PERMITTING PROCESS STREAMLINING

Permitting authorities can reorganise how they receive and decide project applications, reducing repeated work and avoidable waiting. They may appoint one contact to coordinate agencies, combine information requests, run suitable reviews in parallel and recruit specialist assessors. For a cross-border project, authorities in neighbouring countries can coordinate their schedules and assessments so one part of the route is not held up by an avoidable procedural mismatch elsewhere. Where the law allows, they can also agree to accept equivalent technical evidence or assessments already checked by another authority. Applied to CDR facilities and their infrastructure, these changes make development costs and investment schedules easier to predict. Each authority remains responsible for the approvals within its jurisdiction, including environmental assessment and public consultation.

Authorities should identify every required approval and who is legally responsible for it. For cross-border projects, they should agree which information can be submitted once, which studies can be assessed jointly and which local impacts require separate examination. Mutual recognition should specify exactly what one authority may rely on from another, such as a test result or an equivalent technical assessment. Recognising evidence does not automatically make a foreign construction or storage permit valid domestically; recognition of an approval itself requires the necessary legal authority. Deadlines need rules for incomplete applications, further studies and justified extensions. Novel methods may require guidance and trained reviewers before standard timetables are realistic. Public participation should begin early enough to influence the project, with information accessible in the affected jurisdictions.

Reducing repeated studies and uncoordinated waiting periods can lower project-development costs and make staff and financing needs easier to plan. Clear guidance is particularly valuable for smaller developers that cannot maintain large permitting teams. Reviews of initial projects can establish reusable application templates and reveal technical questions that regulators should answer consistently. Predictable decisions also help removal developers coordinate their plant with energy and storage providers. The improvement comes from better administration and earlier resolution of evidence gaps, which can support both timely approval of suitable projects and timely refusal of unsuitable ones.

Deadlines imposed without enough trained staff can shorten scrutiny or shift delays to the period before an application is accepted. Agencies may still duplicate work if they cannot agree whose assessment they can rely on. Across borders, incompatible permit conditions or an unresolved approval in one country can delay the whole project even when the other countries decide promptly. Recognition arrangements can also leave gaps if no authority checks a material local impact. Communities need enough time and information to participate, and standard templates must accommodate differences between methods and sites. Evaluation should examine the whole process and the quality of decisions, rather than reward authorities solely for issuing permits quickly.

Authorities should measure time from initial submission, acceptance of a complete application and each review stage to decision, including further evidence requests and appeals. For cross-border projects, they should compare the full route's approval schedule and record studies reused, inconsistent conditions and delays passed between authorities. Comparisons should use similar project types. Backlogs, staff availability, public participation and post-approval compliance can reveal whether delays were removed or shifted. The findings should guide improvements to guidance, staffing and coordination while retaining sound decisions.

The authority leading the reform should map approvals with the bodies legally responsible for them, including those in neighbouring countries where a project crosses a border. Together they should decide which evidence and assessments can be shared or recognised and who retains each decision. Developers can identify repeated studies and inconsistent requests, while independent experts help specify necessary evidence. Communities should test whether information and consultation are accessible and timely on each side of the border. Permitting staff should help design workable guidance and workloads.

Authorities holding planning, environmental, construction or storage powers can simplify and coordinate their processes. National and supranational law can set common procedures and deadlines, while state and municipal bodies implement relevant reviews. Private applicants and advisers supply information but cannot streamline statutory duties by agreement among themselves.