, it’s completely different from Iceland. The issue regarding if you have one or two procedures is central and has been a major issue in Iceland, we have two procedures which is probably based on misunderstanding of how the Danish system is. Three issues caught my attention, some of them should be further researched.
About administrative appeal and judicial review – how it takes place in Norway differs from the picture you get when you read about the Norwegian system in textbooks. No administrative courts in Norway like in Sweden or Finland and no boards like in Denmark and Iceland. I’m curious about how the implementation of Aarhus and the Directive takes place in Norway.
Another thing, the case processing time differs a little. I was under the impression that Iceland had the lengthiest process when you take everything into account, like spatial planning etc. That is what the stakeholders in Iceland argue. But Iceland’s procedure is not as lengthy as thought – maybe it’s the shortest. This should be further researched. Would be beneficial for all stakeholders to see how long time all different steps take.
The last thing I noticed is that the Icelandic permits are time limited which stands out.
To wrap up: very interesting and useful to have this kind of comparison. The timelines could be a very interesting comparison, in Iceland it is often argued that the Icelandic processes are very lengthy.
Andreas Pihlstrøm: The report is well written and very spot on regarding the Norwegian system. Regarding the permitting processes, the processing time is quite similar in Nordic countries. We believe that better dialogue, information, and skilled personnel are key factors for improvement.
Secondly the sectors want to point out that we need to speed up the process for the green establishment. We see the need for a green fast track.