handbook on sea for cohesion policy 2007-2013

Handbook on SEA

for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013February 2006

Greening Regional Development Programmes Network

Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013

ii Greening Regional Development Programmes Network

Table of Contents

Foreword by the GRDP Project 2Acknowledgements 31 INTRODUCTION 41.1 Objectives and purpose of this Handbook 41.2 Nature of this Handbook 41.3 Relationship to previous guidance and experience 51.4 User guide 51.5 Key definitions 62 SEA AND THE COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMING PROCESS 72.1 Which Cohesion Policy programming documents are subject to SEA Directive? 72.2 Logical linkages between the programming process, SEA, ex-ante evaluations,

and partnership consultations 73 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE SEA DURING PROGRAMMING

FOR COHESION POLICY FUNDING 93.1 Treatment of alternatives within SEA 93.2 Internal management of the SEA process 93.3 Consultations with relevant environmental authorities and concerned public 104 RECOMMENDED STEPS IN THE SEA PROCESS 124.1 Determination of the environmental issues, objectives, and indicators that should be

considered within SEA 124.2 Evaluation of the current situation and trends and their likely evolution if the programming

document is not implemented 164.3 Assessment of development objectives and priorities 184.4 Assessment of proposed measures and eligible activities 204.5 Assessment of the cumulative effects of the entire programming document 254.6 Evaluation of selection criteria for activities or projects to be implemented through the

programming document 264.7 Evaluation of the monitoring system for the programming document 304.8 Compilation of the Environmental Report and its submission for consultations with

environmental authorities and the public 314.9. Decision-making and information on the decision 335 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON THE MOST COMMON MYTHS ABOUT SEA 345.1 Concern that SEA requires detailed analyses which may not be appropriate for a

given programming document 345.2 Concern that SEA does not enable assessment of economic and social impacts and

does not facilitate consideration of sustainability issues 345.3 Concern that SEA poses significant additional costs and prolongs the planning process 346 KEY DOCUMENTS, REFERENCES, GUIDANCE 366.1 Key documents for Cohesion Policy Programming and SEA 366.2 SEA References and Guidance 36Annex I Examples of alternatives at the level of objectives/priorities and at the level of measures 37

and eligible activitiesAnnex II Example of environmental objectives and indicators used in SEA practice 39Annex III Contents of the Environmental Report as outlined in Annex I of the SEA Directive 41Annex IV SEA Review Checklist 42

1Greening Regional Development Programmes Network


The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive came into force in 21July 2004. There was an exemption for the application of the SEA Directive forStructural Funds plans and programmes in the 2000-2006 programming period.Instead, these plans were subject to an ex-ante environmental evaluation.

The new round of the Structural and Cohesion Fund Operational Programmes willrun from 2007-13. Many of these Operational Programmes may requireassessment under the SEA Directive, particularly if they include projects coveredby the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. Moreover, MemberStates may find it useful to apply SEAs to the National Strategic ReferenceFrameworks.

Therefore, we welcome this Handbook, and encourage regional environmentalauthorities to use it when preparing their future Operational Programmes.

Foreword by the European Commission

Elisabeth Helander Director, DG REGIO

D. Grant LawrenceDirector, DG ENVIRONMENT

The GRDP project, or Greening Regional DevelopmentProgrammes, is a European-wide network funded by theEU Interreg IIIC programme. The aims of the project are to:

■ share best practice and experience, and improveknowledge of environmental integration within regionaldevelopment programmes, such as the Cohesion Policyprogrammes;

■ spread best practices in partner regions and beyond;■ develop and disseminate tools and guidance to help

organizations involved in development programmes toconsider the environment and integrate it in their work;

■ develop a sustainable network of institutions throughoutthe EU devoted to integration of environment intoregional development programmes over the long term.

The GRDP partnership is comprised of 17 “legal” partnersand 18 “associate” partners. The partners represent avariety of public institutions, including national, regional andlocal authorities, national and regional environmentalauthorities, and research organisations. The partnershipoverall covers eight EU Member States.

As part of its work, the GRDP partnership has reviewed andanalysed good practices, practical solutions, and challengesin integrating the environment into regional development.This work has shown that one of the best opportunities forintegration of environment into programmes and fundingplans is sound, rigorous and participatory environmental

assessment of proposed plans and programmes. Based onthis, the GRDP partnership has declared that “MemberStates should be encouraged to share and adopt goodpractices for Strategic Environmental Assessments ofNational Strategic Reference Frameworks, OperationalProgrammes, and other regional development programmes.It is crucial that environmental objectives be considered atthe earliest possible stage of programme development.”1

To this end, in support of the development of SEAexpertise in individual GRDP countries, and in answer torequests from the partners for guidance on theenvironmental assessment of Cohesion Policy plans andprogrammes, the GRDP partnership has pooled itsresources and prepared this Handbook.

The Handbook is meant to provide information, resourcesand procedural guidance to those who require it in order tocarry out Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) forCohesion Policy programming documents. The Handbookalso illustrates the benefits that sound environmentalassessment can provide to Cohesion Policy plans andprogrammes, and by extension to regional developmentoverall. Its main message is that environmentalassessment, specifically SEA, is a key tool for “greening”plans and programmes, and for improving their overall logic,consistency and chances for success within the overallCohesion Policy objectives.


2 Greening Regional Development Programmes Network

Foreword by the GRDP Project

1GRDP Partners’ Declaration, available at http://www.grdp.org


This Handbook was developed by the GRDP partnershipthrough a collaborative process, drawing on the experienceand expertise of the entire partnership. The concept andframework for the Handbook were designed by a team ofexperts from the Environment Agency for England andWales, the Spanish Environmental Authorities Network inco-operation with Terra, and the Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern Europe (REC).

The primary authors of the text are Jiri Dusik, AusraJurkeviciute and Jennifer McGuinn from the REC’sEnvironmental Assessment Team.

The concept and design for the Handbook were discussedat an informal meeting of some GRDP partners in Madrid,Spain in July 2005. The first draft of the Handbook wasreviewed and discussed by stakeholders and potentialusers on 15 September 2005 at a workshop in Patras,Greece, and again at the GRDP Inter-Regional Seminar inDebrecen, Hungary on 29-30 September 2005.

The Handbook was inspired by Jose Alvarez Diaz, formerlyof the Spanish Network of Environmental Authorities andother Spanish GRDP partners. We would also like to thankDavid Aspinwall, George Kremlis and Jonathan Parker ofDG Environment for providing support to this initiative.

A large number of institutions, individuals, and GRDPpartners provided invaluable advice, comments, feedbackand suggestions for the Handbook during the draftingprocess. In particular, we would like to acknowledge thefollowing persons for their comments and suggestions:Gottfried Lamers and Ursula Platzer-Schneider, FederalMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and WaterManagement, Austria; Franz Prettennthaler, JoanneumResearch, Austria; Belin Mollov and Yavor Stoyanov,Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works,Bulgaria; Plamen Peev, Noblex Group, Bulgaria; JanaSvobodova, the Czech Republic; Elio Manti, Task Force,National Environmental Authority, Italy; Fiamma Bernardi,Piemonte Region, Environmental Authority, Italy; KatiusciaGrassi and Giacomin Patrizia, Environment and SoilProtection Department, Marche Environmental Authority,Italy; Marie Briguglio, Krista Falzon and Sergei Golovkin,Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Malta; RobertDroop, Ministry of the Environment, the Netherlands; LolaManteiga and Carlos Sunyer, Terra, Spain; Donna Sibley andLucia Susani, Environment Agency for England and Wales,United Kingdom; Brian Shipman, Cornwall County Council,United Kingdom; Riki Therivel, Levett-Therivel SustainabilityConsultants, United Kingdom; and Sarah Sing, Land UseConsultants, United Kingdom.

Finally, we wish to express our gratitude to the Interreg IIICprogramme for financing this initiative within the GRDPproject.


Acknowledgements

1.1 Objectives and purpose of this Handbook

EU Cohesion Policy provides around one-third of theEuropean Community budget to increase economic andsocial cohesion throughout the EU. The primary objectivefor the upcoming funding period will be to promote growthand jobs, in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy and asdefined in the Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013.A key feature of Cohesion Policy is its reliance on aneffective programming system, which determines how thefunds will be spent for a period of seven years. In all EUMember States – some more than others – the use ofCohesion Policy funds will affect national or regionaldevelopment directions, so that the programming processis an important development planning mechanism. It istherefore critical to integrate environmental protection andinnovation within these plans and programmes from thestart, both to take advantage of the benefits whichenvironmentally-driven growth can bring to a society and tostimulate further sustainable development in the EU.

For the 2007-2013 period, the programming system will besimplified to include a national framework document at thepolitical level and national and regional programmes at theoperational level. For the first time in Cohesion Policyhistory, the requirements of Directive 2001/42/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 onthe assessment of the effects of certain plans andprogrammes on the environment (hereinafter SEADirective) will apply to plans and programmes prepared forCohesion Policy funding.

The overall objective of the Handbook is to promote andenable the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA) for the integration of environmental concerns andconsiderations into plans and programmes prepared forCohesion Policy 2007-2013. Within this objective, theHandbook aims to:

■ recommend a practical procedure and methodology forundertaking SEA within the programming process forCohesion Policy;

■ clarify the purpose and process of SEA and explain itsrole within the Cohesion Policy programming process;

■ enable authorities to understand SEA as a tool tostrengthen the programming process and not as aburden or a complication;

■ promote the use of public consultations to strengthenthe evaluation and the programming process overall.

The Handbook is meant for use by different stakeholders inthe programming process in the EU Member States:planning or development authorities in charge of theCohesion Policy programming process; competentenvironmental authorities; and the SEA expert teams whichcarry out the assessments of plans and programmes.

1.2 Nature of this Handbook

This Handbook is purely advisory and does not serve asinterpretative guidance for the transposition orimplementation of the SEA Directive in EU Member States.The focus of the Handbook is strictly on the preparation ofthe programming documents required for Cohesion Policyfunding and is not meant to serve as guidance for SEA ofother types of plans and programmes.

The recommended approach provided in the Handbook isfully compliant with the requirements of the SEA Directive.The authors have attempted to make the approach generaland flexible enough to be relevant across the 25 EUMember States. Users of the Handbook will need toamend the actual process to meet the requirements oftheir relevant national legislation and the specifics of theprogramming process in their countries.

Because the approach is a recommended one, it proposessome actions which go beyond the requirements of or arenot specifically mentioned in the SEA Directive. In thesecases the Handbook will note that the approach extendsbeyond the strict requirements of the SEA Directive andwill provide the rationale behind the proposed steps.



1Introduction


1.3 Relationship to previous guidance and

experience

The Handbook builds upon the guidance outlined in theHandbook on Environmental Assessment of RegionalDevelopment Plans and EU Structural Funds Programmes(European Commission DG Environment, 1998).

The Handbook also makes use of more recent practicalexperience in applying SEA to Cohesion Policy programmesfrom around the EU. This includes:

■ The Spanish methodology contained in: EnvironmentalAssessment of Structural Programming 2007-2013:Guide for Planning Mangers, (Ministry of Environment ofSpain, Draft November 2004)

■ Experience with SEA of Structural Funds programmingdocuments for the period 2004-2006 in the new EUMember States (e.g. SEA of National DevelopmentPlans in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia in

2003 and assessment of selected operationalprogrammes in Hungary, Bulgaria and the CzechRepublic in 2003)

■ Lessons learned from the UNEP pilot project onIntegrated Assessment and Planning for SustainableDevelopment, undertaken for the National DevelopmentPlan of the Czech Republic, 2005

■ The UK guidance manual: A Practical Guide to theStrategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister, September 2005

■ Recent work on application of SEA and sustainabilityassessments in local development planning in the UK

1.4 User guide

The Handbook consists of six chapters and four annexes.Table 1.1 provides an overview of the Handbook andincludes a few descriptive comments on each section.


1

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Annex I

Annex II

Annex III

Annex IV

Title

Introduction

SEA and the Cohesion PolicyProgramming Process

General Principles for Managementof the SEA during the Programmingfor Chesion Policy Funding

Recommended Steps in the SEAProcess

Concluding comments on the mostcommon myths about SEA

Key Documents, References,Guidance

Examples of alternatives at the levelof objectives/priorities and at thelevel of measures and eligibleactivities

Example of environmentalobjectives and indicators used inSEA practice

Contents of the EnvironmentalReport

SEA Review Checklist

Comments

Provides an introduction to the Handbook

Provides an overview of the Cohesion Policy programmingprocess and its connection with the SEA Directive

Describes the key responsibilities of the public authoritiesin charge of the programming process and gives anoverview of the consultation and communicationmechanisms

Outlines the recommended steps for SEA duringprogramming of EU Cohesion Policy. The aim, rationale,proposed approach, recommendations and examples ofinputs and outputs are provided for each step

Comments on common concerns and myths related toSEA

Provides internet links to key documents for SEA andCohesion Policy and other guidance documents whichmay be useful

Adapted from guidance prepared in the UK, this providesexamples of how to distinguish alternatives

Suggests some objectives and indicators that arerecommended for use in SEA practice in the UK

Taken directly from Annex I of the SEA Directive, providesoverview of what the SEA Environmental Report shallcontain

A checklist to ensure the SEA meets the requirements ofthe Directive and is effective

Table 1.1. Organisation of the Handbook

1.5 Key definitions

The following section defines important acronyms andterms used in the Handbook.



1

Term or acronym Definition

CF Cohesion Fund, a structural instrument that helps Member States to reduce economic andsocial disparities and to stabilise their economies since 1994. It finances large scaleinfrastructure projects in the environment and transport sectors.

EC European Commission.

Environmental Report The part of the programming document which contains the information produced within theSEA process. The general content of the Environmental Report is specified in Annex I of theSEA Directive and it should include information that may reasonably be required, taking intoaccount:■ current knowledge and methods of assessment; ■ the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme; ■ its stage in the decision-making process;■ the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in

that process in order to avoid duplication of the assessment.

ERDF European Regional Development Fund, one of the Structural Funds. The principal objective is topromote economic and social cohesion within the European Union through the reduction ofimbalances between regions or social groups.

ESF European Social Fund, one of the Structural Funds, aimed at realising the strategic objectivesof EU employment policy.

GRDP INTERREG IIIC project “Greening Regional Development Programmes”.

Programming document National Development Plan, National Strategic Reference Framework and OperationalProgrammes.

The public One or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice,their associations, organisations or groups2.

SEA Strategic environmental assessment.

SEA Directive Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on theassessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

Relevant Authorities which, because of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be environmental concerned by the environmental effects of implementing Cohesion Policy programming authorities documents. These authorities may also include authorities in charge of matters related to

environmental health.

2This definition is based on Article 2, item (d) of the SEA Directive


2.1 Which Cohesion Policy programming

documents are subject to the SEA Directive?

The programming system for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 isset forth in the proposed Council Regulation laying downgeneral provisions on the ERDF, the ESF, and the CF3. Thisnew programming system has been simplified from thesystem used for previous funding periods; only two types ofprogramming documents are required for submission to theEuropean Commission (EC). In contrast to the currentperiod, programming for the Cohesion Fund will also followthis programming system where transport andenvironmental infrastructure projects are considered.

The programming system consists of two planning stages:

■ National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF): thisdocument contains the development strategy for theMember State and constitutes the framework forpreparing the thematic and regional programmes. Unlikethe Community Support Frameworks negotiated with theCommission for the 2000-2006 period, this documentdoes not have the role of a management instrument.

■ Operational Programmes (OPs): these programmes willspecify the activities of the Cohesion Policy funds atpriority level only, highlighting the most importantoperations.

The SEA Directive will be applicable to these programmingdocuments in the same way as to any other plan orprogramme. Member States are responsible for determiningwhether their NSRFs (and related optional programmingdocuments, such as National Development Plans) and OPsare subject to SEA. The criteria for determining whether anindividual programming document requires an SEA aredefined in Articles 2 and 3 of the SEA Directive.

Specific approaches for the elaboration of Cohesion Policyprogramming documents will differ across the MemberStates. It is useful to note that the SEA Directive4 enablesMember States to carry out environmental assessments atdifferent levels of detail, depending upon the contents of

sequential programming documents (NSRFs, OPs) and theirstage in the decision-making process.

This Handbook recommends that Member Statesundertake SEA at the appropriate stage(s) within theprogramming process which will enable them to assess theenvironmental effects of development objectives andpriorities for Cohesion Policy interventions, as well asproposed measures and eligible actions to be funded.

The Handbook offers a generic SEA approach that does notcomplicate the programming process and will enable SEAthat is compliant with the Directive for both NSRFs and OPs.

2.2 Logical linkages between the programming

process, SEA, ex-ante evaluations, and

partnership consultations

The term “strategic environmental assessment” (SEA)used in this Handbook means the preparation of anenvironmental report; the carrying out of consultations; thetaking into account of the environmental report and theresults of the consultations in decision-making; theprovision of information on the decision, as stated in theSEA Directive5. In addition, the term SEA as used in thisHandbook refers to monitoring the cumulativeenvironmental effects of the programming document duringits implementation, in accordance with the basicrequirements defined in the SEA Directive.

The Cohesion Policy programming process analyses andproposes development interventions. The SEA processexamines individual outputs of the planning process and itmay propose any necessary amendments to maximize theenvironmental benefits of development proposals and tominimize their negative environmental impacts and risks.As such, the programming process and the SEA processfollow a very similar logic, and this is the basis for theapproach recommended in this Handbook.

In essence, both processes should:■ determine the key issues that are to be considered

during elaboration of the programming document;


2SEA and the Cohesion PolicyProgramming Process

■ analyse the context of the programming document andlikely future trends if the programming document is notimplemented;

■ identify an optimal set of specific development objectivesand priorities;

■ identify optimal measures which will best enableachievement of the objectives;

■ propose an optimal monitoring and management system;■ provide for early and effective consultations with the

relevant authorities and the concerned public, includingcitizens and organized stakeholder groups6;

■ inform decision-makers about the programmingdocument and its likely impacts;

■ notify relevant authorities and the public about the finalprogramming document and the reasons for its adoption.

Table 2.1 outlines the typical steps of the programmingprocess and the SEA process, and illustrates theirinterdependency. The table shows that the two processescan be carried out in parallel. The lead process is theprogramming process, and the SEA fits into the logic andsteps of the programming process. Given the similarities in

the logic of the programming process and of SEA, bothprocesses can be seen as mutually reinforcing tools withinone robust planning system for more sustainabledevelopment.

Early and iterative application of SEA, as outlined in Table2.1, improves and strengthens the quality of the overallprogramming process and the resulting documents. Theproposed SEA steps should be carried out in such a waythat they do not set back the programming process, butprovide added value through additional assessment of theprocess.

Both processes can also deploy a single consultationsystem for relevant authorities and the concerned public.Experience has demonstrated that joint consultations on aprogramming document and an SEA or other assessmentprocess are beneficial to all concerned parties, since thosewho are consulted may be easily confused by parallelconsultations for the same programming document.



2

Typical programming steps

Determine the overall objectives of the programmingdocument and the main issues it should address

Possible consultations with other relevant competentauthorities

Analysis of the development context

Propose development objectives and priorities

Propose measures and eligible actions

Propose evaluation criteria and monitoring system

Compile the proposed programming document andhold consultations with authorities and stakeholders

Formal decision on the programming document andinform public about the decision

Logically corresponding SEA steps

Determine environmental issues, objectives andindicators that should be considered during the SEAprocess

Compulsory consultations with environmental authoritiesConsultations with concerned public recommended

Evaluate the current situation and trends and their likelyevolution if the programming document is notimplemented

Assess proposed development objectives and priorities

Assess proposed measures and eligible actionsAssess cumulative effects of the entire programmingdocument

Evaluate proposed evaluation criteria systemEvaluate proposed monitoring system

Compile the Environmental Report and hold consultationswith environmental authorities and the public

Take into account Environmental Report and results ofconsultation in decision-making

Inform environmental authorities and the public on howthe outcomes of the SEA have been taken into account

3Proposed Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European RegionalDevelopment Fund, the European Social Fund, and the Cohesion Fund. For a web link tothis and other Cohesion Policy legislative proposals, see Chapter 6.4SEA Directive, Article 4, paragraph 3 and Article 5, paragraph 2

5SEA Directive, Article 2, point b6Some Member States may not require public consultations within the Cohesion Policyprogramming process; in such cases the consultations required under the SEA Directivecould enable further public participation in the programming process.

Table 2.1. Logical links between steps of the programming process and SEA


3.1 Treatment of alternatives within SEA

The SEA Directive requires description and evaluation ofreasonable alternatives7 and an explanation of the reasonsfor the final choice “in light of the other reasonablealternatives dealt with”. 8

The Cohesion Policy programming process consists of asequence of plans and programmes. This Handbook treatsthe assessment of alternatives as a sequential process,which examines options at several levels:

■ proposed development objectives and priorities (i.e.options for meeting development demands);

■ proposed measures and eligible activities (i.e.technological means, location and timing/sequencing);and

■ selection criteria for proposed activities or projects,possibly including Terms of Reference (ToRs) forsubsequent environmental assessments.

Scheme 3.1 below illustrates the hierarchy of thesealternative options. Annex I to this Handbook givesexamples of proposals that SEA may provide whenassessing alternative options.

3.2 Internal management of the SEA process

It is assumed that all the projects funded will meet all therelevant international and domestic legal obligations,including planning requirements, the Habitats Directive, andothers. The SEA Directive stipulates9 that the SEA has to becarried out during the preparation of the programmingdocument and must be completed before its adoption. SEAis therefore an integral part of the programming process.For reasons of transparency, the outcomes of the SEA arereported in a consolidated Environmental Report.10 Thereport may be part of the draft programming document; inany case it must be clearly distinguishable.

SEA should be carried out in close collaboration with theplanning team and may proceed in a very similar (if not thesame) manner as the overall ex-ante evaluation of theprogramming document. It should be an interactive processproducing judgements and recommendations by SEAexperts. The SEA experts should maintain close contactwith programming teams during the assessment, andconsult with environmental authorities when the scope ofthe SEA is determined.

Box 3.1 presents examples of possible arrangements foreffective participation of the SEA teams in developmentplanning in selected EU Member States.


3General principles for managementof the SEA during programming forcohesion policy funding

Options at the level of development

objectives and priorities

Options at the level of measures and

eligible activities

Options at the level of project or

activity selection criteria

Scheme 3.1: Hierarchy of alternative options and considerations inthe programming process

Pilot SEAs were carried out during elaboration of theprogramming documents for EU Structural Funds in2004-2006 in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungaryand Poland. SEA experts were able to: ■ access all draft documents produced within the

programming process;■ hold regular meetings with the programming

teams to seek clarifying information, and discussproposed changes to the programming documentson the basis of SEA analyses;

continued overleaf

Box 3.1. Position of experts undertaking SEA within theprogramming process

The SEA Directive requires two mandatory consultationswith relevant environmental authorities. The first occursduring determination of the scope of the SEA and thesecond is during the review of the proposed draftprogramming document and the accompanyingEnvironmental Report.

Consultations during the SEA scoping are of specificimportance, since they should clarify several importantissues, as outlined in Box 3.2 below. It is evident that manyof these questions may not be answered at the beginning ofthe SEA process, since information about specific featuresof the programming document will be gradually generatedas the programming process unfolds. In this regard, it isimportant to recognise that the SEA Directive does not treatSEA scoping as a distinct procedural step – scoping can becarried out through iterative consultations with relevantenvironmental authorities during several subsequent stagesof the programming process.



3■ participate in the meetings of programming or

monitoring committees as observers, with the rightto request information and raise comments;

■ hold operative consultations with relevantenvironmental authorities;

■ request meetings with the authorities in charge ofthe programming process as-needed.

In the NUTS 2 South West region in the UnitedKingdom, the programming authority for the RegionalSpatial Strategy set up a steering group consisting ofthe programming team, the SEA experts, thestatutory environmental authorities, and keystakeholders from the environmental, economic andsocial sectors. The group was involved in all stages ofthe SEA process and ensured that the SEA wasintegrated with the Sustainability Appraisal, and thatthe programming authority understood theimplications of both processes (and vice versa).

a Which study areas have to be covered?b Which environmental issues - including relevant

environmental objectives - have to be examinedwithin SEA?

c Which periods of time have to be covered?d Which assessment depth is required?e Which data and information are needed (and

available)?f Which methods come into consideration?g Which alternatives and options should be

considered?h Which entities and experts should be involved in

review of the Environmental Report?

Box 3.2. Usual issues to be discussed when determining thescope and the level of detail of the SEA assessment (SEA scoping)

In order to ensure that such consultations are carried outeffectively and do not overburden programming teams, theauthorities in charge of the programming process mayrequest the experts that carry out the SEA to carry out thescoping consultation on their behalf. In this case, the SEAexperts may annex outcomes of various scopingconsultations to the Environmental Report. This type ofarrangement ensures the transparency of an iterativescoping.

The final consultation of the draft programming documentand accompanying Environmental Report by relevantenvironmental authorities can take place with a single reviewprocess. This will help save time for everyone involved.

Of course, public authorities in charge of the programmingprocess should have the final responsibility for the contentsof the final programming document. These authoritiesneed, however, to take the SEA Environmental Report andcorresponding consultations with authorities and the publicinto account.11 They also have to explicitly inform theconsulted environmental authorities and the public on howthe outcomes of the SEA were taken into account in thedecision-making process.12

3.3 Consultations with relevant environmental

authorities and concerned public

Consultations with environmental authorities

The SEA Directive requires the identification of authoritiesto be consulted within the SEA. The authorities are thosewhich, by reason of their specific environmentalresponsibilities, are likely to be concerned by theenvironmental effects of implementing the programmingdocument13 (hereinafter relevant environmental authorities.)This Handbook also recommends that relevantenvironmental authorities also include authorities withhealth responsibilities, which are likely to be concerned bythe health effects linked to possible environmental effectsof implementing the programming document.14 This is inline with the requirements of the UNECE SEA Protocol15

signed by all EU Member States (including the 10 now newmembers) and the European Community in 2003.


Besides these consultations, this Handbook recommendssome additional consultations with relevant environmentalauthorities and, where appropriate, the concerned public.These recommendations are purely advisory and are in linewith the principles of good SEA practices. They have beenincluded to emphasize the possible benefits of suchinteractive consultations. It must also be pointed out thatnot all of the consultations need to be carried out in a veryformal and time-consuming manner. When appropriate,many of the recommended additional SEA consultationscan be quick, casual and informal.

Consultations with the public

The SEA Directive requires identification of and consultationwith the public affected or likely to be affected by, or havingan interest in, the programming document. This includesrelevant non-governmental organisations such as thosepromoting environmental protection and other concernedorganisations.16

The Directive requires consultations with the public only atthe final stage of the process: on the proposed draftprogramming document and the accompanyingEnvironmental Report. This Handbook, however,recommends additional consultations with the concernedpublic. These recommendations are based on the principlesof effective SEA practice and are purely advisory. Additionalconsultations are not meant to complicate the SEAprocedures, but to provide benefit to both the SEA andplanning processes.

The SEA Directive does not specify any mechanism forpublic consultations. It only stipulates that the public needsto be “given an early and effective opportunity withinappropriate time frames to express their opinion.”17

When arranging consultations, the programming authoritiesshould keep in mind that consultations for SEA may differsignificantly from project-level consultations, which oftenraise considerable public interest. On the contrary, themajority of SEAs carried out in the EU so far seem toattract only limited public interest. They often are confined

to consultations with well-organised groups that have astrong interest in the programming process (e.g. majorNGOs, think-tanks, associations of municipalities, chambersof commerce, etc). The choice of consultation techniquesshould take this fact into account.

Information about the preparation of a programmingdocument and SEA can be placed in national and regionalnewspapers, in a publicly accessible place (e.g. in thepremises of the administration), and/or on the websites ofthe programming authority and/or relevant environmentalauthorities. A dedicated SEA webpage may be establishedto inform stakeholders, collect feedback, and enable theparticipation of stakeholders in drafting and/or commenting.

The formal public hearings which are frequently used inproject-level environmental impact assessment (EIA) maynot provide the most effective means for consultationswithin the SEA process. Public hearings are usually meantto expose conflicts between parties, using a question-and-answer style. Since SEA is generally a much broader andmore complex process, the key to successful consultationsis to generate constructive dialogue, or a problem-solvingdebate. This will best enable participants to clarify thetrade-offs which the programming document must make,and to decrease uncertainties about the planning processand its intended results. Such consultations are usuallyfacilitated workshops or conferences.

Other more appropriate tools for soliciting feedback include:■ dedicated email addresses or hotlines for collecting

comments;■ a person with the relevant qualifications from the

planning team who shall be responsible for providingadditional verbal clarifications on the spot;

■ public exhibitions; ■ consultative groups comprising representatives of

relevant environmental authorities and the concernedpublic.

The choice of appropriate tools depends on the timeavailable, the nature of the issues for review and thecomplexity of the documents to be consulted.


3

7SEA Directive, Article 5, paragraph 18SEA Directive, Article 9, paragraph 1, point b9SEA Directive, Article 4, paragraph 1 10SEA Directive, Article 511SEA Directive, Article 812SEA Directive, Article 913SEA Directive, Article 6, paragraph 314These may include authorities that supervise or undertake health impact assessmentsor other health assessments (i.e. national institutes of public health, departments ofhygiene, etc.)15Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the UNECE Convention on EIA inTransboundary Context16SEA Directive, Article 6, paragraph 417SEA Directive, Article 6, paragraph 2

This chapter presents a set of procedural steps which arerecommended for carrying out SEA for Cohesion Policyprogramming documents. These recommended steps arecompliant with the requirements of the SEA Directive andcorrespond to the typical steps taken by planners duringelaboration of Cohesion Policy programming documents.There are nine recommended steps; each will be treated indetail in a sub-section of this chapter. The nine steps are:

1. Determination of the environmental issues, objectivesand indicators that should be considered within SEA

2. Evaluation of the current situation and trends and theirlikely evolution if the programming document is notimplemented

3. Assessment of specific development objectives andpriorities

4. Assessment of proposed measures and eligible activities5. Assessment of cumulative effects of the entire

programming document6. Evaluation of selection criteria for activities or projects to

be implemented through the programming document7. Evaluation of the monitoring system for the programming

document8. Compilation of the Environmental Report and its

submission for consultations with environmentalauthorities and the public

9. Decision making and information on the decision

This Handbook elaborates these SEA steps by explainingthe following: ■ the aim of each step; ■ the rationale behind each step, including the relevant

SEA Directive requirements;■ the proposed approach;■ the recommended consultations; and ■ practical tips summarising what to do and what to avoid.

For each step, the Handbook also includes examples ofpossible inputs and outputs taken from actual SEA practice.The formats used need not be followed strictly – otherassessment formats can be used if they are moreappropriate or user-friendly.

4.1 Determination of the environmental issues,

objectives, and indicators that should be

considered within SEA

Aim

This step aims to:■ define the relevant environmental issues, which should

be considered within the SEA;■ based on the identified issues, set relevant

environmental objectives that should be consideredwithin the programming document and the SEA process;

■ where possible, suggest suitable environmentalindicators (or specific questions) that will guide analyseswithin the SEA process.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires identification of: ■ any existing environmental problems which are relevant

to the programming document, including in particularthose relating to Natura 2000 network;18

■ the environmental protection objectives, established atinternational, Community or Member State level, whichare relevant to the programming document.19

Determining these relevant environmental issues andobjectives is an important starting point that will influenceall of the key steps in the SEA process. The issuesidentified will guide:■ the evaluation of the environmental situation;■ the assessment of specific development objectives and

priorities of the programming document;■ the assessment of direct and indirect impacts of

proposed measures and eligible activities;■ the assessment of resulting cumulative effects of all

proposed measures and eligible activities;■ the evaluation of proposed management system; and■ the evaluation of proposed monitoring system.



4Recommended steps in the SEAprocess


Proposed approach

SEA experts should, in cooperation with relevantenvironmental authorities, identify key environmental issuesthat are relevant to the programming document. Box 4.1provides a list of environmental issues and concerns whichshould be considered at this stage.

When determining the relevant environmental issues, it isimportant to consider the specific environmental issuesthat should be considered under the SEA Directive20 as wellas other wider environmental concerns that may bepertinent to Cohesion Policy, such as issues covered by theGoteborg Strategy. Examples of such issues and concernsare given in Box 4.1.

demanding process, given the sheer number of relevantissues and objectives, their overlaps and frequentinconsistencies. This task should start with theidentification of a comprehensive long list of all possibleissues and objectives. This list should be critically reviewedand then reduced to a manageable short list of mainissues.21

With a more complicated SEA, the internal consistency ofthe SEA issues and objectives should be checked, toensure that they do not contradict each other and willprovide a sound evaluation framework.

For comprehensive programming documents which covernumerous development sectors, it may be useful to identifyinitially all of the relevant environmental objectives for theentire programming document, and then check whether thelist is comprehensive by examining the relevance of eachenvironmental objective to each development priorityaddressed in the programming document (refer to theexample in Table 2.1, Logical links between steps of theprogramming process and SEA).


4

Environmental issues: ■ biodiversity, fauna and flora;■ population and human health;■ soil;■ water;■ air and climatic factors;■ material assets; ■ cultural heritage, including architectural and

archaeological heritage;■ landscape.

Other environmental concerns:■ energy efficiency;■ use of renewable and non-renewable resources; ■ adaptation to climate change;■ transport demands, accessibility and mobility, etc.

Box 4.1. Environmental issues and concerns that should beconsidered under the SEA Directive

Once the key environmental issues have been identified,the SEA needs to identify and describe the relevantenvironmental protection objectives established atinternational, EU, and/or Member State level. These may bederived from current or forthcoming: ■ legal or regulatory frameworks;■ environmental strategies, policies, action plans;■ sustainable development strategies; ■ sector strategies and policy documents (e.g.

environmental objectives under energy policy, transportstrategy, etc).

It is important to keep in mind that there is no single set ofuniversally applicable environmental objectives. For eachplan or programme, specific environmental objectives haveto be identified, reflecting the current state of theenvironment and development. Identification of the relevantenvironmental objectives may therefore be quite a

The SEA experts for the National Development Planof Estonia (2003) attempted to use the objectives setin the Environmental Strategy of Estonia as the mainreview framework for the SEA. Even though theseobjectives were formally adopted and still valid, theydid not provide clear benchmarks for the integration ofenvironmental issues into development planningwithin the country. After lengthy reviews, the SEAexperts concluded that the objectives could not beused to obtain measurable indicators. Instead, theyestablished a set of ad hoc environmental objectivesfor the National Development Plan that offered a moreappropriate evaluation framework for the SEA.

The SEA experts for the Regional OperationalProgramme in Hungary (2003) intended to appraisethis document against formal environmentalobjectives established by National Programme for theProtection of the Environment, National NatureConservation Plan, National Environmental HealthAction Programme, National Regional DevelopmentConcept and the National Agro-EnvironmentalProgramme. However, a close scrutiny of theseguiding documents revealed that the various plans,including those for the environment, had no common

Box 4.2. The identification of environmental objectives in SEA ofprogramming documents for the Structural Funds 2004-2006:lessons from selected new EU Member States

continued overleaf

The selected environmental objectives should bemeasurable wherever possible. It should be possible toanalyse possible positive or negative effects of theproposed interventions on these objectives. Many SEAstherefore complement the determination of relevantenvironmental objectives with the identification ofappropriate indicators that will help in describing the currentand future trends and will facilitate assessment of thepositive or negative effects of the programming document.An example of commonly used environmental objectivesand indicators for SEA in the United Kingdom is provided inAnnex II to this Handbook.

When choosing the relevant indicators, SEA experts shouldalso consider data availability. However, a lack of data forcertain indicators may not automatically prevent their futureuse within the SEA. The fact that data are not readilyavailable should be pointed out and an informed judgementshould be made on whether to use this indicator, orwhether other indicators with more readily availableinformation should be selected.

If clear and relevant indicators are not available, SEA maybenefit from well-formulated specific questions that help toexamine past and future trends and analyse the impacts ofthe programming document.

As with the objectives, there is no fixed set of indicators orspecific questions to be asked. The only important concernis that the selected indicators and questions are appropriate

for the relevant objective and are commensurate to thelevel of the proposed development interventions.

Recommended consultations

The relevant environmental issues and objectives should bedefined in such a way that they can be accepted by theprogramming team as an adequate benchmark formeasuring and maximizing the environmental performanceof the programming document. Ideally, some or all of theenvironmental issues and objectives identified by the SEAexperts may become integrated into the programmingdocument as its own horizontal environmental objectives.

The SEA Directive specifically requires consultations withthe relevant environmental authorities when determiningthe scope and the level of detail of the assessment process23

and the analyses performed within this task should clearlybe subject to such consultations.

Lastly, consultations at this stage may also be extended toother key stakeholders in the programming process and theSEA. Consultations with stakeholders can enhance thequality and overall acceptability of the entire SEA process.Stakeholders may also recommend relevant studies oradditional data sources that can be used within the laterstages of the SEA process.

Practical tips

■ Ensure that the relevant environmental issues andobjectives cover all the main issues, since gaps at thisstage may misguide the entire SEA process.

■ When identifying environmental objectives, considerplans and programmes that relate directly to theprogramming document24 as well as other environmentalstrategies and legislative and regulatory requirementsand targets.

■ Where possible, try to reach consensus on the relevantenvironmental issues and objectives with environmentalauthorities, the planning team and possibly other keystakeholders. In an ideal situation, the relevant objectivesselected within SEA should be integrated as horizontalenvironmental objectives for the entire programmingdocument.

■ Do not select too many issues and objectives, beyondthose which cover the main issues.

■ Select objectives that are adequate for the scale andlevel of detail of the programming document.Environmental objectives for the general programmingdocument for the entire country will probably be moregeneral than environmental objectives for a detailedprogramming document which defines specificmeasures and multiple projects in a specific territory.



4approach and were rooted in different assumptions.The SEA experts finally selected a set of 32quantitative environmental policy objectives for thestate of the environment and various impact factors.

The SEA experts for the National Development Planof Poland (2003) reviewed more than 100 plans,programmes and policies, national legal acts andinternational treaties signed by Poland, in order todefine the main government commitments that wererelevant for the plan. This review identified more than250 specific commitments regarding desired changesin the environment and resource management thatwere considered relevant for the NationalDevelopment Plan. Detailed scrutiny of thesecommitments resulted in the selection of 52 keycriteria that were used for initial assessment of theNational Development Plan. The SEA expertseventually reduced this list to a more manageable listof 24 criteria to evaluate the plan.

Adapted from Dusik and Sadler (2004)22


Example of possible inputs and outputs


4Table 4.1. Relevant environmental issues, objectives and indicators for the entire programming document

Issues Relevantprogrammeobjectives

Indicators or guidingquestions to analyseimpacts on the relevantobjective

Biodiversityincludingfaunaand flora

Air quality

Soil

Landscape

Energyefficiency

Use ofnaturalresources

Sustainablemobility

Ecoefficiency

Increase totalprotected areas by8% as compared to2000

To improve local airquality anddecreasegreenhouseemissions

To restore andprotect land and soil

To avoid damage to,and improve thequality of landscape

To improveefficiency in the useof energy resources

To ensure theprudent use ofnatural resourcesand the sustainablemanagement ofexisting resources

To encouragesustainable traveland reduce roadcongestion

To support uptakeof environmentalmanagement, greenpurchasing andeco-design in thebusiness sector andwithin publicauthorities

Referencepoint/source for the givenobjectives

Relevance tooveralldevelopmentobjective # 1:Transport

Relevance tooveralldevelopmentobjective #2:Business Promotion

BiodiversityConservationAction Plan

EnvironmentalPolicy

EnvironmentalAction Plan

NationalSustainableDevelopmentStrategy

Energy Policy

SustainableDevelopmentStrategy

Transport Policy

EnvironmentalPolicy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

■ Condition and extent ofvaluable natural areas

■ Habitat fragmentation

■ Days with moderate or highair pollution compared tonational average

■ CO2 equivalent emissionscompared to national andinternational targets

■ Condition and extent ofabandoned brownfield sites

■ Urban sprawl■ Quality of agricultural land

and soils

■ Damage to distinctivenessand attractiveness oflandscape

■ Energy demand per unitoutput or per capita

■ Share of energy generatedfrom renewable sources

■ Will it reduce the demand forraw materials?

■ Use of recycled andsecondary materials

■ Will it promote sustainableuse of renewable naturalresources?

■ Use of cars for businesstravel and freight transport

■ Levels of congestion■ Total number of people

using public transport■ Will it improve inter-modal

connectivity?■ Will it encourage walking

and cycling?

■ Uptake of environmentalmanagement, greenpurchasing and eco-design.

Environmental issues that need to be considered under the SEA Directive

Examples of other environmental issues that may arise from review of relevant environmental objectives

4.2 Evaluation of the current situation and trends

and their likely evolution if the programming

document is not implemented

Aim

This step aims to:■ present information on the state of the environment and

natural resources relevant to the programmingdocument;

■ describe interactions between these trends and themain development sectors which are the subject of theprogramming document;

■ outline the likely evolution of these trends withoutimplementation of the programming document;

■ provide this information for the purpose of the planningprocess as well as for the SEA.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires identification of: ■ the relevant aspects of the current state of the

environment and the likely evolution thereof withoutimplementation of the programming document25 with aparticular emphasis on the future developments arisingfrom other relevant plans and programmes;26

■ the environmental characteristics of areas likely to besignificantly affected.27

Proper understanding of the current situation and trendsand their likely evolution if the programming document isnot implemented facilitates an informed judgement of thepositive or negative effects of the programming document.

SEA requires consideration of long-term trends and astrategic approach to data collection. While this demandmight seem minor, it actually poses a quite significantchange of approach to the assessment of the currentsituation. It requires, especially in the case of large scaleprogramming documents, focused analytical thinking.

Proposed approach

The challenge of this analysis is to ensure that:■ it focuses on trends for the relevant environmental

objectives identified in step 4.1. and does notoverburden evaluation of the situation with irrelevantinformation;

■ it is flexible enough to allow for the addition of newissues and considerations if needed during subsequentreview;

■ it describes both past and current trends; ■ it outlines the likely evolution of those trends, if the

proposed programming document were notimplemented.

In order to ensure that the assessment of the currentsituation stays focused, it is recommended to concentrateon the main environmental issues, objectives and indicatorsthat have been identified in step 4.1. If these issues,objectives and indicators were properly determined, theywill provide good guidance for the situation evaluation.

The description of the past and current trends can be madeon the basis of data available from existing monitoringsystems (see Box 4) or through expert judgements (incases where data are lacking). SEA experts should notembark on collecting raw data at this stage, unless veryclear key issues are identified for which no data areavailable.



4

■ Progress reports on existing legislation■ State of the environment reports■ Data from monitoring of relevant policies,

strategies, plans or programmes on EU, national,regional or local levels

■ Special research projects

Box 4. Possible sources of information

The description of the likely future trends if the proposedprogramming document is not implemented is obviouslyconstrained by numerous uncertainties. These includeavailability of data on future economic development,technological progress or advancements in regulatoryframeworks that collectively influence future trends. TheSEA Directive takes such constraints into account andrequires provision of information that may be reasonablyobtained, within the boundaries of current knowledge andavailable methods of assessment.28 SEA experts are onlyrequired to outline the future trends as best as they can.They are also required to accomplish this task while takinginto account and acknowledging any available studies andconsidering:■ past trends; ■ the key driving forces behind these trends;■ major uncertainties.

Lastly, the data on the current and future environmentaltrends serve not just to inform future SEA steps but mayalso strengthen the analysis of the overall developmentcontext during the elaboration of the programmingdocument. In cases where the SEA process is carried outex-ante, information gathered or generated during this stepcan be provided to the planning team and may strengthenthe programming process.



The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they mayconsider them in the situation analysis and future stages ofthe programming process. The SEA Directive does notrequire consultations with relevant environmentalauthorities and the public within this step. It may be useful,however, to inform stakeholders about data anddocumentation needs, and to request additional informationfrom them.

Practical tips

■ Analyze the past and current trends in meetingenvironmental objectives identified in the precedingstep.

■ Use expertise within environmental authorities and keystakeholders to identify and interpret relevant data andpredict trends.

■ Consider developments under plans and programs thatrelate to the programming document.

■ Share information with the planning team.■ Keep the focus when collecting information.■ Do not collect excessive details or use information just

because it is there.


4

Relevantenvironmentalobjectives

Indicators orquestions aboutpossible impact ormonitoringindicators

Current state of theenvironment and trends

Increase thetotal protectedarea by 4% ascompared to2005

To improveefficiency inthe use ofenergyresources

To avoiddamage to,and improvethe quality oflandscape

■ Condition andextent of valuablenatural areas

■ Habitatfragmentation

■ Energy demandper unit output orper capita

■ Share of energygenerated fromrenewable sources

■ Damage todistinctiveness andattractiveness oflandscape

Data sourceson currenttrends andtheir likelyevolution

Likely evolution if theprogramming document isnot implemented

State ofEnvironmentreport,Biodiversityassessment,Natura 2000documentation

Research studyby AMX,Annual reportsof the Ministryof Energy

No reportavailable

Natural ecosystems that couldbe declared protected areas willdecrease by approximately 5%in the next 6 years, mainlybecause of recently adoptedForestry Policy and approvedfuture projects for wind-farming,aquaculture and tourism. Noplans for rehabilitation of bio-corridors exist.

Given the completedrestructuring of the economy,further decrease in energyefficiency will be minor and anygains will be offset by thegrowing energy demands fromtransport and rapidly increasinghousehold use. The share of renewable energysources may increase to 8%over the next 6 yearsdepending on the level of statesupport.

Distinctiveness andattractiveness of this landscapeis likely to be further damagedby the recently approvedexpansion of road networksand general approval of watersports on all major river bodies.This may significantly changethe type of visiting tourists andposes threats to further viabilityof traditional tourism that thisterritory is known for.

Natural ecosystems thatcould be declaredprotected areas amount for25% of the territory. 9% ofthese ecosystems havebeen declared protectedareas but the mostimportant bio-corridors thatconnect them have beendamaged.

The energy demand perGDP unit has decreased by70% in the past decade.It remains however 20%above the EU average.The share of renewableenergy sources in thenational energy supply hasincreased from 2% to 4%in the past decade.

The dominant features ofthe territory are hillywoodlands and extensivenetwork of lakes.Interviews carried out bythe assessment teamshow dissatisfaction withvisual impacts of recentlyinstalled communicationmasts.


Table 4.2. Example of possible approach to evaluation of past trends, current situation and future trends if the programming document was not implemented

4.3 Assessment of development objectives and

priorities

Aim

This step aims to: ■ assess the positive and negative effects of the

development objectives and priorities contained in theprogramming document on the relevant environmentalobjectives;

■ consider alternative options at the level of proposeddevelopment objectives and priorities.

Rationale

In addition to the identification of relevant environmentalprotection objectives, the SEA Directive requires ananalysis of the way those objectives and any environmentalconsiderations have been taken into account during thepreparation of the programming document.29

For Cohesion Policy programming, this may be carried outthrough an assessment of the consistency betweenproposed development objectives and priorities of theprogramming document, and the relevant environmentalobjectives. This assessment should not only generateinformation but should also proactively suggestopportunities for enhanced integration of environmentalconsiderations into the objectives and priorities of theprogramming document

Proposed analytical approach

This step should assess synergies and conflicts betweenthe relevant environmental objectives and the specificdevelopment objectives and priorities proposed in the

programming document. It should suggest opportunities foradaptation of the proposed development objectives andpriorities in the programming document with a view toadvancing sustainable development.30

This assessment should involve the consideration of severalalternative development objectives and priorities, andrecommendation of the option most consistent with therelevant environmental objectives.


The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they mayconsider them in determining the objectives and prioritiesof the programming document situation analysis and futurestages of the programming process. Consultations withrelevant authorities are advised.

Practical tips

■ Describe all significant positive or negative effects of theproposed development objectives and priorities on therelevant environmental issues and objectives.

■ Suggest novel ways of achieving development andenvironmental goals simultaneously.

■ Provide recommendations for the programming process.■ Actively engage the planning team in these

assessments.■ Acknowledge any major uncertainties.



4



4Table 4.3.1. Example of possible assessment approach for development objectives and priorities: large-scale infrastructure projects


Relevant indicators or guidingquestions. Comments

Increase the total protectedarea by 4% compared to2005

To improve local air qualityand decrease greenhouseemissions

To improve efficiency in theuse of energy resources

To encourage sustainabletravel and reduce roadcongestion

■ Condition and extent of valuablenatural areas

■ Habitat fragmentation

■ Will it maintain and improve local airquality?

■ Will it reduce greenhouse gasemissions?

■ Energy demand per unit output or percapita

■ Share of energy generated fromrenewable sources

■ Use of cars for business travel andfreight transport?

■ Levels of congestion■ Total number of people using public

transport■ Will it improve inter-modal

connectivity?■ Will it encourage walking and cycling?

Negative impacts can expected if new transportinfrastructure does not avoid ecosystems that areconsidered for status of protected areas.Ensure that new infrastructure does not - in itsoverall impact - increase habitat fragmentation.

Given the current arrangements for consideration ofenvironmental issues in the permitting process, it isexpected that most new transport infrastructure willhave either positive or no impacts on the local airquality. Any measures that will enhance road and airtransport will however increase greenhouseemissions.

Transport infrastructure that further encourages roadand air transport will worsen energy efficiency in theeconomy. This is an important strategic concern.Priority support should be given to measures thatdecrease demand for transport (i.e. home work,teleconferencing, etc.) and promote use of alternativefuels.

Significant adverse impacts can be expected iftransport does not encourage inter-modal shift forfreight transport and business-related transport anddoes not limit use of cars in cities. Priority supportshould be given to development of integratedtransport systems, public transport and measuresthat advance cycling and walking.

Proposed development objective or priority # 1: Improve transport infrastructure

Proposed reformulation of development objective or priority: Develop energy-efficient transport system that improves mobility anddecreases environmental pressures from transport




4

4.4 Assessment of proposed measures and

eligible activities

Aim

This step aims to: ■ assess the positive and/or negative effects of specific

proposals contained in the programming document onthe relevant environmental objectives and indicators;

■ consider alternative options at the of level proposedmeasures and eligible activities;

■ propose measures to prevent, reduce and as fully aspossible offset any significant adverse effects ofimplementing the programming document on theenvironment or sustainable development.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires: ■ assessment of the likely significant positive or negative

effects of the programming document on theenvironment;31

■ the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fullyas possible offset any significant adverse effects on theenvironment of implementing the programmingdocument;32

■ an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternativesdealt with, and a description of how the assessmentwas undertaken, including any difficulties (such astechnical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encounteredin compiling the required information.33

Proposed approach

This assessment should first describe the likely significantpositive or negative effects of the proposed measures onthe relevant environmental objectives and indicators. Theseeffects should not be limited to direct effects but shouldalso include possible secondary effects and short, mediumand long-term permanent and temporary effects as well astransboundary effects.34 The analysis should also refer tocumulative effects of the proposed measures, analysed inthe next step.


Relevant indicators or guidingquestions. Comments

To improve efficiency in theuse of energy resources

To restore and protect landand soil

To ensure the prudent useof natural resources and thesustainable management ofexisting resources

To support uptake ofenvironmentalmanagement, greenpurchasing and eco-design

■ Energy demand per unit output or percapita

■ Share of energy generated fromrenewable sources

■ Condition and extent of abandonedbrownfield sites

■ Quality of agricultural land and soils

■ Will it reduce the demand for rawmaterials?

■ Use of recycled and secondarymaterials

■ Will it promote sustainable use ofrenewable natural resources?

■ Uptake of environmental management,green purchasing and eco-design

Negative impacts can be expected if businesses arenot encouraged to reduce the energy demand ofproduction and promote use of alternative sources ofenergy.

Priority support should be given to measures thatenable businesses to tackle their energy use.Negative impacts can be expected if businesses arenot encouraged to land contamination, soil and floodrisk issues. Priority support should be given tomeasures that revitalize city centres and brownfieldsites.

Negative impacts can be expected if businesses arenot encouraged to reduce the resource demand ofproduction and promote use of recyclates Prioritysupport should be given to measures that enablebusinesses to tackle their resource use.

Negative impacts can be expected if businesses arenot encouraged to adopt environmental managementsystems, green purchasing, eco-design and e-commerce.

Proposed development objective or priority # 2: SME and micro-business support

Proposed reformulation of development objective or priority: Recource efficient SME and micro-business support

Table 4.3.2. Example of possible assessment approach for development objectives and priorities: multiple smaller-scale non-infrastructureprojects (based on actual Member State Operational Programme)



4In order to ensure the clarity and transparency of theseassessments, SEA experts are advised to explain the keyfeatures of the identified impacts (e.g. their probability,scale, frequency/duration, reversibility and anytransboundary dimension.) Very often symbols are alsoused to facilitate summary and easy reading of the resultsof these assessments. If symbols are used, as in theexample in Table 4.4.1, they should be accompanied withsummary descriptive text, to ensure clarity.

In addition to generating information about theenvironmental effects of the proposed measures, thisassessment may also identify opportunities formodifications to the proposed measures that will minimizetheir adverse effects and maximise positive effects.

Once the specific impacts and optimising measures havebeen identified for all the environmental issues that arerelevant to the measure, this information can be used forthe formulation of:■ recommended changes to the formulation of proposed

measures (e.g. alternative locations, alternativetechnologies or alternative sequencing/timing);

■ conditions for the implementation of the given measure(e.g. specific conditions for implementation, preliminaryadvice on the scope of any environmental assessmentof detailed project proposals or monitoringrequirements).

It is noted that some Cohesion Policy programmingdocuments define development interventions only briefly,leaving details for the selection of specific projects for

implementation to other processes and documents. In thiscase, it will not be possible to carry out analyses in asmuch detail as outlined in the example of possible inputsand outputs below. Instead, SEA experts should focus theirattention on a detailed evaluation of the managementsystem proposed for the programming document. Theyshould also elaborate detailed systems for environmentalevaluation of specific projects that seek support fromCohesion Policy funds. One recommended approach fordevelopment evaluation system is outlined in the SEA step“Evaluation of selection criteria for activities or projects tobe implemented through the programming document” (seesub-chapter 4.6.)


The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they considerthem in the design of measures and eligible activities.Consultations with relevant environmental authorities areadvised.

Practical tips

■ Describe all significant positive and negative effects ofthe proposed measures and eligible activities on therelevant environmental objectives and indicators.

■ Consider direct and indirect effects.■ Take into account the opinions and expertise of all the

experts who prepare the SEA and try to actively engagethe planning team in this assessment.

Impact character

Probability

Scale

Frequency/duration

Reversibility

Transboundary dimension

Uncertainty

Symbols

!!

!

--

-

++

+

>>

>

IR

R

TR

?

Explanation

Very probable

Probable

Large-scale negative

Negative

Large-scale positive

Positive

Frequent to Constant / Long-term to Permanent

Occasional / Short-term

Irreversible

Reversible

Possible transboundary effect

Possible impact totally depends on the implementation arrangementsdescribed in our accompanying comments.

Table 4.4.1. Assessment Legend

Example of possible assessment approach for measuresand eligible activities



4

Relevantenvironmentalindicators Summary description:

Measures to minimize negative and tomaximize positive effects

Condition and extent ofvaluable natural areas

Habitat fragmentation

Energy demand per unitoutput or per capitaShare of energy generatedfrom renewable sources

Use of cars for businesstravel and freight transport?Levels of congestionWill it improve inter-modalconnectivity?

Others...

Almost certain large-scale negativepermanent and irreversible impact on15 ha of wetland in AAA. Probable large scale negative impacton river XXX that serves as a regionalbio-corridor.

This proposal may either limit orenhance future development of off-shore wind farms - depending onconsideration given to this issue.

This proposal may significantlyincrease road-base freight transportand worsen the existing congestionproblems.

...

If port moves to XYZ_A, only 6ha of wetlandwould be lost. Consider compensating thisloss through a man-made wetland along riverXXX.Investigate the possibility of expanding riverbanks to allow for natural development ofwetlands.

Ensure that port developments will notprevent possible future offshore wind-farming. Consider possible combineddevelopment of offshore wind farmstogether with port facilities.

Ensure that freight transport to/from the portis moved to rail.

...

Recommended changes to the measure:(Alternative locations, alternative technologies or alternative sequencing/timing)The measure should be reformulated to “Development of new port facilities in XYZ_A that are linked to rail network and compensationfor the loss of natural habitat.”Due to likely significant environment impacts, this measure should not be included in priority projects.

Symbols

Development objective # 1: Improve transport infrastructureMeasure # 1.1: Development of new port facilities in XYZ

Likely significant impacts

!!-->>IR

?

!!-->>IR

...

Conditions for implementation:(Specific conditions for implementation, preliminary advice on the scope of any environmental assessment of detailed projectproposals)Eligible activities will likely need EIA which should investigate the following issues:■ loss of wetland and its compensation through expanding river banks to allow for natural development of wetlands along river XXX;■ feasibility of moving all freight transport to/from the port by rail; ■ impacts of possible combined development of offshore wind farms together with port facilities;■ others …


■ Identify alternative options (based on location, characterand extent of the measure) in cases where negativeenvironmental effects are anticipated and to enhancepositive effects.

■ Propose conditions for implementation, if the measurecannot be amended.

■ Acknowledge any major uncertainties.

Table 4.4.2 gives an example of proposed measures underthe development objective #1 “Improve transportinfrastructure.” Positive and negative impacts of thehypothetical measure “Development of the new port

facilities in location XYZ” are analysed and comments aregiven on possible actions, further analysis or otherconsiderations during the implementation of the measure.

Recommended changes or modifications of the measureare provided at the bottom of each measure analysis table.These are summarised as alternative locations, alternativetechnologies or alternative sequencing and timing. Finally,there are proposed conditions for implementing themeasure. Conditions can be in the form of preliminaryadvice on the scope of any environmental assessment ofthe detailed project proposals or monitoring requirements,etc.

4.4.2. Assessing measures proposing large-scale infrastructure projects



4

Relevantenvironmentalindicators Summary description:

Measures to minimize negative and tomaximize positive effects

Recommended changes to the measure:(Alternative locations, alternative technologies or alternative sequencing/timing)None

Symbols

Likely significant impacts

?- ->>IR

?+

?

?

...

Conditions for implementation:(Specific conditions for implementation, preliminary advice on the scope of any environmental assessment of detailed projectproposals)Activities implemented under this measure should be meet the following criteria:■ should provide an analysis of the environmental impacts of the activity, and the means by which any adverse environmental impacts

are reduced or removed;■ new workspace should incorporate measures to promote biodiversity and wildlife corridors where possible;■ should implement environmental management, green purchasing and saving schemes;■ should require applicants to implement energy saving schemes in both construction and use and require applicants to develop –

where feasible – renewable energy sources;■ should upgrade existing facilities and use brownfield sites for development rather then triggering greenfield developments;■ others….

4.4.3. Assessing measures proposing multiple smaller-scale non-infrastructure projects (based on actual Member State OperationalProgramme)

Impacts cannot be determined at thispoint. However development ofworkspace may have negativepermanent impacts on valuablenatural areas.

Impacts cannot be determined at thispoint. However businesses mayeasily adopt environmentalmanagement, green purchasing andeco-design.

Impacts cannot be determined at thispoint. Development of energy-intensive processes or inefficientworkspace may increase energydemand. There are opportunities toimplement energy saving schemesand use renewable energy sources.

Impacts cannot be determined at thispoint, however development ofworkspace may be on greenfieldsites.

...

Provide advice to applicants on the impact ofthe activity on valuable natural areas andhow this can be reduced. New workspaceshould incorporate measures to promotebiodiversity and wildlife corridors wherepossible.

Provide advice to applicants on theopportunities for the activity to promoteenvironmental management, greenpurchasing and eco-design and how this canbe reduced. Require applicants to implementenvironmental management, greenpurchasing and eco-design.

Provide advice to applicants on the impact ofthe activity on energy use and how this canbe reduced. Require applicants to implementenergy saving schemes in both constructionand use. Require applicants to develop – wherefeasible – renewable energy sources.

Provide advice to applicants on the impact ofthe activity on greenfield sites and how thiscan be reduced. Priority support should begiven to upgrading of existing facilities andreuse of brownfields.

...

This measure aims to increase the turnover of SMEs through the provision of high quality business support services.Support is available for actions that deliver workspace, loans/grants, business advice and training.

Condition and extent ofvaluable natural areas Habitat fragmentation

Uptake of environmentalmanagement, greenpurchasing and eco-design

Energy demand per unitoutput or per capitaShare of energy generatedfrom renewable sources

Condition and extent ofabandoned brownfield sitesUrban sprawl

Others...

Development objective # 2: SME and micro-business supportMeasure # 2.3: Develop competitive business



44.5 Assessment of the cumulative effects of the

entire programming document

Aim

This step aims to: ■ assess the cumulative effects of all proposed measures

in the programming document on the relevantenvironmental issues, objectives and indicators;

■ assess the cumulative effects of incremental changescaused by other past, current or reasonably forseeableactions with the impacts of relevant measures within theprogramming document;

■ adjust the assessment of individual measures if itbecomes clear that their overall impact is moresignificant or minor than originally foreseen;

■ adjust the arrangements for delivery of the programme,including both people (capacity) and processes;

■ provide inputs for final proposals for modifications to theprogramming document.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires not only assessment of theindividual impacts of specific proposals in the programmingdocument, but also the resulting cumulative effects.35 Oneof the main benefits of SEA is that it enables theidentification of environmental effects for multiple proposalsand facilitates their systematic consideration at a strategiclevel.

Cumulative effects are effects that result from incrementalchanges caused by other past, present or reasonablyforeseeable actions together with the proposal. Cumulativeeffects can result from individually minor but collectivelysignificant actions taking place over a period of time.36

Proposed approach

This analysis uses information generated by the precedingassessments of individual measures in the programmingdocument, carried out in step 4.4.

The analysis collects all of the effects of the proposeddevelopment measures on the relevant environmentalobjectives and indicators, and enables the consideration ofwhether significant cumulative environmental effects arelikely to occur.

Any identified cumulative effects can be summarised andused as recommendations for final adjustments to theprogramming document through:■ additional measures to prevent, minimise or offset the

negative effects of the proposed individual measures inthe programming document;

■ new measures with beneficial effects which willcompensate the overall negative effects of theprogramming document on the given environmentalissue, objective or indicator;

■ changes to the arrangements for delivery of theprogramme, either through the provision of specificenvironmental advice to applicants or through the projectevaluation and monitoring processes.


The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they considerthem in the design of measures and eligible activities.Consultations with relevant environmental authorities areadvised.

Practical tips

■ Describe all positive and negative effects of all proposedmeasures and eligible activities in the programmingdocument that impact the relevant environmentalobjectives or indicators.

■ Outline the likely cumulative effects of the proposedmeasures and eligible activities on the relevantenvironmental objectives, and consider whether theprogramming document in its entirety will help achievethe relevant environmental objectives or whether it willcreate new barriers to their attainment.

■ Adjust the assessments of individual measures andeligible measures as necessary.

■ Acknowledge any major uncertainties.■ Propose options to minimize, reduce or offset any

significant adverse effects of the programmingdocument on the relevant environmental issue orobjective.

■ Where there are uncertainties, consider whatarrangements need to be in place in the programmedelivery team to ensure that likely environmentalimpacts of projects can be assessed and addressed.

■ Propose options to maximise any positive effects of theprogramming documents on the relevant environmentalissues and objectives.

■ Actively engage the planning team in this assessment.



4Example of possible inputs and outputs

Relevant environmental objective:Increase the total nature protected area by 8% as compared to 2000

Current trends in the attainment of this environmental objective and their likely evolution if the programming document is notimplemented■ Natural ecosystems that could be declared as protected amount for 25% of the territory. 9% of these ecosystems have been

declared protected areas but the most important bio-corridors that connect them have been damaged.■ Natural ecosystems that could be declared as protected will decrease by approximately 5% in the next 6 years, mainly because of

recently adopted Forestry Policy and approved future projects for wind-farming, aquaculture and tourism. No plans for rehabilitationof bio-corridors exist.

Relevant indicators: Condition and extent of valuable natural areasHabitat fragmentation

Measures and eligibleactivities Summary description: CommentsSymbols

Expected cumulative effects of the relevant measures with impact on the given objective

Individual impacts of specific measures

!!-->>IR

?!- ->>IR

…

Almost certain large-scale negativepermanent and irreversible impact on15 ha of wetland in AAA.Probable large scale negative impacton river XXX that serves as a regionalbio-corridor.

Impacts cannot be determined at thispoint, however development ofworkspace may have large-scalenegative permanent impacts ofvaluable natural areas.

…

Measure # 1.1.Development of new portfacilities in XYZ

Measure # 2.3: Developcompetitive business

Others…

If this facility moves to XYZ_A, only 6ha ofwetland would be impacted. This loss can becompensated by a man-made wetland alongriver XXX.

Provide advice to applicants on the impact ofthe activity on valuable natural areas andhow this can be reduced. New workspaceshould incorporate measures to promotebiodiversity and wildlife corridors wherepossible.

...

Cumulative impact of all measures and eligible activities in the programming document with likely effects on thisenvironmental objective ■ If all proposed measures and eligible activities in the programming document are implemented, another 160 ha of natural

ecosystems will be lost. In addition, three important bio-corridors will be irreversibly damaged. This sharply contradicts the relevantenvironmental objective.

■ If recommended changes to all measures and eligible activities are adopted, only 50 ha of natural ecosystems will be lost and only 2important bio-corridors will be temporarily damaged.

Recommendations ■ To compensate for this damage (which will occur in either case), the programming document must strengthen its nature protection

component by enabling measures and eligible activities that lead to establishment of new protected areas.

Table 4.5.1. Possible approach for summarising cumulative effects of individual measures and eligible activities proposed in theprogramming document. Example 1.




Relevant environmental objective:To improve efficiency in the use of energy resources.

Current trends in the attainment of this environmental objective and their likely evolution if the programming document is notimplemented■ Energy use in the production of goods and services will remain at current levels or worse.■ The proportion of renewable energy generated in the region will remain at less than 1%.

Relevant indicators: Energy demand per unit output or per capitaShare of energy generated from renewable sources

Measures and eligibleactivities Summary description: CommentsSymbols

Expected cumulative effects of the relevant measures with impact on the given objective

Individual impacts of specific measures

?

!+>>

…

This proposal may either limit orenhance future development of off-shore wind farms – depending onconsideration given to this issue.

Activity to increase the efficient useof energy in the provision of goodsand services and to developrenewable energy sources throughdevelopment of the environmentaltechnology sector will have positiveeffects.

…

Measure # 1.1.Development of new portfacilities in XYZ

Measure # 2.3:Development of facilities fortourism

Others…

Ensure that port developments will notprevent possible future off-shore wind-farming. Consider possible combineddevelopment of offshore wind farmstogether with port facilities.

Provide advice to applicants on theopportunities to incorporate energy efficiencyand/or develop renewable energy sources inall activity.

...

Cumulative impact of all measures and eligible activities in the programming document with likely effects on thisenvironmental objective ■ If all proposed measures and eligible activities in the programming document are implemented, an additional 1% of energy

generated in the region will be from renewable sources.■ If recommended changes to all measures and eligible activities are adopted, an additional 4% of energy generated in the region will

be from renewable sources.

Recommendations ■ Arrangements for programme delivery must include specific advice for project applicants as to how energy efficiency and renewable

energy development can be incorporated in activity.■ Targets should be set for individual applicants, and progress in delivering this monitored.

4.6 Evaluation of selection criteria for activities or

projects to be implemented through the

programming document

Aim

This step aims to: ■ ensure that the process for selection of specific projects

during implementation of the programming document

enables adequate evaluation of the positive or negativeeffects of the projects on the environment;

■ facilitate environmentally suitable implementation of theprogramming document.

Table 4.5.2. Possible approach for summarising cumulative effects of individual measures and eligible activities proposed in theprogramming document. Example 2.



4Rationale

The SEA Directive requires description of the measuresenvisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offsetany significant adverse effects on the environment fromimplementing the programming document.37

This requirement poses a particular challenge for CohesionPolicy programming documents. These documents mayformulate only very general development interventions. Theimplementation of these plans and programmes willdepend largely upon the management system for selectionand monitoring of the actual activities (or projects), whichare specified and chosen only after the programmingdocument has been finalized and approved. In such casesthe SEA can suggest specific project evaluation criteria toensure the selection of projects which will contribute, tothe greatest extent possible, to the relevant environmentalobjectives and indicators.

These evaluation/selection criteria should help to:■ assess positive or negative effects of proposed activities

(or projects) on the relevant environmental issues,objectives and indicators;

■ formulate detailed measures within the activities toprevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset anysignificant adverse effects on the environment.

In an ideal situation, such evaluation/selection criteriashould become an integral part of the management systemfor implementation of the programming document.

Proposed approach

Environmental evaluation/selection criteria for proposedactivities or projects may be set out in the form of simpleenvironmental evaluation sheets which summarize keyenvironmental effects for decision-making on the proposedprojects. The evaluation sheets may also be used as scoringsheets during the project evaluation process.

In principle, activity or project-level evaluations shouldenable analysis of the likely significant positive or negativeeffects of the proposed projects on the relevantenvironmental objectives and indicators - either for theentire programming document or for the specific measure.For this reason, the evaluations may be based on the sameassessment logic as the one applied for the proposedmeasures and eligible activities in sub-chapter 4.4. The maindifference is that activity or project-level evaluations can bemore detailed.

In addition to evaluation/selection criteria, the SEA may alsoaddress the mechanism or system for carrying out theprocess. The main factor here will be to ensure that theprogramming authority has access to the necessaryenvironmental expertise to carry out activity or projectevaluation and selection. The SEA should not suggestunrealistic arrangements.


The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they considerthem in the design of measures, eligible activities, andevaluation criteria. Consultations with relevantenvironmental authorities are advised.

Practical tips

■ Analyse the environmental criteria and indicatorsproposed for the selection of specific projects duringimplementation of the programming document, andsuggest their completion through indicators that reflectthe relevant environmental issues and objectives for theprogramming document or for the specific measures.

■ Ensure that the proposed evaluation system enables theconsideration of positive and negative effects and thatthis information is provided in a format which caninfluence decision-making on activity or projectproposals.

■ Address means for the practical undertaking ofenvironmental evaluations (i.e. ensure that programmingauthority has access to necessary environmentalexpertise).

■ Actively engage the planning team, proponents of theprogramming document and relevant environmentalauthorities when formulating the proposed evaluationsystem.




Relevant indicators Summary of effects: Comments

Conclusion:This proposal can be supported only once the design of the workspace has been altered to avoid damage to the biotope AAA and bio-corridor BBB.

Conditions for implementation, should financial support be awarded:■ no damage to biotope BBB and bio-corridor CCC occurred;■ marketing to environmental technology sector;■ workspace deisgned to reduce energy use by 40% over current legal standards;■ heating system will be arranged by solar panels and corn burning furnace;■ the building manager actively informs visitors about benefits of its heating system based on renewable energy sources, EMS and

about other measures that were taken to protect the environment and enhance eco-efficiency of the facility;■ others…

Measure # 2.3: Develop competitive business

Proposed activity: Office Workspace in the locality EEE

Adverse impact of a regional character:EIA report for this proposal indicates that250m of important biotope AAA willpermanently damaged. This biotope ispart of a regional bio-corridor BBB.

No significant impact Workspace development is an extensionon an existing urban area.

Positive impactThe workspace will be marketed atbusinesses in the environmentaltechnology sector.

Positive impactThe workspace is designed to minimisethe use of energy.

Positive impactHeating of the workspace (centralheating, kitchens etc) will arranged bysolar panels and a wood burning boiler.The building manager promises to activelyinform visitors about benefits of suchsystem.

No significant impactThe location is served by public transport.Parking on site will be limited andbusinesses will be encouraged to developGreen Travel Plans.

…

This activity can only be supported if therecommendations from the Environmental ImpactAssessment and Planning Conditions are met.

Make sure that this happens by post-projectmonitoring.



…


Damages to distinctivenessand attractiveness oflandscape


Energy demand per unitoutput or per capita

Share of energy generatedfrom renewable sources

Use of cars for businesstravel an freight transport

Others …

Table 4.6.1. Example of environmental evaluation of proposed capital activity




Relevant indicators Summary of effects: Comments

Conclusion:This proposal should be supported.

Conditions for implementation, should financial support be awarded:■ set targets for projects and monitor progress.

Measure # 2.3: Develop competitive business

Proposed activity: Provision of marketing advice to micro businesses

Not applicable

Not applicable

Positive impactThe opportunities for accessing newmarkets or increasing the share ofexisting markets by developing greencredentials and eco-products will beemphasised. Businesses will be encouraged to useelectronic forms of marketing rather thanmailshots etc.

Not applicable

Not applicable

No significant impactTraining will be located in a venue thatcan be accessed by public transport

...


Damages to distinctivenessand attractiveness oflandscape


Energy demand per unitoutput or per capita

Share of energy generatedfrom renewable sources

Use of cars for businesstravel and freight transport

Others …




…

Table 4.6.2. Example of environmental evaluation of proposed revenue activity



44.7 Evaluation of the monitoring system for the


Aim:

This step aims to ensure that: ■ information on the significant effects of activities and

projects on the relevant environmental objectives andindicators for the programming document is recorded;

■ any unforeseen adverse effects are identified in order tobe able to undertake appropriate remedial actions.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires: ■ presentation of the monitoring measures in the

environmental report;38

■ informing the relevant authorities and the public aboutthe measures concerning monitoring once theprogramming document has been adopted.39

Proposed approach

As a general rule, the SEA should use the monitoringarrangement proposed for the programming document, toavoid confusion or duplication. SEA experts should analysethe proposed environmental monitoring system for theprogramming document. They may recommendincorporation of new indicators based on the relevantenvironmental issues, objectives and indicators for theprogramming document.

The proposed monitoring arrangements should be realisticand may use information generated during theenvironmental evaluation of the proposed projects (seestep 4.6.)


The outcomes of these analyses should be properlypresented to the programming team so that they considerthem in the design monitoring system for the programmingdocument. Consultations with relevant environmentalauthorities are advised.

Practical tips

■ Try to use the relevant environmental issues, objectivesand indicators identified within the SEA as a basis forimprovements to the proposed environmentalmonitoring system for the programming document.

■ Some monitoring tools, e.g. periodic reports, may beintroduced.

■ Ensure that the proposed monitoring arrangements arerealistic.

■ Do not be afraid to use simple approaches.■ Actively engage the planning team, proponents of the

programming document and relevant environmentalauthorities when formulating proposed monitoringsystem.


Environmentalindicators

Total realeffects of theplan

Projects that were implemented though theprogramming document

50 ha

100 MW

…

- 5ha

0

…

Decrease/increase ofprotected areas andtheir buffer zones

Energy generatedthrough solar, wind,biomass energysources (MW)

Others...

…

…

…

Cumulative effects on theenvironmental indicatorpredicted within SEA

Project 001 Project 002 Project 003 Project ...

-3ha

0

…

0

30 MW

…

….

….

…

Table 4.7. Example of the overall environmental monitoring system for the entire programming document


4.8 Compilation of the Environmental Report and

its submission for consultations with

environmental authorities and the public

Aim

This step aims to: ■ compile the Environmental Report in accordance with

the requirements of the Annex 1 to the SEA Directive;■ consult the relevant authorities and the public on the

programming document and its accompanyingenvironmental report.

Rationale

The Environmental Report should contain the informationrequired in the SEA Directive Annex I, also included inAnnex III to this Handbook.

Proposed approach

The SEA steps outlined in this Handbook should enable theSEA team to develop most of the information which needsto be included in the Environmental Report. The onlyadditional information which needs to be compiled at thestage is: ■ a non-technical summary of the Environmental Report

outlining the main conclusions of the SEA and anyoutstanding issues for consideration by relevantauthorities;

■ an explanation of the overall development context of theprogramming document (an outline of the contents,main objectives of the programming document and itsrelationship with other relevant plans and programmes).


The draft programming document and the EnvironmentalReport should be made available to the relevant authoritiesand the concerned public before the adoption of theprogramming document. Authorities and the public need tobe given an early and effective opportunity and appropriatetime to express their opinions on the draft programmingdocument and the accompanying Environmental Report.40

Sub-chapter 3.3 of this Handbook outlines some basicissues that may be taken into account when theprogramming authorities design consultation arrangements.

Practical tips

■ Present all analyses that were undertaken within theSEA and summarize the results of the assessment in anon-technical summary that also explains how theoutputs of the SEA process were considered by theplanning team.

■ Highlight any conclusions and open issues forconsideration.

■ Acknowledge uncertainties and difficulties that cameabout during SEA.

■ Use plain language so that the report is understandableto decision-makers, relevant authorities and the public.

■ Do not use complicated jargon or acronyms.


4




Table 4.8. Possible contents of an SEA Environmental Report

Structure of theReport

Content Addressed withinthis Handbook

Non-technicalsummary

Overall developmentcontext of theprogrammingdocument

Environmentalcontext of theprogrammingdocument

Relevant trends

Integration ofenvironmentalobjectives into theprogrammingdocument

Likely significanteffects

Measures to prevent,reduce or offsetnegative effects

Uncertainties

Monitoring

A non-technical summary outlining the main conclusions of the SEA and anyoutstanding issues for consideration by relevant authorities

An outline of the contents and the main objectives of the programmingdocument and its relation to other relevant plans and programmes

The environmental protection objectives, established at international, EU orMember State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme

Any existing environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme,including, in particular, those relating to any areas of particular environmentalimportance, such as areas designated under Directives 79/409/EEC and92/43/EEC

The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and its likelyevolution if the programming document is not implemented

The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected

The way in which the environmental protection objectives, established atinternational, EU or Member State level and relevant to the plan or programme,and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during thepreparation of the programming document

The likely significant effects on the environment, including biodiversity,population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, materialassets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage andlandscape, and the interrelationship between the above factors

An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt withThe measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset anysignificant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan orprogramme

Description of how the assessment was undertaken, including any difficulties(such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compilingthe required information

A description of the measures envisaged for monitoring

Sub-chapter 4.8

Sub-chapter 4.1 and4.2

Sub-chapter 4.1

Sub-chapter 4.1

Sub-chapter 4.2

Sub-chapter 4.2

Sub-chapter 4.3


Sub-chapters 4.3,4.4, 4.5 and 4.6


Sub-chapter 4.7



4

18SEA Directive, Annex 1, item (d)19SEA Directive, Annex 1, item (e)20SEA Directive, Annex 1, item (f)21For example, the UK Environmental Agency recommends that standard SEAs arefocused on 15-25 key environmental issues. 22Dusik J. and B. Sadler (2004), Reforming Strategic Environmental Assessment Systems:Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe, In: Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,volume 22, number 2, June 200423SEA Directive, Article 5, paragraph 424SEA Directive, Annex 1, item (a)25SEA Directive, Annex I, item (b)26SEA Directive, Annex I, item (a)27SEA Directive, Annex I, item (c)28SEA Directive, Article 5, paragraph 229SEA Directive, Annex I, item (e)30SEA Directive, Article 131SEA Directive, Annex I, item (f)32SEA Directive, Annex I, item (g)33SEA Directive, Annex I, item (h)34SEA Directive, Annex I, item (f)35SEA Directive, Annex I, item (f)

36Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as ImpactInteractions, European Commission, DG XI, May 1999http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/volume1.pdf37SEA Directive, Annex I, item (g)38SEA Directive, Annex I, item (i)39SEA Directive, Article 9, paragraph 1, item (c)40SEA Directive, Article 641SEA Directive, Article 842SEA Directive, Article 9

4.9 Decision-making and information on the

decision

Aim

This step aims to ensure that: ■ the Environmental Report and the opinions of those

consulted are taken into account in finalising andadopting the programming document;

■ an explanation is given of how they have been taken intoaccount;

■ reasons are given for choices in the adoptedprogramming document, in the light of other reasonableoptions considered.

Rationale

The SEA Directive requires that the opinions expressedthough consultations with relevant environmentalauthorities and the public on the proposed programmingdocument and its accompanying Environmental Report, aswell as the Environmental Report itself, be taken intoaccount during the preparation of the plan or programmeand before its adoption.41

Once the programming document is adopted, the relevantenvironmental authorities and the public consulted withinthe SEA need to be informed and the following items mustbe made available to them:42

■ the programming document as adopted;■ a statement summarizing how environmental

considerations have been integrated into theprogramming document; how the Environmental Reportand the opinions expressed during consultations withrelevant environmental authorities and the public havebeen taken into account; and the reasons for choosingthe plan or programme as adopted, in the light of theother reasonable alternatives dealt with; and

■ the measures decided concerning monitoring.

Proposed approach

The SEA Directive leaves the detailed arrangementsconcerning these requirements to be determined by theindividual Member States. Therefore this Handbook onlyreminds readers of these provisions and does not suggestany specific approach for their implementation.

Annex IV to this Handbook outlines some basic questionsthat may be asked should anyone need to check quicklywhether the main requirements of the entire SEA processwere met.



5

Since SEA is a new tool, there may be many questionsabout its benefits and costs. The most common concernsand myths are outlined below and commentary is providedon them, based on practical lessons from the GRDPpartners.

5.1 Concern that SEA requires detailed analyses

which may not be appropriate for a given


This concern is very relevant. However, the SEA Directiveexplicitly states that SEA shall include information whichmay reasonably be required taking into account: ■ current knowledge and methods of assessment; ■ the contents and level of detail in the programming

document and its stage in the decision-making process; ■ the extent to which certain matters are more

appropriately assessed at different levels in that processin order to avoid duplication of the assessment.43

The SEA Directive also states that where programmingdocuments form a part of a hierarchy, Member States shalltake this fact into account with a view to avoidingduplication of assessments.44 The Environmental Reportshould include information that may reasonably be requiredtaking into account the contents and level of detail in theplan or programme and its stage in the decision-makingprocess.45 In short, this means that the level of detailedinformation and analysis provided in the SEA shouldcorrespond to that of the programming document, and thisshould be determined as part of the scoping process andconsultations.

5.2 Concern that SEA does not enable

assessment of economic and social impacts

and does not facilitate consideration of

sustainability issues

This concern is based on the false understanding that theSEA Directive automatically limits SEA to mere assessmentof environmental issues. While the SEA Directive requiresassessment of environmental issues and effects associated

with the programming document, it does not set limits onthe consideration of social and economic aspects or ofgeneral sustainability issues. In fact, there are many logicallinks between the assessments required under theDirective and other assessments that may be performedwithin the programming process. The SEA approachpresented in this Handbook has many similarities with theex-ante evaluation for the programming process within the2000-2006 Cohesion Policy funding period, as shown inTable 5.1 on the following page.

5.3 Concern that SEA poses significant additional

costs and prolongs the planning process

These concerns typically derive from SEA approaches thatare based on separate and ex-post assessments. Suchpractices naturally result in two phenomena: ■ Delays are caused by the simple fact that SEA starts too

late in the formulation of the programming documentand its completion requires additional time which mayprolong the entire planning process.

■ SEA is more costly since the SEA experts may need toseparately gather data that could have been otherwiseeasily generated or obtained within the overall planningprocess. SEA experts may also need to carry outadditional consultations with the planning team, relevantauthorities and the concerned public. Theseconsultations may require organisation, which increasesthe cost of the SEA as well as the overall cost of theplanning process.

It should be noted that the above issues occur in caseswhere the SEA is not appropriately managed. If the SEA isproperly linked to the planning process and is carried out inan ex-ante manner as required in the SEA Directive and asthe principles of good SEA practice suggest, delaysassociated with SEA are naturally minimal.

Conducting the SEA “ex-ante,” or during the planningprocess, enables the planning and SEA experts to optimiseand share the data generated. Experience among GRDPpartners indicates that such assessments may typicallyaccount for 10-20% of the costs (or an equivalent

Concluding comments on the mostcommon myths about SEA



5

percentage of workdays) incurred during the planningprocess. These “costs” can be regarded as marginalcompared to the future costs of environmentallyunsustainable development interventions. It is alsoimportant to note that the SEA can be carried out in-house,if expertise is available, by the programme planning team.

Lastly, if the programming authority does not understandthe SEA process, and does not integrate it with theirprogramme development, then it will probably not makemuch use of the environmental solutions identified by theSEA. Indeed, in such case, SEA does become a costlywaste of time.

To conclude on a positive note, this Handbook refers tofindings of a recent study on the first year of application ofthe SEA Directive in the UK. The study surveyed 201authorities which conducted SEA or sustainability appraisal.This review concludes that authorities seemed to beresponding remarkably positively to the Directiverequirements and distils some interestingrecommendations from practice (see Box 5.1 right).

SEA Steps

Determination of the environmental issues, objectivesand indicators that should be considered during theSEA process

Evaluation of the current situation and trends andtheir likely evolution if the programming document isnot implemented

Assessment of development objectives and priorities

Assessment of proposed measures and eligibleactivities

Assessment of cumulative effects of the entireprogramming document

Evaluation of proposed management system

Evaluation of proposed monitoring system

Compilation of Environmental Report

Typical Ex-ante Evaluation Steps

Analysis of the previous evaluation results (thatdetermines the critical factors affecting implementationand effectiveness of the policy and the types of problemin terms of policy evaluability and monitoring)

Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and potential ofthe state, region or sector concerned46

Assessment of the rationale and the overall consistencyof the strategy

Evaluation of expected socio-economic impacts andjustification of the policy and financial resource allocation

Evaluation of the implementation and monitoringarrangements

Compilation of Report from Ex-ante evaluation

Table 5.1. Similarities between the SEA steps presented in this Handbook and usual steps within ex-ante evaluations of Cohesion Policyprogramming documents

■ Leave enough time (20 responses)■ Start early, plan ahead, and make sure that the

SEA is linked to the plan-making process (13)■ Go to seminars, read the guidance, look at other

examples, network with other authorities whohave already gone through the process (13)

■ Don’t be over-ambitious, and especially keep theSEA framework (the ‘test questions’ against whichthe plan is assessed) simple (10)

■ Involve other people in the local authority and otherauthorities (10)

■ Get consultants to do the SEA (10)■ Do the SEA in-house, appoint an SEA/sustainability

appraisal officer, get work study students to helpyou (9)

■ Be clear about key findings; the SEA is meant toinfluence the plan; be constructive and honest (5)

■ Don’t panic! It does get easier the second timearound (3)

Taken from Therivel and Walsh (2005)47

Box 5.1. Key messages from authorities that undertook SEA orsustainability appraisal

43SEA Directive, Article 5, paragraph 244SEA Directive, Article 4, paragraph 345SEA Directive, Article 5, paragraph 246This should include an appraisal of the environmental situation of the region (or territory)

concerned, which should address its main strengths and weaknesses to understand theopportunities for, and threats to, economic development in terms of the environmentalassets and liabilities of the area.47Therivel, R. and F. Walsh (2005) “The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive inthe UK: One Year On,” submitted to Environmental Impact Assessment Review, availableat www.levett-therivel.co.uk.

6.1 Key documents for Cohesion Policy

Programming and SEA

Proposals for the new Structural Funds regulations for theperiod 2007-2013:http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/reg2007_cs.pdf

Draft Community Strategic Guidelines:http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/reg2007_cs.pdf

SEA Directive: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/

Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to theConvention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in aTransboundary Context:http://www.unece.org/env/eia/documents/protocolenglish.pdf

6.2 SEA References and Guidance

European Commission

The European Commission DG Environment maintains apage on studies, reports and guidance documents relatedto the implementation of SEA in the EU. This site containsthe Handbook on Environmental Assessment of RegionalDevelopment Plans and EU Structural Funds Programmes(EC DG Environment, 1998), as well as the EC guidance onthe implementation of the SEA Directive.http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/sea-support.htm

The BEACON (Building Environmental AssessmentCONsensus on the Trans-European transport network)Project; The SEA Manual: A Sourcebook on StrategicEnvironmental Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plansand Programmeshttp://www.isis-it.com/download/sea%20manual%20-%2021-10-05.zip

International Association of Impact Assessment

Conference material: International experience andperspectives in SEA, 26-30 September 2005, Prague, CzechRepublic. A special thematic meeting of the InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment.



http://www.iaia.org/Non_Members/Conference/SEA%20Prague/sea_prague_main_page.htm

Spain

Environmental Assessment of Structural Programming2007-2013: Guide for Planning Mangers, (Ministry ofEnvironment of Spain, Draft November 2004):http://www.mma.es/polit_amb/fondos/redauto/pdf/guide_eae.pdf

United Kingdom

Strategic Environmental Assessment and SustainabilityAppraisal of the South West Regional Economic Strategy:Draft Reports http://www.southwestrda.org.uk/downloads/sub-section.asp?subsectionid=13&lang=

SEA guidance on the Environment Agency for England andWales: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/512398/830672/?version=1&lang=_e

A Practical Guide to the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment Directive, September 2005, Office of theDeputy Prime Minister, London.http://www.odpm.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1143292

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive:Guidance for Planning Authorities, October 2003, Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister, London.http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143289

Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies andLocal Development Frameworks, November 2005, Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister.http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1161341

New EU Member States

SEA of National Development Plans in the Czech Republic,Poland, Slovenia, Estonia in 2003 and assessment ofselected operational programmes in Hungary, Bulgaria andthe Czech Republic in 2003.http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/EnvironmentalAssessment/SEAActivities.htmlunder “National Activities”

Key documents, references,guidance

6



This text is based on significant adaptation of the Appendix7 of UK ODPM Guidance.48 An internet link to the originalsource is provided in the footnote and in Chapter 6.

NB: Clearly not all of these options are applicable in allcases. Some alternatives may not be practical, or may not

be appropriate to a particular stage or level of planning.Nevertheless, the suggestions in the table could suggest awider, and more sustainable, range of alternatives than maybe considered in traditional economic developmentplanning.

Annex IExamples of alternatives at the levelof objectives/priorities and at the levelof measures and eligible activities

Interventions thatmay be proposedwithin EUCohesion Policy

Alternatives at the level ofobjectives (demand-relatedalternatives)

Alternatives at the level of measures and eligible activities

Means of delivery Timing/sequencingLocation

Transport andaccessibility

Housing

Waste

Reduce the need to travel by:■ supporting community-

scale infrastructure andservices

■ reducing the need forwork-related travel (e.g.homeworking,teleconferencing)

If extra traffic capacity isunavoidable: ■ design at minimum

necessary capacity■ do not discourage other

modes (walking, cyclingand public transport)

Promote energy-efficientforms of housing

Encourage rebuilding athigher densities

Encourage waste prevention,reuse, recycling andenvironmentally friendlywaste treatment

Encourage walkingandcycling

Support good publictransport, matched tojourney desires(e.g. provide sites formodal interchange,protect rail corridors)

Use existingbuilding stock (convertredundantnon-domesticbuildings,loft conversions)

Use existinginfrastructure innew construction

Introduceenvironmentalmanagement systemsat enterprises

Minimise noise, landtake and visualintrusion

Locate bike standsand bus stops moreconveniently thanparking

Focus newhousing onbrownfield sitesand away fromfloodplains

Avoid housingdevelopments that areremote from socialservices andinfrastructure

Locate wastemanagementsites near sourceof waste and/orusers of waste asresource

Have walking/cyclinginfrastructure andpublic transportservices in placebefore developmentcomes into use

Match timing ofhousing developmentwith provisionof public service

Secure protection andimprovements ofcommunal openspaces beforedevelopment begins

Require preparation ofwaste managementplans beforedevelopment of wastemanagementinfrastructure



Annex IInterventions thatmay be proposedwithin EUCohesion Policy

Alternatives at the level ofobjectives (demand-relatedalternatives)

Alternatives at the level of measures and eligible activities

Means of delivery Timing/sequencingLocation

Energy

Water

Decrease use of primaryenergy sources (i.e. reducedemand for energy andgenerate energy fromrenewable sources)

Use waste as aresource byproviding facilitiesfor storingrecyclableproducts (e.g.architecturalsalvage yards,sites for storageof recycledaggregates)

Provide recyclingfacilities at housingand employmentsites.

Use materialsefficiently inconstruction.

Use recycled materialsin construction.

Promote best availableenergy efficiencytechnologies inbuilding constructionand operation (usematerials with lowembodied energy, lowenergy lighting andappliances, highinsulation standardsand insulation ofwindows)

Promote renewableenergy, energy fromwaste, and combinedheat and power

Promote use ofwater-saving devices,e.g. low-flowshowers, low-flushtoilets

Promote rainwatercollection systems,effluent recycling

Site housing tooptimize solar gain

Small-scale,renewableenergyinstallations tominimisetransmissionloss

Consider severalsmaller facilitiesrather than onelarge one

48A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, September2005, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.http://www.odpm.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1143292



The table below suggests some objectives and indicatorsthat are recommended for use in SEA practice in the UK.49

These objectives can be modified to take into account localcircumstances and concerns. A plan or programmeconcerned with minerals, for example, could include more

objectives for soil and water quality, maintenance of thehydrological regime, and mineral reserves, and couldexpress them in more detailed terms.

Annex IIExample of environmental objectivesand indicators used in SEA practice

Elements of theenvironmentdefined by the SEADirective

Possible relevant objectives (to be adapted toregional/local circumstances by deletions,additions and refinements)

Possible indicators (to be adapted to regional/localcircumstances by deletions, additions andrefinements) that can be used in quantifying thebaseline, prediction and monitoring

Biodiversity, faunaand flora

Population andhuman health

Water and soil

■ avoid damage to designated wildlife andgeological sites and protected species

■ maintain biodiversity, avoiding irreversiblelosses

■ restore the full range of characteristic habitatsand species to viable levels

■ reverse the long term decline in farmland birds■ ensure the sustainable management of key

wildlife sites and the ecological processes onwhich they depend

■ provide opportunities for people to come intocontact with and appreciate wildlife and wildplaces

■ create conditions to improve health and reducehealth inequalities

■ promote healthy living■ protect and enhance human health■ reduce and prevent crime, reduce fear of crime■ decrease noise and vibration■ increase opportunities for indoor recreation and

exercise

■ limit water pollution to levels that do notdamage natural systems

■ maintain water abstraction, run-off andrecharge within carrying capacity (includingfuture capacity)

■ reduce contamination, and safeguard soilquality and quantity

■ reported levels of damage to designatedsites/species

■ achievement of Biodiversity Action Plan targets ■ reported condition of nationally important wildlife

sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, etc.■ achievement of “Accessible Natural Greenspace

Standards”■ number/area of Local Nature Reserves

■ size of population■ changes in demography■ years of healthy life expectancy / infant mortality

rate■ mortality by cause■ recorded crimes per 1,000 population■ fear of crime surveys■ number of transport/pedestrian/cyclist road

accidents■ number of people affected by ambient noise levels■ proportion of tranquil areas ■ percentage of population living in most deprived

areas/reliant on key benefits/income deprived■ general resident perception surveys

■ quality (biology and chemistry) of rivers, canalsand freshwater bodies

■ quality and quantity of groundwater■ water use (by sector, including leakage), availability

and proportions recycled■ water availability for water-dependent habitats,

especially designated wetlands



Annex IIElements of theenvironmentdefined by theSEA Directive

Possible relevant objectives (to be adapted toregional/local circumstances by deletions,additions and refinements)

Possible indicators (to be adapted to regional/localcircumstances by deletions, additions andrefinements) that can be used in quantifying thebaseline, prediction and monitoring

Air

Climate Factors

Cultural heritageand landscape

■ minimize waste, then re-use or recover itthrough recycling, composting or energyrecovery

■ maintain and restore key ecological processes(e.g. hydrology, water quality, coastalprocesses)

■ limit air pollution to levels that do not damagenatural systems

■ reduce the need to travel■ reduce respiratory illnesses

■ reduce greenhouse gas emissions■ reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate

change e.g. flooding, disruption to travel byextreme weather, etc.

■ preserve historic buildings, archaeological sitesand other culturally important features

■ create places, spaces and buildings that workwell, wear well and look well

■ protect and enhance the landscapeeverywhere and particularly in designatedareas

■ value and protect diversity and localdistinctiveness

■ improve the quantity and quality of publiclyaccessible open space

■ amount/loss of greenfield / brownfield land andproportion available for reuse

■ number of houses affected by subsidence,instability, etc.

■ housing density■ waste disposed of in landfill■ contaminated land■ flood risk

■ number of days of air pollution■ levels of key air pollutants / by sector and per

capita■ achievement of Emission Limit Values■ population living in Air Quality Management Area■ access to key services■ distances travelled per person per year by mode

of transport■ modal split■ traffic volumes

■ electricity and gas use■ electricity generated from renewable energy

sources and CHP located in the area■ energy consumption per building and per

occupant■ carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions■ flood risk

■ percentage of Listed Buildings and archaeologicalsites ‘at risk’

■ number and proportion of vacant dwellings■ building functionality: use, access, space■ building impact: form and materials, internal

environment, urban and social integration,character and innovation

■ percentage of land designated for particular qualityor amenity value, including publicly accessible landand greenways

■ proportion of population within 200m of parks andopen spaces

■ percentage of residents rating improvement/otherin activities for teenagers, cultural facilitiesincluding for children and sport, leisure andparkland facilities

49A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, Office of theDeputy Prime Minister, September 2005 http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143289



a an outline of the contents, main objectives of the plan orprogramme and relationship with other relevant plansand programmes;

b the relevant aspects of the current state of theenvironment and the likely evolution thereof withoutimplementation of the plan or programme;

c the environmental characteristics of areas likely to besignificantly affected;

d any existing environmental problems which are relevantto the plan or programme including, in particular, thoserelating to any areas of a particular environmentalimportance, such as areas designated pursuant toDirectives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC;

e the environmental protection objectives, established atinternational, Community or Member State level, whichare relevant to the plan or programme and the waythose objectives and any environmental considerationshave been taken into account during its preparation;

f the likely significant effects50 on the environment,including on issues such as biodiversity, population,human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climaticfactors, material assets, cultural heritage includingarchitectural and archaeological heritage, landscape andthe interrelationship between the above factors;

g the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fullyas possible offset any significant adverse effects on theenvironment of implementing the plan or programme;

h an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternativesdealt with, and a description of how the assessmentwas undertaken including any difficulties (such astechnical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encounteredin compiling the required information;

i a description of the measures envisaged concerningmonitoring in accordance with Article 10;

j a non-technical summary of the information providedunder the above headings.

Annex IIIContents of the EnvironmentalReport as outlined in Annex I of theSEA Directive

50These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium andlong-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects.



The following checklist is adopted from the “QualityAssurance checklist” found in Appendix 4 of the UKdocument Sustainability Appraisal of Regional SpatialStrategies and Local Development Documents.51 Thischecklist can help to ensure that the requirements of theSEA Directive are met, identify problems in the SEAEnvironmental Report, and show how effectively theappraisal has integrated environmental considerations intothe programming document. The checklist may be appliedat any stage of the SEA process to check the quality of thework carried out up to that point.

Objectives and context■ The purpose of the programming document and its

objectives are made clear.■ Links with other related plans, programmes and policies

are identified and explained.■ Relevant environmental issues stipulated by the SEA

directive and highlighted in the relevant European,national or sub-national policy documents are considered

■ Relevant environmental objectives are clearly set out andlinked to indicators or specific questions on which theSEA will focus.

■ Conflicts between relevant environmental objectives andthe objectives of the programming document areidentified and described.

Determining the scope of the SEA ■ The relevant environmental authorities are consulted in

appropriate ways and at appropriate times on thecontent and scope of the SEA Report.

■ The assessment focuses on significant issues.■ Technical, procedural and other difficulties encountered

are discussed; assumptions and uncertainties are madeexplicit.

■ Reasons are given for eliminating issues from furtherconsideration.

Baseline information■ Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment

and their likely evolution without the programmingdocument are described.

■ Characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affectedby the programming document are described.

■ Difficulties such as deficiencies in information ormethods are explained.

Assessment of options■ Realistic alternatives for priorities, measures and

conditions for implementation are considered.■ The environmental effects (both adverse and beneficial)

of each alternative are identified, compared, and thereasons for choosing them are documented.

■ Reasons are given for selection or elimination ofalternatives.

■ Difficulties such as deficiencies in information ormethods are explained.

Mitigation measures■ Measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and offset any

significant adverse effects of implementing the plan areindicated.

■ Issues to be taken into account in developmentconsents are identified.

The Environmental Report■ The report is clear and concise in its layout and

presentation.■ The report uses simple, clear language and avoids or

explains technical terms.■ The report uses maps and other illustrations where

appropriate.■ The report explains the methodology used.■ The report explains who was consulted and what

methods of consultation were used■ The report identifies sources of information, including

expert judgement and matters of opinion.■ The report contains a non-technical summary.

Annex IVSEA Review Checklist



Annex IV

51Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies And Local DevelopmentDocuments, November 2005, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1161341

Consultations with relevant environmental authoritiesand the public■ Consultations on the SEA are an integral part of the

process.■ The relevant environmental authorities and the public are

consulted in ways which give them an early and effectiveopportunity within appropriate time frames to expresstheir opinions on the draft programming document andthe Environmental Report.

Decision-making and information on the decision■ The Environmental Report and the opinions of those

consulted are taken into account in finalising andadopting the programming document.

■ An explanation is given of how they have been takeninto account.

■ Reasons are given for choices in the adoptedprogramming document, in the light of other reasonableoptions considered.

The GRDP partnership works in association with:

Bristol City Council, UK Castilla and Leon Regional Development Agency, SpainDepartment of Environmental Protection and Reclamation, Programming Waste Management,Piemonte Region, Italy Natural England, UK Eszak Alfold Region, Hungary Learning and Skills Council for Devon and Cornwall, UK Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, Bulgaria Ministry of Environment, Secretariat of the Spanish Environmental Authorities Network, Spain North Great Plain Regional Development Agency, Hungary Objective 1 Partnership Office, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Programme, UK Objective 2 Programme for the South West of England, UK Regional Environment Authority of Campania, Italy Regional Environment Authority of the Calabria Region, Italy Regional Environment Authority of the Piemonte Region, ItalyRegional Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Galicia, Spain South West of England Regional Development Agency, UK United Nations Development Programme, Bulgaria





The GRDP partnership is:

Cornwall County Council, UK

Development Agency of Langhe Monferrato Roero - Consortium, Italy

Devon County Council, UK

Environment Agency for England and Wales, UK (lead partner)

Environment Management, Nurseries and Afforestations of Navarra, Spain

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria

Italian Environmental Authority for Structural Funds, Italy

Local Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona, Spain

Malta Environment and Planning Authority, Malta

Marche Environmental Authority, Italy

Med.O.R.O. - Organization for Research, Orientation and Territorial Development in the Mediterranean, Italy

Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Territorial Policies, La Rioja, Spain

Municipality of Wroclaw, Poland

Regional Environmental Authority for Structural Funds, Sicily region, Italy

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), Hungary

University of Debrecen, Centre for Environmental Management and Policy, Hungary

Western Greece Region, Greece

Contact

GRDP project teamEnvironment AgencyManley House, Kestrel Way Exeter EX2 7LQ, UK. Tel : +44 (0)1392 442170 Email: [email protected] our website: www.grdp.org P

rinte

d on

100

% r

ecyc

led

pape

r. C

over

imag

e ©

Nad

olsk

i