®
Paper
for IAIA 2002 by Dipl.-Ing. Ralf Aschemann, Austrian Institute for the
Development
of Environmental
Assessment (An !dea), Elisabethstr. 3/3, A - 8010 Graz (Austria/Europe),
Telephone
+43/(0)316/ 318 198, Fax +43/(0)316/384 6777, e-mail: office@anidea.at,
URL:
http://www.anidea.at
Abstract
On July
21, 2001 the Directive “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans
and
programmes
on the environment” of the European Union (EU) has been published in the
Official
Journal of the European Communities (in the following referred to as SEA
Directive).
After
long and controversial discussions and negotiations within the EU bodies,
within
Member
States as well as between Member States and the EU finally a “compromise
version”
has been adopted, giving Member States three years time (until July 20,
2004) to
implement
its requirements into their national legislative systems.
The new
Directive deals with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and works
as a
new tool
for supporting decision-makers by providing them with information regarding
the
assessment
of environmental impacts of certain strategies.
The SEA
Directive is a step beyond the EU's environmental impact assessment (EIA)
Directive,
published in 1985, amended in 1997.
This
paper focuses on pros and cons of the SEA Directive, describes some of
its
possibilities
and restrictions and deals with the following issues:
Worldwide impact of the Directive
The content
of this paper fits well into the main topic of the annual meeting of the
International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) for 2002 “Assessing the Impact
of
Impact
Assessment” and focuses on selected issues of the new SEA Directive in
order to
identify
its pros and cons, based on the author’s personal view.
The “Directive
2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June
2001
on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment”
has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities
on
21 July
2001 (European Communities 2001a) in all Member States’ languages and it
is
also
available via the website of Directorate General Environment.
It can
be seen as a “milestone” within the development of the EU’s environmental
policy-making
process and was finally adopted after long and controversial negotiations
between
all actors concerned (e.g. the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament,
the governments
of the Member States, and so on).
The regulations
of the Directive itself have to be implemented before 21 July 2004, that
means
the EU gave its Member States a three years-period to bring into force
laws,
regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the SEA Directive.
The SEA
Directive can be seen as a tier above the project level - where we have
the
Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive of the EU (85/337/EEC, revised through
97/11/EC)
- and covers the strategic level, especially certain plans and programmes
defined
by the SEA Directive.
The author
remarked attention and interest in a number of countries and institutions,
created
by the SEA Directive.
E.g.
Japan is looking at the SEA Directive, while it is developing its own SEA
experiences
and instruments
(Ministry of the Environment Japan, 2000).
Beside
Japan as a representative of the so called developed countries the transition
countries,
especially the EU accession countries, watching the SEA Directive very
carefully,
because after joining the EU there are requested inter alia to take over
its whole
environmental
legislation.
The so
called developing countries are also interested in the SEA Directive as
it might be
able
to act as a “state of the art model” for a lot of them.
The European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London gives a big
amount
of attention to the SEA Directive, too. Currently, it is categorising its
funded
projects
as “A” (requiring an EIA), “B” (requiring an environmental analysis), or
“C” (no
apparent
potential environmental impacts), moreover as “1” or “0”, whether an additional
environmental
audit is needed or not (Kennedy and Haumer 2001). With the incoming SEA
Directive
there is a changed situation also for banks like the EBRD. The authors
mentioned
write “… the bank would, of course, like the comfort of knowing that any
individual
project proposed by a public or private sector sponsor is part of a larger,
environmentally-sustainable
policy or programme, which has been subjected to an SEA.”
It might
be expected, that the SEA Directive will initiate and lead to new guidelines
concerning
granting loans in the context of many multilateral financing institutions.
Scope of the Directive
The scope
of the SEA Directive is somewhat complicated.
The definition
of plans and programmes (PPs) according to Article 2 is as follows:
“… which
are subject to preparation and /or adoption by an authority at national,
regional or
local
level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative
procedure
by Parliament or Government, and which are required by legislative, regulatory
or administrative
provisions.”
That
leads to the expectation, that countries with dense, complex planning systems
have to
elaborate
more SEAs than others.
The SEA
Directive does not cover policies, but certain PPs:
It is
regulated in Article 3, that an environmental assessment shall be carried
out for all
PPs,
“… which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry,
transport,
waste
management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country
planning
or land use and which set the framework for future development consent
of
projects
listed in Annex 1 and II to Directive 85/337/EEC, or which, in view of
the likely
effects
on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article
6 or 7
of Directive
92/43/EEC.”
There
are some exemptions, e.g. that financial or budget PPs are not subject
to the SEA
Directive.
Moreover, PPs “… which determine the use of small areas at local level
and
minor
modifications …” to PPs “…shall require an environmental assessment only
where
the Member
States determine that they are likely to have significant environmental
effects.”
The scope
of the SEA Directive is highlighting the fact, that there are possibilities
(e.g. for
“Fauna-Flora-Habitat”
areas, the so called “Natura 2000 network”) as well as restrictions
(e.g.
exclusions, exemptions and case-by-case screening) by applying the SEA
within the
EU Member
States.
Alternatives, monitoring and public participation
The following
paragraphs comment on some specific issues of the SEA Directive.
Alternatives
and or options are seen as core element of any SEA. One of the main tasks
and benefits
of strategic environmental assessment is to identify the
environmentally-optimised
alternative or option of a plan or programme as a tool for
informing
and influencing the policy-making and decision-making actors.
But unfortunately,
the role of alternatives within the SEA Directive is restricted.
Regulating
the environmental report (ER) as the main document of the SEA process,
Article
5 states: “Where an environmental assessment is required under Article
3(1), an
environmental
report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the
environment
of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking
into
account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme,
are
identified,
described and evaluated.”
So the
environmental impacts of the intended PP have to be identified, described
and
evaluated,
but not the ones of the alternatives.
However,
that restriction can also be useful in the case, where the implementation
of the
alternative(s)
seem(s) to be unrealistic.
The introduction
of a monitoring step into the SEA Directive is to welcome, its Article
10
states:
“Member
States shall monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation
of
plans
or programmes in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen
adverse
effects,
and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action.” This new monitoring
provision
goes beyond the regulations of the EIA Directive, taking into account the
importance
of the strategic level.
Another
progress regarding the environment is the participation of stakeholders,
regulated
by the
SEA Directive.
The environmental
authorities and the public shall be given an early and opportunity within
appropriate
time frames to express their opinion on the drafted PP and the ER before
adoption
of PP. The public means “one or more natural or legal persons and, in
accordance
with national legislation or practice, organisations or groups.” Explicitly,
the
SEA Directive
refers to “… relevant non-governmental organisations, such as those
promoting
environmental protection”. Moreover, Article 7 deals with transboundary
consultations
within the meaning of the “Espoo Convention”. However, that is restricted
to
EU Member
States.
Overall,
a fourfold quality control can be interpreted through the Directive’s regulations:
(a) The
environmental authorities have to be consulted when deciding on the scope
and
level
of detail of the information which must be included in the ER, and they
can express
their
opinion on the drafted PP and the accompanying ER before the adoption of
the PP
(b) The
latter one is valid also for the public affected
(c) The
monitoring provisions mentioned above can act as another mean within quality
control
(d) Last,
not least there is Article 12(2) to mention: “Member States shall ensure
that
environmental
reports are of a sufficient quality to meet the requirements of this Directive
and shall
communicate to the Commission any measures they take concerning the quality
of these
reports.”
Especially at the strategic level quality control and quality assurance matters are crucial.
Summarizing
the comments made above the following simplified overall assessment of
the
SEA Directive,
based on the personal view of the author, can be made by rating selected
issues
simply with plus or minus:
A “plus”
is given for the worldwide impact of the Directive, its monitoring provisions,
its
comprehensive
public participation provisions and its fourfold quality control means,
a
“minus”
is given for the limited scope (especially policies are excluded) and the
dealing with
alternatives,
which is seen as somewhat weak.
Weighting
those pros and cons, an overall assessment of the SEA Directive judges,
that
the Directive
is a crucial step towards the integration of the environment into strategic
decision-making.
We have
to face that the Directive is a compromise, a result from different, complex
and
sometimes
controversial negotiations between several actors within the EU institutions
and
outside
of them.
It has
also to be considered, that the number of Member States (currently 15)
will grow
within
the next years, as 12 accession countries are “knocking at the door” of
the EU.
Future development of the Directive
One item
of the future development one can find in the Directive itself, cf. its
Article 12(3):
A first
report on application and effectiveness of the Directive has to be elaborated
before
July
21, 2006, that means five years after its publication and two years after
its
implementation
deadline. Afterwards such an evaluation report has to be given at
seven-year-intervals.
Member
States and the Commission shall exchange information on experience gained
in
applying
the Directive according to Article 12(1). Consequently, it is to be expected
that a
lot of
SEA pilot projects and SEA related studies have to be elaborated in the
near future.
Potential
follow-ups of that first evaluation report and information exchange might
be a
revision
and/or amendment of the Directive’s scope, probably extending it to other
areas
and/or
sectors and/or other types of PPs, maybe to policies.
Hopefully,
the application of the SEA Directive will support the task to use SEA as
a tool to
reach
the objectives of a sustainable development according to the Agenda 21
and the new
“Sixth
Environment Action Programme of the European Community 2001-2010
Environment
2010: Our Future, Our Choice” (European Communities 2001b).
Another
worthwhile goal of applying the Directive is a potential improvement of
the quality of
PPs,
which are subject to the SEA.
With
the SEA Directive we are moving forward slowly, but into the right direction!
References
European Communities (2001a): Official Journal, L 197/30-37, Brussels
European
Communities (2001b): COM 2001(31) final, Sixth Environment Action
Programme,
Brussels
Kennedy,
W. and Haumer, A. (1999): SEA and the European Bank for Reconstruction
and
Development,
Paper for the OECD/ECMT Conference on Strategic Environmental
Assessment
for Transport, Warsaw, 14-15 October 1999
Ministry
of the Environment Japan (2000): A Study to Introduce SEA System in Japan
–
Report
of the Study Group on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Kasumigaseki,
Tokyo
home®