Case studies on SEA
Summary
Case studies on strategic environmental assessment : final report.
v. 1: Comparative analysis of case study findings, conclusions and recommendations
v. 2: Case studies
In Europe, the practical experience with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is growing. Examples can be found in most countries and at different decision-making levels (although mostly on the level of plans and programmes). There are important lessons to be learned from these existing SEA systems and experiences. A major limitation for the effective development of SEA practice is however the shortage of information on such practical examples. For a better understanding of the procedural and practical application of SEA, the improvement of documentation and international information exchange is a prerequisite.
It was therefore the objective of the present project to identify, analyse and compare a number of SEA cases that have been recently undertaken in different E.U. Member States and in various sectors. The main aims of this case analysis are:
- to provide input on conducting SEA in the future and for training and the elaboration of guidance material,
- to strengthen the national systems and improve the quality of SEA by exchange of information, and
- to assist the work towards the adoption and the subsequent implementation of a Community Directive on the environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes.
The final selection of cases is presented in Box 1. In total, eighteen SEA examples were selected, drawn from nine E.U. Member States and Slovenia. The selection is representative for SEA practice in countries with a longer standing SEA experience and culture (e.g. the Netherlands) and countries where the interest for SEA is newly emerging (i.e. the Southern European countries and CEEC). Twelve of the eighteen SEAs were conducted on a mandatory basis, following the adoption of regulations at the regional, national or (in the case of the Irish and the Portuguese regional development plans) supranational level.
The case studies were developed according to a standard format. After briefly describing the background of the strategic action and the regulatory framework in which the assessment was undertaken, the case reports give a comprehensive analysis of each of the basic stages in the SEA process. These comprise objective and target setting, screening, scoping, the carrying out of the assessment, reporting, reviewing, consultation and public participation, and the effectiveness of integration of the SEA as well as consultation findings in the decision-making process. For each of these themes an appraisal is given of both the practice and the feasibility of its application on similar types of case studies in the future (including recommendations for improvement). The main actors and their responsibilities were identified and their appreciation of and motivation in the SEA process were sounded.
The information on each case was obtained through analysis of the SEA reports and interviews with key persons involved in the SEA process (proponents, experts, planners, decision-makers). The case findings were analysed and compared according to key topics that reflect the kind of information addressed in the SEA, the key stages of the SEA process and the appraisal of practice. The key-findings, issues and recommendations that emerged from this comparative analysis are summarised in Box 2.
Box 1: Overview of case studies
COUNTRY CATEGORY TITLE BELGIUM transport HSR link between Antwerp - Rotterdam: corridor assessment land use - agriculture Re-allotment plans Hamme and Ravels DENMARK land use National (land use) plan FINLAND transport Finnish part of the "Nordic Triangle" waste management National plan on waste management FRANCE land use - urban planning Municipal Land use plan of Rennes extractive industry Special zones for quarries in the Yvelines IRELAND regional development Irish National Development Plan 1994-1999 ITALY land use - - municipal planning Municipal Land Use Management Plan of Arvier, Valle d´Aosta NETHERLANDS waste management Third Provincial Waste Management Plan of Gelderland water management Policy plan drinking water supply housing Site selection residential area of Zaanstad energy Structure scheme electricity supply PORTUGAL regional development National Development Plan 1994-1999 SWEDEN transport "Dennis" agreement (urban transport) energy Alingsas energy plan land use Korsta - Petersvik municipal land use plan SLOVENIA transport Transport Policy and introduction of High Speed Rail in Slovenia
Box 2: Key Issues and Recommendations
THEME KEY- FINDINGS, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
The lack of standardised terminology, both as regards "strategic environmental assessment" and "policies, plans and programmes (PPP)" as well as of knowledge, often confuses discussion on the issue. For the continuation of the present system of international case reporting, the standardisation of nomenclature should be investigated. SEA PRACTICE SEA practice differs greatly among countries and sectors. SEA is becoming well established in sectors such as land use planning, energy, waste management and transport. SEA application in the sectors of water management, industry, agriculture and tourism is still very rare, and needs to be encouraged by e.g. undertaking pilot studies and developing appropriate methodologies. SEA practice is still mainly applied at the plan and programme levels. SEA at the policy level requires a fundamentally different approach, which needs to be investigated through additional case analysis, and should be supported by specific method development.
SEA REGULATIONS Experience to date is insufficient to draw specific conclusions regarding the effectiveness of mandatorily versus voluntarily undertaken SEA. In either case, rigid and over-detailed prescription should be avoided. Flexibility and adaptability need to remain the core-characteristics of any SEA. The application of EIA procedures to certain plans and programmes could be used as a first start and a basis for a subsequently enhanced voluntary approach. By integrating programmes in the positive EIA list an incentive can be created to widen the kind of activities that are submitted to EIA.
SEA SYSTEMS When and where to introduce SEA optimally and how to link it with the PPP process (i.e. as a separate or an integrated system) requires an in-depth analysis of the decision making process, with the building in of systems of checks and balances, identifying key-decision points and relating these to SEA. For specific countries and sectors, case studies should be undertaken analysing the decision-making processes and how these can be optimally linked to SEA. The following basic rules should always apply:
SEA should be conducted as soon as possible,
SEA should be a participatory process, and
SEA should make decisions explicit and transparent.
POLICY FRAMEWORK SEA becomes more effective and efficient in cases where an environmental policy or sustainability strategy exists. A prerequisite for including sustainability issues in SEA would be the aim for sustainability in national policies. To develop SEA more as a sustainability appraisal, the PPP's economic, social and environmental objectives need to be defined and, where possible, broad weightings should be given to the various objectives. SCREENING It is not only important to establish for which strategic actions an SEA is required, but also where in the whole decision-making process SEA can most optimally be introduced. Screening requires a system / process approach, which cannot always be limited to a positive list of SEA mandatory actions. Screening guidelines need to be developed SCOPING The scoping of impacts should ensure that the SEA focuses on the key issues and that impacts are assessed at the most appropriate tier of planning. Scoping on transboundary impacts, health impacts and carrying capacity should be improved. Carrying capacity is essential for assessing cumulative effects and sustainability aspects and should where possible be addressed in SEA. Scoping requires early consultation and public participation. It should be externally reviewed and documented.
The assessment of alternatives is often quoted as one of the basic requirements of SEA. In practice this is however not always proven. As a minimum, a do-nothing scenario should be compared to the preferred option. Another option could be to require the assessment of the most environmentally friendly alternative or of the Best Sustainable Alternative. The use of the latter should ensure that the preferred alternative is also the best balance between environmental and socio-economic priorities. This however requires an integrated approach.
The use of scenarios is generally considered the most practical solution for alternative selection, and should be promoted in SEA methodologies.
For land use plans it is recommended that, even in an integrated planning approach, alternative options must at certain stages be identified and assessed.
IMPACT PREDICTION AND EVALUATION TECHNIQUES A wide range of prediction and evaluation techniques are available for SEA, but not all of these are optimally applied. This indicates an overall weakness in the dissemination of knowledge and information. Efforts should be made to optimise existing methods and tools and to make them widely known. Training and guidelines should be provided in particular on MCA and consensus-reaching techniques (Delphi rounds etc.) Uncertainties in impact predictions and evaluations should be acknowledged, analysed and reported. Several methods for dealing with uncertainty (e.g. scenario use, sensitivity analysis, etc. ) can be successfully applied. However, for all but a few of the cases a substantial analysis of the uncertainties has been made and reported. Analysis of uncertainty should be a basic requirement of each SEA report.
Certain prediction and evaluation techniques can be internationally applied. Possible categories for which the development of technical guidelines seems feasible are waste management plans, transport corridor assessments and land use planning. For these specific categories, the development of E.U. "best practice" guidelines can be considered.
REPORTING SEA reports should be accessible and therefore must avoid being over-detailed When SEA reports become too voluminous, detailed results should be included in annexes. The quality of executive summaries can often be improved. Executive summaries should be concise and - most importantly - comprehensive and objective. Guidelines on content should be developed.
REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL
An external input, both in reviewing and scoping, is essential. Review systems and agencies can be chosen ad-hoc for each particular SEA or can be institutionalised. CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation on strategic issues is possible and proven in practice, but requires adapted methods for the various decision-making levels. It is important that the opportunity is created (even if it is not taken up!). Consultation and public participation should be conducted at various stages of the SEA process (i.e. at stages of screening, scoping, objective and target setting, review of results).
Informing the public is not the same as calling for public participation. Public participation needs to be activated; the reactions of the public should be stimulated and encouraged.. Specific methods should be developed to increase participation also for policy level actions, e.g. by the involvement of various pressure groups and of elected representatives.
Involvement of environmental action organisations (NGOs) should be more encouraged, in particular in policy level SEAs.
INTEGRATION INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Only in a consent-related approach can SEA effectiveness be measured. In an integrated approach there is no reference for changes identification, and effectiveness becomes difficult to establish. Effectiveness indicators need to be established: possible indicators may be the change of and influence on the PPP and its lower tiers, increased motivation, awareness, information, education, the increase in transparency that results from the SEA process, which could be measured e.g. by the number of arguments that are added to the discussion. Whether or not to integrate socio-economic impacts in SEA should be decided depending on the existing assessment culture. When the SEA is conducted separate from other assessments, close co-ordination between the assessment teams should be provided
The linkage with other tiers of decision making (e.g. project EIA) should be ensured. A first condition is that the various assessment tiers have been clearly identified within the cases' regulatory context.
MONITORING AND POST-EVALUATION
Monitoring and post-evaluation are the major weakness in the current SEA practice. Efforts should be undertaken to install monitoring systems, both in establishing guidelines on indicators and methods as well as in providing an institutional framework. Monitoring can take the form of state-of-the-environment or of carrying capacity monitoring. Even though the definition of carrying capacity is often subjective / arbitrary and requires flexibility (i.e.; must allow for changes over time), indicators must be agreed upon to make it measurable.
ACTORS AND LIABILITY Proponents should always be made responsible and accountable for the consequences of their proposed PPP. An integrated system requires the involvement of the proponent, who should therefore always be responsible for SEA development. External input in the scoping and review should be a prerequisite to guarantee objectivity and reliability. This means that an environmental authority should be established above the proponent.
SEA MANAGEMENT Not only the technical expertise, but also the optimal and continuous organisation of effective channels for communication and consultation between the various actors and interested parties determines the success and integration of the SEA process. Proper SEA management also enhances the motivation of all actors, and is also a prerequisite for continuity in long SEA processes. Even if there is no legislative framework, there should be an institutionalised body to stimulate and to follow up the SEA process. TIME AND COSTS The review of the case studies strengthens the impression that SEA can engender time and cost savings by preventing environmental dammage throughout the PPP process, by reducing the cost at EIA level and by enhancing the acceptability of the action (and thus shortening the authorisation process). These benefits need however yet to be demonstrated, and put into perspective with any existing disadvantages/costs. Time and cost of SEA will be gradually reduced by increased experience, which is again an argument that underlines the importance of putting SEA into practice.
ATTITUDES, MOTIVATION AND EXPERTISE Where the proponent and the competent authority were closely involved in the process, this contributed to an increased awareness and motivation. In none of the cases was a negative attitude expressed, even though certain criticisms and misgivings were formulated. The realisation that SEA is a learning process, adds to the acceptability of certain shortcomings. FEASIBILITY An encouraging finding for the future application of SEA is that fifteen out of the eighteen case studies conclude that SEA methodology is feasible for future use.