Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) · SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been defined as "a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

Table of ContentsStrategic Environmental Assessment.............................................................................................................1/1.........................................................................................................................................................................1/27............................................................................................................................................................1/27

1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................1/272 Methodology....................................................................................................................................2/273 Process.............................................................................................................................................2/274 Review.............................................................................................................................................4/27

4.1 Evaluation results...................................................................................................................4/274.2 Experiences.........................................................................................................................12/274.3 Combinations.......................................................................................................................14/274.4 Strengths and Weaknesses...................................................................................................18/274.5 Further work.........................................................................................................................20/274.6 References............................................................................................................................21/27


i

Strategic Environmental Assessment

1/1

Kerstin Ehrhardt and Måns Nilsson ([email protected])

1 Introduction

This paper describes the evaluation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) framework carried outin the EC−funded 'Sustainability A−TEST' project. Because there is no single "prototypical" SEA, this sectionwill not give a definite statement on how to conduct SEA. The aim is to point towards the diversity in SEApractice and gaps against theory. The focus is on practice as it has recently been applied across Europeanmember states and in various research projects, but also draws on some recent global experiences. With theaim to understand the practice of SEA, including major strengths and weaknesses of the SEA as aframework, a relatively limited number of cases were studied at some depth, including studies of the finishedSEA reports and document as well as interviews with the desk officers and consultants involved.

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been defined as "a systematic process for evaluating theenvironmental consequences of proposed policy, plan or programme initiatives in order to ensure they arefully included and addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making on par with economic andsocial considerations" (Sadler and Verheem, 1996, p. 27). Forms of SEA have been in place since EIA wasfirst introduced in 1969 and, arguably, for an even longer time in land and resource planning practice.SEA−type approaches beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s reflect an extension of EIA to include area−wideand regional assessments, and landscape−level or synoptic methodologies for cumulative effects assessment.Early references to the application of environmental assessment to policy can be found in various sources (e.g.Wathern, 1988; Jacobs and Sadler, 1989; Bregha et al., 1990). During the1990s, SEA was introduced as aseparate process from EIA in a number of countries. Several perspectives and reviews of SEA were publishedin 1992, notably a UNECE (1992) report on principals and procedures that were agreed amongst a range ofparticipating countries. Other studies also endorsed the need for SEA, compared its similarities anddifferences to EIA and elaborated the potential scope of procedure and practice (Wood and Djeddour, 1992;Therivel et al., 1992), and the latter also discussed possible methodologies for undertaking SEA. A specialissue of the journal Project Appraisal in 1992 (Vol 7 (3), Sept 1992) examined the (then) status of SEA in theUSA, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, in relation to land−use planning, the water environmentand transport sector. In this volume, Lee and Walsh (1992) examined the reasons for the growth of interest inSEA, focusing on the limitations of project−level EIA. Many authors have returned to this themesubsequently. In the mid 1990s, the status and effectiveness of SEA processes in leading countries andinternational agencies were critically evaluated by Sadler and Verheem (1996), as part of the InternationalStudy of EA Effectiveness (Sadler 1996). Their analysis was based on a portfolio of 52 case studies andinstitutional profiles of SEA systems established by leading countries and international agencies. A separatevolume was prepared on SEA at the policy level (see de Boer and Sadler, 1996). Apart from reporting onSEA−like experience at the World Bank, both volumes focused almost exclusively on developed countries(and this emphasis is continued in new updates now in preparation). A further 10 case studies − one from adeveloping country (Nepal) − grouped under three categories (sectoral SEAs, SEAs of land−use plans, andSEAs of policies) − can be found in Therivel and Partidario (1996), who review international SEA guidanceand regulations and discuss models and methodologies.

From the mid 1980s the EC made several attempts to adopt regulations on SEA. In 1989, a consultationprocess with national EIA−experts was started, which led to an official directive proposal in 1996. After manyrounds of revisions, this directive was agreed on in 2001 and finally entered into force in 2004. The directiveis popularly referred to as the SEA directive although the official name does not refer to SEA as such: "directive on environmental assessments of certain plans and programs" (European Parliament and Council ofthe European Union, 2001) Nonetheless, it provides a legislative framework for SEA at the national level.Until recently, only a relative small number of developed countries and state jurisdictions had made formalprovision for SEA, but this group has almost doubled in size following the European SEA Directive enteringinto legal force. The directive requests the competent authorities to elaborate an environmental statement andto perform consultations with the environmental authorities and the general public. However, the directiveonly addresses plans and programmes whereas SEAs in principle can be applied also to policy levels, and assuch might overlap with Impact Assessments. Application of the EC Directive is still not developed fully,

1/27

mailto:[email protected]

which, some suggest, is partly explained by the lack of methodological guidelines for its application(Finnveden et al., 2003). At the same time a even further spread of SEA as a policy innovation is likely due tothe adoption of the SEA−Directive throughout the EU (Jacob and Volkery, 2003), especially in countries thathave no great experience in applying SEA (e.g. Greece and Portugal), but are now obliged to do so. Othershave extended the scope or amended the arrangements of existing SEA or SEA−like systems (e.g. France, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom).

The other regulatory provision for SEA in Europe is the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’sSEA protocol (UNECE, 2003), wich supplements the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in aTransboundary Context (the Espoo Convention) and acknowledges the 1998 Convention on Access toInformation, Public Participation in Decision making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (theAarhus Convention). The UNECE SEA Protocol is open to all UN members. Developed by an UN ad hocworking group, finalized in January 2003, and signed by 35 countries, the UNECE SEA Protocol will comeinto force after the 16th State has ratified. The Protocol´s requirements are quite similar to those of the EUDirective. Requirement does only exist concerning SEA of plans and programs. Since the UNECE Protocol isaimed at all UN countries with their very different judicial systems, the Protocol includes more requirementsabout ratification, integration, implementation, modification etc. than the EC Directive. Unlike the ECDirective, the Protocol also addresses policies and legislation and it mentions public participation and healthissues, as an environmental issue, more explicitly than the Directive.

The scope of this document is wider than the EC Directive. Although the Directive provides the legislativeframework in Europe, the potential application of SEA is wider and broader both in terms of applications atdifferent levels, in terms of the process, and in terms of the scope of impacts considered.

2 Methodology

SEA methodologies vary from sector to sector and from case to case. SEA is a flexible process tool ratherthan a precise analytical methodology. Instead, methodologies have to be selected in each application to covereach of the different stages of the process (see below). These may include different types of futures studies(scenario exercises), systems analysis, risk assessments, life−cycle assessments, economic appraisal tools, andmulti−criteria analysis (Nilsson, et al 2005). It should be noted that consultation is an important part of SEA.The EC Directive includes requirements for consultations of:

environmental authorities when deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information whichmust be included in the environmental report (Art.5.4)

•

environmental authorities and the public, who must be given an early and effective opportunity withinappropriate timeframes to express their opinion on the draft plan and the accompanyingenvironmental report before the plan’s adoption (Art. 6.1, 6.2)

•

other EU Member States where the plan’s implementation is considered likely to have significanteffects on the environment of those States (Art.7).

•

3 Process

Most SEA regulations do not stipulate the process of undertaking the SEA, but focus on the content of theassessment report. The EC directive stipulates the preparation of an environmental report in which the likelysignificant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or program and reasonable alternatives areidentified, described and evaluated. The information to be given is (Art. 5 and Annex I):

the contents and main objectives of the plan or program and its relationship with other relevant plansand programs

1.

the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolutionthereof withoutimplementation of the plan

2.

the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected3.


2/27

any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan4. environmental objectives which are relevant to the plan and the way those objectivesand anyenvironmental considerations have been taken into account during itspreparation

5.

the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment6. proposed ways of mitigating any significant adverse environmental affects7. the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description on how theassessment wasundertaken

8.

proposed monitoring measures and9. a non−technical summary of the above. 10.

The report must include the information that may reasonably be required, taking into account currentknowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan, its stage in thedecision−making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at differentlevels in that process in order to avoid duplication of the assessment (Art. 5.2).

However, practitioners and researchers agree that if SEA is to be “a systematic process for evaluating theenvironmental consequences of proposed policy, plan or program initiatives, in order to ensure they are fullyincluded and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making on par witheconomic and social considerations” (Sadler and Verheem, 1996); then the preparation of a report is notenough. Instead, a step−wise process that runs in parallel with the decision−making process is typicallyenvisioned. This is believed to enable more up−stream considerations of environmental values. There aremany varieties, but as a general template it can be said to include the following main components. However,a lot of variations on this basic scheme can be found.

Figure: Basic SEA template

Source: Nilsson et al., 2005


3/27

4 Review

This section evaluates SEA according to the Sustainability−A−test−project criteria. The evaluation aims torepresent SEA experience and practice in different regions/areas of application rather than the theoreticaltext−book "ideal" application. To reflect as many different experiences in applying SEA in Europe aspossible, the cases include developed countries and countries in transition, new and old EU−member statesand non−EU members.

4.1 Evaluation results

Policy processes

SEA is supposed to be a procedural instrument for the evaluation of all stages of the decision−making cycleand can be used flexibly according to the situation and the desired outcome. SEA can be integrated asstrategic decision support that can operate ex ante, i.e. very early in decision−making processes, integratedand can also be used ex post, as an evaluation tool of the whole process and its outcomes. Ideally thosemoments in the decision−making process that have an environmental dimension can be identified in a plan,program or policy and SEA can be used to provide useful feedback to the whole process (Dalkmann et al.,2002; Dalkmann and Bongardt, 2002).

SEA application throughout Europe is mostly found during policy estimation, leading to policy selection. It isalso frequently applied in ex−post evaluation. In the context of the French State−Region planning contracts(CPERs) for instance, three types of environmental assessments were developed (André et al., 2003): a priorenvironmental assessment to prepare for a decision, based on the precautionary principle; an accompanyingassessment allowing for periodic review of the environmental effects of decisions following implementationand an ex−post assessment. Some examples for SEA use in all phases of the policy process will be presentedbelow, although it shall be avered that SEA to date is most frequently used during policy estimation and asex−post evaluation tool.

Policy initiation

In their guidance materials, several European countries (e.g. Spain) request their SEA executors to implementex−ante assessment during policy initiation. However, SEA in this early stage was rarely found in theliterature study and in the assessed cases. One exception was an assessment of five land−use pilot projectsfrom Norway done by Dalal−Clayton and Sadler (2004), which showed that SEA and its elements were foundespecially useful to strengthen the early phase of planning by providing a precise prescription for the processand documentation. In Nilsson et al. (2005), SEA is used to integrate into the process those environmentalobjectives that the policy programme needs to consider.

Policy estimation

Although SEA should in principle be useful in all stages of policy making, in practice it has been most usefulin the policy estimation phase. The Austrian case with its new efforts in executing SEA can be used asexample for SEAs implemented during policy estimation (BMLFUW, 2004). All of the Austrian pilot SEAsimprove the planning process, e.g. through considering alternatives, analysing environmental consequencesand documenting the likely environmental effects. Similar implementation can be found in many otherEuropean countries, in old as well as new Member States such as Czech Republic, as for example within theSEA of the Waste−Management Plan of the Plzen region (WMP−Pl). The proponent organized a single publicparticipation process that would serve both the planning and the SEA process, which was conducted duringthe phase of policy estimation (Ministry of the environment and Mitsubishi Research Institute INC of Japan,2003).

Policy selection


4/27

SEAs can be found in the step of policy selection as well. In particular, in some recent Austrian SEAs, alsocontributed to the adoption of better quality plans and program. (BMLFUW, 2004; Magistrat der Stadt Wien,2004). Within those, the environmental concerns were taken into account in decision making, which meansthe SEAs were part of policy selection.

Policy implementation

Using SEA in implementation is in principle possible: the development of mitigation measures andapplication of an environmental management plan are linked to implementation. However, in practice SEA israrely used during implementation. In Spain, a special step for SEA implementation, called mid−termevaluation, has been under development during the last years. The assessment is supposed to be conductedduring the policies implementation, but relies strongly on the ex−ante evaluation supposed to have taken placeduring policy initiation, estimation and selection (Sunyer, 2003). This mid−term evaluation during ongoingimplementation and with great impact on the future implementation is a quite unique construction withoutmany parallels throughout Europe.

Ex−post evaluation: Policy evaluation and policy termination

To date, SEA has been applied mainly as a retroactive step – after policies, programs or plans have beendeveloped, prepared and agreed. It has therefore undertaken more or less as an after−the−act audit process tocheck on impacts (Dalal−Clayton and Sadler, 2004). However, the use of SEA in real ex−post circumstances,i.e. after implementation, is a largely unexplored territory, although guidance often cover this step in principle.For ex−post evaluations of CPERs for example, the French Ministry of Regional Development and theEnvironment proposed an outline six−step procedure capturing the main principles (Larrue and Lerond 1998).Similar examples can be found throughout Europe.

Operational aspects

Costs

The most commonly reported constraints to the consideration of environmental issues in policy decisionswere insufficient financial resources (besides the lack of background information, other agencies’ contraryinterests and ministerial direction) (Bailey and Renton, 1997). In France, for instance, only SEAs evaluatingthe most important infrastructure initiatives (e.g. major highways, high speed rail, international airports andharbours) are usually sponsored by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport. However, it is usuallydifficult to identify the real costs of SEA, since there are many factors that are difficult to assess. The time ofofficials devoted to the SEA process, is just one example. The cost estimation is therefore mostly restricted toconsultant and planner fees and is usually referred to as percentage of the overall planning costs or projectcosts or as an equivalent of man−years. Nilsson et al. (2001) estimate the necessary resources for twooptions: an ambitious and a simpler SEA within the scope of the a natural gas expansion in Sweden.According to their estimate, he more ambitious approach is twice as expensive (estimated cost 240.000 Euros)as the simpler one (estimated cost 120.000 Euros). Thus the program initiator has to decide on his preferencesand weighting according the evaluation of the object and has an almost unlimited margin to decide howexhaustive the assessment should be conducted (see Box 4.4.1).

Box 4.4.1: Variable costs

The greatest entries in the budget that can be varied as desired, are:

primarily data collection versus secondary literature,• modeling of environmental effects,• ambitious or less ambitious stakeholder consultation and•


5/27

ambitious or less ambitious scenario analysis.• Source: Nilsson et al, 2001

The costs found in literature and case studies added up to between 15% to 35% of the overall planning costs,or 0.1% to 15% of the investment costs. In Austria for instance, the total cost for the SEA for land−use planWeiz (1997−1999) was approximately 20% of the planning costs (Sheate et al., 2001). However, in this case,it was expected that the cost for future SEAs would be less than in this first complete Austrian SEA, sinceobviously pioneer projects do need more time and money. Altogether, the cost of SEA will be graduallyreduced by increased experience, especially through decreased time needs.

Time needs

Therivel (2004) shows the possibility for different formats. In her estimate, the time needs might differbetween 50−100 person−working days for a reasonably brief and efficient SEA and up to severalperson−years. Nilsson et al (2001) estimate time needs between 6 and 10 months for the ambitious and theless ambitious approach, mentioned above. In the Dutch “SEA on the policy plan drinking water supply” thetotal human resource need was the equivalent of approximately 3 person−years. The respective real caseapplication is estimated as depending on financial resources for the evaluation.

Most real case SEAs, are conducted during a period of several years (European Commission, 1997) and in thecase studies durations between 6 months and over two years could be found. If conducted during or parallel tothe actual project’s planning process, it is important to state that the SEA does not necessary causes timedelay, as e.g. in revising the Weiz land−use plan in Austria, where the SEA did not delay the planning processat all. The time need of an SEA is not necessarily inherent to the SEA methods, techniques and dataavailability but often dependent on the complexity of the decision−making process, as a natural consequenceof running the SEA parallel to it.

Human resource needs

Human resources must be made available both on the side of the proponent (the authority) and, usually,through an assessment team made up of consultants, analysts, or researchers. These human resource needs canbe varied to a great extent by the SEA initiator: according to Nilsson et al (2001) a project leader, anenvironmental analyst, a modeller, a scenario expert, a participation expert and an assistant would be neededfor the more ambitious SEA version, altogether needing 1.5 person−years, while in the less ambitious versionthe modeller and the participation expert are left out and the time need is estimated as 10 person−months.

Data availability

Data availability is one of the fundaments for quality SEA. It differs a lot between diverse cases and dependsstrongly on financial resources, whose availability depends on the political will, priorities and preferences ofthe accountable decision makers. Usually, the detailed statistics that would be necessary for a SEA do notexist. In such cases the executors need to undertake own research. Evaluating the Danish SEAimplementation, Dalal−Clayton and Sadler (2004) record the process to be carried out only to the extent thatadministrative and data limitations allow. To achieve the necessary information and data for SEA, differentinformation sources are usually applied. Those range from expert interrogation, over tool use (see chapter 4.7)to appliance of European, national and regional (as far as available) statistical data. Officials and bureaucratsare important information sources as well. To increase data availability an additional best practice example isfound for the Dutch E−test, which uses the approach of an informal inter ministerial co−operation facilitatedby the Proposed Legislation Desk. In the case of SWARMMS corridors in the South West Area Multi−modalstudy (UK) for example, the data was based on different sources: Government Office Regions (GORs) of theSouth East and the South West data, approximations for some modes, based on national averages adjusted bydata (where it existed) for similar regions and national average figures (Government Office for the Southwest,2002b).


6/27

Public access /transparency

Public access to SEA documents and even the whole SEA process is applied quite differently throughoutEurope. In Portugal, studies, evaluation and reports, conducted and collected for the only known applicationof an SEA approach to date, are not publicly available at all. The Danish background assessment statements inthe SEA process as well as other relevant reports are all to be made publicly accessible, in Germany theresults of the assessments during the FTIP planning process for instance are all published online, whereas inFrance EIAs are made public at the very end of the planning process through a "public enquiry procedure" setup by a special Préfet (Administrator). In the Netherlands the two assessment structures (see Box 4.2.4) usedifferent approaches for the publication of the results: The E−test´s results of the agreement between theresponsible ministry and the Proposed Legislation desk are documented but not reported in public; thelegislative report and accompanying documents are added to the submission form to the Cabinetsub−committee or the Cabinet only in case of disagreement and are not made public, whereas the SEAstructure includes a mandatory publication of a separate report on the assessment results, including anexecutive summary and it is mandatory to publicly report how the result of the assessment was taken intoaccount in the plan or program developed.

Guidance

Guidance documents for SEA application are provided to a great extent in the different European countriesand examples can be found on all governmental levels. Guidance material for SEA existed in all reviewedcountries from EU−15 and could even be found in some CEE and NIS states. These were either guidancedocuments prepared by consultants and commissions on order of governments or voluntarily prepared in thecourse of SEA implementation and mostly based on archetypes from more experienced countries. InDenmark, national guidance has been issued by the Ministry of Energy and Environment, which also providesadvice on their application. This material includes a checklist for screening the potential environmental effectsof a proposal and information on undertaking an assessment. As a special treat, case examples are included inthe guidance material (Wolff, 2004). A similar approach is undertaken by the Dutch Ministry of Environmentby editing a special guidance document for the E−test, including case examples (Noteboom, 2004). Regionalguidance is provided through e.g. the special SEA guidelines of the Italian “Provincia Autonoma di Trento”(APT, 2000). Good practice guidance has been prepared in the UK as well, for both English local authoritiesand central government departments and even to assist external organisations in carrying out SEA (Office ofthe Deputy Prime Minister, 2003) .

Most guidance documents to date have been prepared in connection with the adoption of national legalregulations on SEA. Guidance on how to implement the EU SEA Directive was published by the EuropeanCommission in September 2003. At the same time, new guidance is underway in several countries (e.g. Spain,Sweden, and Germany), trying to include the new and additional requirements resulting from the EU SEADirective and in some cases even anticipatory already including the UNECE Protocol requirements, into thenational structures.

The extent to which guidance documents are used seems questionnable in most countries, since guidancematerial was seldom quoted in the reviewed reports. Exceptions, where the extensive national guidance onSEA is really used to a great extend, can be found of course: One example are the SEAs for the transportsector in the UK, which can build on Guidance on Methodology for Multi Modal Studies (GOMMMS): e.g.the SWARMMS study mentioned above and further down, followed the detailed guidance contained inGOMMMS (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000) step by step.

Mandatory SEA−usage to date

The SEA directive was due to be implemented by 2004 in all Member countries. This gives a solid legal basisfor SEA for certain plans and programmes, whereas others, and policy level decisions, are still not mandatory.National legislations complement the directive at the policy level to varying degrees. In 1993, the FrenchMinistry of Environment took a first step towards legislating for a kind of SEA. A French SEA is conducted if


7/27

the ministry in charge “estimates the proposal will have an essential environmental impact” and a similarapproach is used in Finland as well. Under the Finnish EIA Act 1994 (Section 24), all policies, plans andprograms that are likely to have a significant effect on the environment require assessment. The need for anSEA is determined by the responsible authority for the policy, plan or program. In Germany, requirements forenvironmental assessment at strategic levels of decision−making were introduced already in 1972. Those wereaimed at legislative procedures and in 1975, the “principles for the environmental assessment of publicmeasures by the Federal Government” were formulated for draft legislation as well as draft governmentalregulations and activities concerning the environment, but in practice, these were seldom applied (Cupei,1994). In the Netherlands, two SEA systems are in place: the first, the environmental test of law andregulation (called E−test), was introduced in 1995, and is a policy requirement of the Government. Thesecond system addresses SEAs of specified plans and programs, which are a statutory requirement of the EIAAct (1987). Denmark established SEA for new acts and other governmental proposals submitted to the DanishParliament already in 1993. Guidelines for such SEA implementation were produced by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Energy in Denmark in 1994. In 1995 and 1998, amendments were made to theAdministrative Order to strengthen its scope and application.

Time scale/Time horizon

SEAs can be as retrospective or prospective as the tools used within their framework. The choice of toolsshould match the planning horizon. Scenarios addressing the future within SEA are often developed for thenear future (less than 5 years), the medium−term future (10−15 years) and the longer−term future (25 years ormore). A wide range of examples on different time scales can be found e.g. the land−use plan Weiz (Austria)is valid for five years − the time scale of the considered objectives in the according SEA was different, butmostly considering some years, whereas SEAs for federal transport plans for instance, usually addresses alonger−term future.

Coverage of cross−cutting sustainability aspects

There is an on−going debate concerning the coverage of sustainability aspects in SEA. SEA is supposed toincreasingly giving way to wider sustainability or integrated appraisal as it is proposed for the UK byDalal−Claton and Sadler (2004) for example, but the cross−cutting sustainability aspects considered inA−TEST (decoupling, intergenerational equity, adaptability, irreversibility, distributional equity, globalresponsibility, marginal effects, intensity of the impact, spatial scale of the impact) are barely assessed to date.In reality, these sustainability factors are hardly ever mentioned. One exception is the guidelines of the Italian“Provincia Autonoma di Trento” (APT), which recommend assessing each specific objective for consistencywith five fundamental sustainability principles stated in the Act on sustainable development (see table 4.5.1),which was adopted by the Provincial Council in 2000 and has the explicit goal of identifying methods andprinciples to apply the concept of sustainable development.

Table 5.1: Principles and key issues of sustainability used for SEA evaluation, according to the Italianprovince APT’s Act on sustainable development

Principle Key issuesSystemic approach todevelopment

Long−term perspective

Inter− and intra−generationalequity

Efficient use of resources

Multi−actor and multi−sector planning; multi−functional use ofspace

Cumulative impacts; political versus biological and physical timeframes

Participation; information; conflict management

Quality and environmental certification


8/27

Ecological sustainability Carrying capacity; resilience; biodiversity conservationSource: Diamantini and Geneletti, 2004

A positive and exceptional aspect of the APT SEA guidelines is the effort made to integrate sustainabilityprinciples into SEA. The APT guidelines make it clear that there is a reference framework for strategicassessment and that this framework is to be seen within existing (or forthcoming) policies for sustainabledevelopment. However, this is at the same time one of the main limitations of the guidelines: they rely toomuch on the assessment of a generic consistency between the plan and the sustainability principles, whichdoes not appear satisfactory. On top of this, sustainability principles in the APT guidelines are described quitegenerally and their definition changes throughout the guidelines (Diamantini and Beneletti, 2004).

Coverage of impacts

The assessor has considerable freedom in selecting what impact variables will be used. SEA application andnational legislation has focused mostly on applying environmental aspects, which was enforced through theSEA development’s rootage in the old EIA processes. Integrated assessments (usually across the "threepillars") however achieve increasing attention and several guidance volumes now promote the inclusion ofboth social and economic aspects in the assessment. The environmental evaluation of PPPs is an ambitiousundertaking aiming at getting an exhaustive overview of cause−effect relations. In order to achieve greatereffectiveness in the evaluation it is vital to delimit and order its framework. SEAs can consider potentialimpacts at global, regional and local levels. For mandatory SEA up to date, a checklist of issues that could beaddressed was usually provided through guidelines. Impacts considered within the SEA frameworks up todate differ a lot, according to the circumstances and therefore a selection of quite different examples shall beprovided to show the range of impact combinations chosen according to the respective case and its necessities.The UNECE Protocol is less explicit in its definition of the environmental impacts to be assessed in a SEA,than the EU Directive.

European SEAs have tended to focus on environmental impacts related to emissions of pollutants. Bestpractice approach in considering biodiversity, which is an important sustainability issue, can be found e.g. inthe UK, where step−by−step guidance on SEA and explicit guidance of biodiversity consideration included inthe SEA framework, has been published (South West Ecological Surveys and Levett−Therivel sustainabilityconsultants and Oxford Brookes University, 2004).

Impact choices regarding the evaluation are not always depending on the actual executor´s decisions, but arein some countries depending on the respective guidelines, which makes SEA less flexible, but easescomparison. In Denmark for instance, the SEA impact list is the same list requiredto be addressed by projectlevel EA. It includes water including surface water and groundwater; air; climate; surface of the earth, soil andpercolation; flora and fauna including impacts on habitats and biological diversity; landscape and land use;other resources including use of renewable and non−renewable resources; waste; historical buildings andmonuments; population's health and welfare; and safety in connection with production, handling or transportof substances harmful to the environment (Bregha, 2001).

Cumulative Effects were seldom found mentioned in the assessed SEAs and they were never appraised anyfurther. But sometimes cumulative effects were at least mentioned in the report as e.g. in the SEA on theStrategic Defence Review (UK), which assessed 454 activities and stated that a number of SDR activities arenot considered to have a significant environmental impact in their own right, but if they are proposed for thesame site, there is the potential for cumulative effects to occur (Ministry of Defence, 2004). The almostnon−existent evaluation of cumulative effects weakens the SEA implementation.

In the SEAs assessed during this study, as well as through the literature studies referred to in this document,several environmental−, a few social− and very few economic impacts and /or their indicators were in therespective executors focus for the SEAs conducted. The combination of impacts set up for considerationvaried a lot, although the range of impacts in total showed the structure mentioned above. In the followingtable SEA a comparison of cases from 5 European countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, UK)


9/27

presenting typical cases, according to consideration of the Sustainability−A−test’s impact areas, is provided:

Table 6.3: Typical SEA examples from 5 European countries − Overview considered Sustainability−A−testevaluation−impacts:

Economic impactsEconomic growth SEA on land−use plan Weiz (Austria)Price levels and stability Not found in case studiesEffects on public authority budgets SWARMMS (UK)Human capital formation Not found in case studiesEmployment Not found in case studiesEconomic cohesion Not found in case studiesInnovation Not found in case studiesInternational performance Not found in case studiesMarket structure Not found in case studiesMicroeconomic effects on enterprises,non−profit organisations etc.

Not found in case studies

Effects on households Not found in case studiesGlobal partnership Not found in case studies

Environmental impactsAir SEA land−use plan Weiz (Austria)

FTIP (Germany)

Waste Management Plan of the Plzen Region (Czech)

SWARMMS (UK)

APT Mobility plan (Italy)Water SEA land−use plan Weiz (Austria)

FTIP (Germany)

SWARMMS (UK)

Waste Management Plan of the Plzen Region (Czech)SEA land−use plan Weiz (Austria)

FTIP (Germany)



10/27

SoilClimate FTIP (Germany)

SWARMMS (UK)

Waste Management Plan of the Plzen Region (Czech)Renewable or non−renewableresources

FTIP (Germany)

SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Biodiversity, flora, fauna SEA land−use plan Weiz (Austria)

SWARMMS (UK)


APT Mobility Plan (Italy)Land use FTIP (Germany)


APT Mobility Plan (Italy)

SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Natural heritage SWARMMS (UK)


APT Mobility Plan (Italy)Cultural heritage SWARMMS (UK)


SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Waste production/generation orrecycling

SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)

Human safety or health FTIP (Germany)

SWARMMS (UK)

Waste Management Plan of the Plzen Region (Czech)Likelihood or scale of environmentalrisks


Mobility (transport modes) FTIP (Germany)

SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Use of energy APT Mobility Plan (Italy)

SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)

Social impactsSocial Cohesion SEA for land−use plan Weiz (Austria)


11/27

Employment Quality FTIP (Germany)


SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Public health FTIP (Germany)

Waste Management Plan of the Plzen Region (Czech)Health systems and security SWARMMS (UK)Social Protection Not found in case studiesSocial Services Not found in case studiesConsumer interests Not found in case studiesEducation Not found in case studiesSocial Capital SEA on Strategic Defence Review (UK)Liveable communities Land−use plan Weiz (Austria)

APT Mobility Plan (Italy)Equality of opportunity andentitlement


Culture Not found in case studiesInternational co−operation Not found in case studiesGovernance and participation Not found in case studiesFundamental human rights Not found in case studiesSecurity, crime or terrorism Not found in case studiesAgeing of society and pensions Not found in case studies

4.2 Experiences

Most experiences with SEA can be found on programs and plans, likely since EIA procedures are alreadyfamiliar in this context and SEA could be seen as an extension of EIA for the executors. In contrast, little SEAexecution can be found on the level of policies, particularly on national level (Dalal−Clayton and Sadler,2004).

Several volumes of collected papers review recent progress in SEA process and practice internationally. Tenpapers review the methodological and institutional issues associated with moving from concepts to practice.Other overviews of SEA theory and practice can be found in the collection of papers edited by Partidario andClark (2000). The application of SEA in particular sectors is receiving growing attention (e.g. Goodland1997; Pinfield 1992; Sheate 1995). Fischer (2002) provides a systematic analysis of SEA in transport andspatial/land use planning based on 80 assessments in the UK, The Netherlands and Germany. He introducesthree main SEA types, with distinct methodological requirements: policy−SEA, plan−SEA andprogram−SEA. He suggests that only a tiered system using all three types is able to meet the requirementsformulated in the SEA literature. Transport and land use planning are the two sectors that are generallyconsidered as having the greatest SEA experience. Fischer goes beyond the analysis of procedures, methodsand techniques, and also considers the underlying political and planning systems. He found that whilst mostauthorities believed that an integration of SEA into the PPP process was possible (where such integration hadoccurred, SEA had performed well), they also thought SEA would probably delay PPP preparation.

The World Bank commissioned a report on the international state−of−the−art in using SEA as a tool fordevelopmental planning, policy−making and decision−making (Kjørven and Lindhjem, 2002). Based on theBank’s recent decision to gradually broaden the use of SEA across a variety of sectors and operations, thereport reviews bank experience of using SEA, presents eight case studies and discusses available options formainstreaming SEAs. In 2002, the Bank also launched a three−year structured learning programme on SEA,


12/27

which focuses on the application of SEA approaches to Bank and client operations, on the relationship withother Bank instruments, and on ways in which use of SEA can add value to the outcomes. As part of theprogram, a dedicated part of the Bank’s website provides a wealth of material on the broad use and definitionof SEA (The Worldbank Group, 2004).

SEA experiences differ to a great extent between different countries. In some European countries there is along history of SEA application, whereas in others only some pilot projects have been accomplished yet. Inthe Central and Eastern European (CEE) region and Newly Independent States (NIS) capacity building is stillgoing on. All Spanish SEA development and the new guidelines developed until 2003, were translated intoEnglish and distributed as an example among the new EU member states (Sunyer, 2004). But even in withinthe old members of the EU lack of practice, application and expertise can be found. In Portugal the onlyknown application of an SEA approach to date was connected to the reports prepared as part of the RegionalDevelopment Plans and Structural Funds programmes in 1994 and 2000.

In countries with more SEA experience, SEA guidelines are still under development and therefore the SEAexecution diversifies to a great extent as well. The Spanish methodology was first implemented to evaluate thedevelopment program of the 17 Spanish regions. Prior to the design of the new structural programming, theSpanish Environmental Authorities Network adopted the common methodology for Strategic environmentalassessment of regional development plans to be used for ex ante environmental evaluation (Sunyer, 2004). Upto date only very few SEAs have been undertaken at the national level in Spain. One example is the SEA ofthe Hydrologic Plan carried out by a consultancy company for the Ministry of the Environment. As inPortugal as well, part of the SEA practice in Spain relates to the preparation of Regional Plans for theStructural Funds Applications, which require an SEA according to European Regulations (see Box 4.2.1). Ona voluntary and more experimental basis has SEA been carried out for some years at the regional level (Box4.2.3) and to less extent at the municipal level in Denmark (Studsholt, 2001). Several land−use plans had beenassessed; such as the governmental plan ”Et Danmark i balance – Hvad skal der gøres?”(Wolff, 2004).

In France, the Assemblée Nationale (Parliament) introduced a new procedure in order to assess theenvironmental impact of draft legislative proposals in 1990. But the procedure was never implemented due tothe lack of competent staff and political will. At least a new law on land use plans has led lately to anobligation for local urbanisation plans to have a forward−looking focus, integrating sustainable developmentconcerns and spatial planning. Diagnosis and strategic planning is now supposed to take account of theinteractions between sectoral decisions; and the requirements of the EU SEA Directive are mentioned in theformal advice of Conseil Général des Ponts et Chaussées on the so called "Rapport Chassande (20 June 2000).The general French SEA procedure follows four steps, called environmental diagnosis (an environmentalprofile, describing the state of the environment and listing political objectives at different scales –international conventions and protocols, European policies, national objectives, regional objectives, etc),compatibility analysis (using a matrix comparing orientations of the strategic action and reference objectives),importance of potential impacts (of the whole plan) and finally evaluation (ex−post) of interactions betweenmeasures, etc. (Dalal−Clayton and Sadler, 2004).

In the Netherlands, SEAs were conducted for sectoral policies and plans such as waste management plans,spatial plans and water plans so far. They are assessed against the framework of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Plan (NEEP), which is one of the most important policies for SEA (Verheem, 2004b). For the originalSEA, in place since 1987, a tiered approach is used, distinguishing between national, regional and projectlevel SEAs and over the past 15 years, about 50 such SEAs on different levels have been conducted. TheDutch E−test on the other hand, had recently been evaluated, since its influence on adopted legislation wasquestioned. To improve its effectiveness, the E−test’s structure has been changed into a two−phased process(see table 4.2.5 below). It is planned to evaluate the effectiveness of the new approach again by the end of2004 (Netherlands CEIA 2003, Dalal−Clayton/Sadler, 2004). Dalal−Clayton and Sadler (2004) state that onevariety of the two Dutch SEAs alternatives (see Box 4.2.4) enables “a tiered process for the highly structuredDutch policy and planning frameworks. This takes place against established policy objectives and facilitates a“distance to target” approach to sustainable development, e.g. as implied in the National EnvironmentalPolicy Plan.” These Dutch SEAs of plans and programs were effectively reviewed by the autonomous Dutch


13/27

EIA Commission (see Box 4.8.2) and through other independent review and were found highly influential andeffective for decisive processes.

Box 4.8.2: Reasons for successful SEA for plans and programs in the Netherlands

The start of plan preparation is made public early;• The public is involved in both scoping and review of the SEA report;• An independent expert committee is asked for advice on both scoping and review;• In all cases, the best alternative (from an environmental perspective) is examined;• The final adopted plan is justified on environmental grounds (in writing);• Plan implementation is monitored.•

Source: Dalal−Clayton and Sadler, 2004

In Finland, all bills submitted to the Parliament must include, whenever relevant, separate subchapters onenvironmental, economic and administrative effects, together with sub−chapters on economic andadministrative effects. This is a clear checkpoint to determine whether or not SEA has been completed. Exceptfor land use plans, the assessment of policies, plans and programs lacks a comparable procedure. In thisregard, the Finnish SEA of Bills is a more formalised process, although research indicates that the proceduralcheck is often merely a formality. So far, no Bill has been returned from Parliament because of a lack ofproper assessment, just as it has been in the Netherlands with its E−test in the old structure as well. Furthersimilarities between the Finish and Dutch SEA history include a recent criticism of the quality of Billassessment in both countries (Ervasti et al., 2000 and Dalal−Clayton/Sadler, 2004).

In Italy, the application of SEA is particularly advanced in the Autonomous Province of Trento (APT). TheAPT recently approved a plan on sustainable development in which the selected sustainability indicators wereexplicitly considered as the reference for future SEAs. Subsequently, guidelines to carry out theenvironmental report, i.e. the core document of SEA, were issued and experimentally applied to severalsectoral plans (Diamantini and Geneletti, 2004). Additionally, an evaluation of the uncertainty that affectseach assessment was included.

In Germany, extensive experiences can be found in a number of sectors, both domestically and indevelopment co−operation. Wende (2004) states that SEA, following the EC SEA Directive guidelines is inits early stages in Germany, while voluntary environmental risk assessments(“Umwelt−Risikoeinschätzungen”) have been applied for years, e.g. on every important or problematicinfrastructure projects, supposed to be part of the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan. 700 environmentalrisk assessments were accomplished in this context in 2003 and additionally risk assessments were applied forall federal railway and waterway projects as well.

4.3 Combinations

SEAs can contain multiple elements of methods and as such are framework tools that can be filled withdifferent analytical content. Miscellaneous analytical tools can be used within the SEA process, such asscenario analysis, economic appraisal methods, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and risk assessment (RA).Quantitative tools and qualitative tools e.g. various types of group decision making andpreference−indifference models can be useful in SEAs as well (Finnveden et al., 2003). The tool overviewtable presented listing tools, which might possibly be used within SEA frameworks, was derived throughsecondary literature review. In the cases analysed, most information seemed to be provided on the base of ageneral appraisal through the executors and experts. Tools as listed in the table below were not found veryoften. One explanation for small tool use can be the lack of explicit guidance on tool possibilities and tool usewithin the framework of overall SEA guidance. It should be noted that several of the tools that are commonlyused, such as risk assessment, checklists and matrices, have not been covered by A−TEST.


14/27

Table 7.1: Tools use within SEA

Tool Specification Output Examples

Futurestudies

Scenario/sensitivityanalysis

Presents estimationunder variousscenarios, e.g. worstcase scenario

German Federal TransportInfrastructure Plan

SWARMMS (UK)Forecasts (e.g.conditionalforecasts e.g.External or policyscenarios)

Tries to indicate aprobable future

SEA for land−use plan Weiz

Back casts Future goal is firstset and then imagesare made

SEA for land−use plan Weiz

Modelling E.g. dynamicmodelling

Used to support thedifferent approachesto future studies

Link−based model spatiallydetailed in South West areamulti−modal study(SWARMMS), UK

Life cycleassessment

/Life cycleanalysis(LCA)

Information aboutthe impacts ofdifferent alternativesand a choice ofpreferred alternative


Economicappraisaltools

Carryingcapacity/EcologicalFootprints(valuation onarea)

Maximum number ofpeople/etc that can besustained by an area

Biological and Chemical GQAin SWARMMS (UK)

Riskassessment

of chemicals Probability of aspecified event, e.g. 1in 10000 chance ofoil spill in area X


of accidents Not found in case studies

Impact Pathwayapproach

(Special case of arisk assessmentapproach withparticularimportance for theenvironmentassessment)

Environmental risk assessmentand spatial impact assessmentin the preparation process ofthe German FTIP

Environmental risk assessmentfor SEA on Waste ManagementPlan of the Plzen Region(WMP−PL), Czech

Vulnerabilityanalysis

Maps showingvulnerability of areasoverlaid with possibledevelopments


Cost−Benefitanalysis

Monetary values Qualitative CBA in thepreparation for the German


15/27

(CBA) FTIP

National Spatial Plan for theWest of the Netherlands

promoted in the guidancedocument accompanying thecurrent Dutch E−test

COBA – computer based CBApackage for highwayimprovement used inSWARMMS (UK)

Multi−criteriaanalysis

A choice of preferredalternatives


Surveys Expert judgement

(e.g. Delphi)

Expert data, ideas,decisions

SEA for Land use plan Weiz(Austria)

Appraisel of plans duringGerman FTIP set up

Local Agenda 21 assessmentGraz (Austria)

Waste Management Plan of thePlzen Region (WMP−PL),Czech

EP−1997 and EP−2002,Energy Policies of the Slovakia

Quality of lifeassessment

List of managementimplications for thearea in question


Public valuesurveys


Constructivemulti−attributemethods

problem getsdeconstructed,analysed andrecomposed


Contingentvaluation (CV)

Artificial marketvaluation method


Opinion andattitudinalsurveys

Public questionnaire for SouthWest area Multi−modal study(SWARMMS), UK

Networkanalysis

Recognises thatenvironmentalsystems consist of acomplex web ofrelationships


GeographicalInformationSystems

Identifies possible sites

Identifies geographicalrelationship between sites

EMME/2 an ArcInfo basedHighway Project ModelingGIS−Tool used in SWARMMS


16/27

(GIS) (UK)Land usepartioninganalysis

Comparison ofexisting and plannedsituation on a map


Overlaymaps

Showing constraintsor lack of constraintsto development


Compatibilityanalysis

Ensures thatstrategic action isinternally coherentand consistent withother strategies


Source: Finnveden et al., 2003 and Therivel, 2004, own review, 2004

Cost Benefit Analysis: Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) was found several times during the review and ismentioned a lot in literature. CBA is in general quite well known to a broader public, which is not the case formany of the other tools. Its high profile might lead to a preference for CBA applications, when resources forextended tool use are allocated. CBA is listed as an important tool inside the Dutch E−test’s framework.However, the guidance document itself already mentions the lack of specific knowledge throughout theE−test’s executors, which leads to a very rare applications of this tool. In the UK on the other hand,exhaustive guidance, software and evaluation forms are provided for the executors of CBA within SEA. Themethodology to be employed, which sets the CBA on a comparable basis across all multi−modal studies,involves a use of standard software (prepared by the Department of the Environment, Transport and theRegions (DETR)), which is called Transport Users Benefits Assessment (TUBA). It estimates user benefitsfor all modes of transport (public as well as private), private sector provider revenues and government indirecttax revenues.

Scenarios: The development of scenarios is increasingly used in SEAs. Scenarios are powerful tools foraddressing the future (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1997) and their strength lies inthe development of plausible and pertinent alternatives and qualitative appraisal (see Box 4.7.2). One exampleis the current Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan preparation process in Germany (Wende et al., 2004). While giving future forecasts, scenarios frequently “consider the likely environmental, social and economicconsequences of current and possible future trends, and the consequences of taking particular actions orimplementing particular policy options and are thereby especially helpful for SEAs conducted in the earlysteps of the policy process” (Dalal−Clayton and Sadler, 2004.)

Expert judgement: The exception displayed by the use of “expert judgement” in several cases, might point atone explanation for faint overall tool use: missing financial resources and data. Although expert judgement isregarded as unscientific, it is still recommended in cases were judgements need to be retrieved with smallerresources and/or high speed (Therivel, 2004). The expert judgement variant “Delphi method” is regarded ashaving higher scientific value, but craves more time, co−ordination and resources. It was not found for asingle case during the review.

Matrices: Appliance of easier assessment methods, such as the use of simple matrices for qualitative or evensubjective appraisal was found in several cases. In the framework of the Dutch E−test for example, athree−columned matrix, considering each of the three sustainability pillars in a single word/phrase, is recentlybeing used almost solely, although exceeding guidance on detailed assessment methods (including e.g. CBA)is presented in the guidance material for Dutch draft legislation assessment. Another example can be found inthe Austrian pilot SEAs, were matrices were the main tool to assess the environmental effects of the no actionalternative and the planning options against the baseline conditions. The rating in the in the matrix cellsstarted by “1” (standing for a positive impact), continuing to “2” via “3” (neutral) to “4” and “5” (verynegative impact on the environment) (Sheate et al., 2001) and the appraisals were conducted from theexecutors´ subjective points of view.


17/27

Best practice example: There are exceptions with greater tool use as well, such as the German environmentalrisk assessment, early implemented as precursor for SEA in the transport sector, which is one example, oftenregarded as one of the good−practice examples for tool use: During formulation of the new Federal TransportInfrastructure Plan (FTIP), the Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Housing in Germany (Schaefer etal. 2003) used a detailed pre−selection procedure, leading to application of Cost−Benefit Analyses (CBA), anestimation of the CO2 impacts of the FTIP, an environmental and nature conversation appraisal, an ecologicalrisk and Habitat Directive Assessment (only for some projects) as well as spatial impact assessments. All ofthese assessments and their results were considered as relevant and important for the decision−makingprocesses (Wende et al., 2004).

Stakeholder consultation: The quality of the communication structure is one of the crucial issues for asuccessful SEA. Stakeholders can be consulted according the SEA object and the SEA application itself andcan add valuable information to both processes. SEAs seek to make sure that the start of a plan preparation ismade public early and the public involvement is obligatory in both scoping and review of the SEA report . Inaddition, an independent expert committee can be asked for advice on both scoping and review in the SEAimplementation. The mechanisms and instruments used for the SEAs vary from country to country and fromprocess to process but typically include: round tables, formal meetings with the municipality and within it (forexample, committee for spatial planning), a public hearing, some scoping meetings, communication platformsbetween the municipality and the provincial government and more (Sheate et al., 2001).

4.4 Strengths and Weaknesses

The strengths and weaknesses discussed below are related to actual implementation of SEA rather than thetheoretical ideal as given in guidelines and such. We have based these conclusions on the basis of interviewsand in comparison of SEA documents to the A−TEST evaluation framework as well as to the theoretical idealof SEA.

Weakness: limitations in SEA objects Themes and topics chosen for SEA show prevalence on some specialsubjects such as land−use and transport. Sometimes the reason for such confinements lies in the screening partof the SEA. In France for example, an important deficiency for projects was the screening procedure, whichrelied on strict listing based on financial and technical importance instead of, for instance, land vulnerability. To prevent such restrictions it has to be assured that the screening process can proceed free from outsiderestraints, but instead really assesses the objects of environmental importance.

Weakness: low capacities for SEA Subjective evaluation aggravates uncertainties in the evaluation andmight even cause misinterpretation. Financial and/or human resources do not leave a lot of room to producequantitative or meaningful qualitative analysis. An important factor, influenced by available capacities andhuman resources, is the correct tool use within SEA. As an example, the results of Cost Benefit Analysis(CBA), in a transport or land−use SEA, might favor a larger expansion of the transport network, than whatwould be consistent with environmental protection values, in case the analysis does not include external costssuch as carbon dioxide emissions for instance (Dalkmann et al., 2002). Undertaking rigorous SEAs andputting their results to appropriate use requires significant capacity building. Skilled assessors are needed aswell as appropriate equipment and administrative capacities. To build these takes far longer than drawing upand passing legislation. Therefore tough challenges lie ahead in many areas, especially for the countries wherelittle SEA experience does exist to date. But even in countries with greater SEA experience, resourceshortages and the absence of experienced SEA executors hampers SEA application. This could be approachedthrough further capacity building and capacity development on a broader basis, as well as through strongerfocus on the missing necessities and existing enhancement possibilities by the responsible politicians anddecision makers.

Weakness: limited assessment criteria To date, in some reports even a real limitation of the analysis to anincomplete discussion of isolated problems could be found. Thereby an assessment of the overall acceptabilityof the PPP assessed or any suggestion of mitigation measures could not be provided and the SEA goals weretherefore not fulfilled by far. As stated above, the choice of indicators did not always cover the relevant issues


18/27

and was sometimes made under restraint of financial or political pressure, which devaluates the SEA resultsexceedingly. A further weakness was the almost non−existing consideration of important sustainability keyissues such as decoupling, intergenerational equity, irreversibility, distributional equity, and globalresponsibility. Leaving out cumulative effects during the assessments creates a similar weakness, which wasthe case for almost all assessed case studies.

Weakness: insufficient alternatives consideration There is increasing experience of assessment at the regionallevel over whole Europe, with a number of authors examining the extent to which SEA Directiverequirements are met in current regional planning practice. Current shortcomings include insufficientconsideration of alternatives. This overall constraint was especially found missing for land−use plans and wasstated as a problem e.g. in Germany (Dalal−Clayton and Sadler, 2004). Without the presentation of reasonablealternatives, the whole SEA has less effect, however the outcome looks like, since reasonable options, tochoose in between, are missing.

Weakness: lack of quality control

The quality of the implemented SEA differs a lot and although this discrepancy will be diminished throughinternational legislation and its implementation into national law, quality distinctions will remain. Thosemight exist between different countries, as well as between different levels, cases, executors and officers incharge. To assure substantial fulfilment of the SEA criteria and thereby achieving the goals triggering SEAimplementation on the first hand, as far as possible, and to open the possibility for further development, aquality review of SEA implementation is essential. Until now, such quality inspection was usually notmandatory. If arranged at all, it was mostly carried out as scientific research and the observed weaknesses didtherefore not lead to a reassessment. Additionally, it is questionnable how much the officials, executingofficers and local consultants learned from past mistakes and gaps, in cases where their assessments wereneither submitted to judicial, administrative or formal, nor substantial review.

Weakness: lack of political acceptance

Dalal−Clayton and Sadler (2004) highlight that the most critical constraints for SEA are neither technical normethodological, but connected to political reluctance. However, this reluctance is often related toenvironmental priorities as such rather than the SEA framework. It also has to do with the expectations on theSEA. If it is considered to have a very instrumental and direct role to 'green' decisions, empirical evidencesuggests it is failing. The Austrian SEA on the land−use plan Weiz provides a typical example: the competentAustrian authority ignored most information provided by the environmental statement within the planapproval. This disregard was not connected to the quality of the SEA or the environmental statement, butinfluenced by political pressure and investor interests instead. Therefore the decision−makers used theirarbitration right on the final plan, by recognizing that SEA only is a support tool and thus finally leavingalmost all its results aside (Sheate et al., 2001). Following a similar theme, Wood (1997) notes that themethodological difficulties in undertaking SEA appear to be secondary to political difficulties. Politicians andsenior bureaucrats in powerful departments seem especially averse to surrender any influence on decisions toexternal environmental authorities, by bolstering SEA for PPPs. In order to overcome this political reluctanceWood argues for a type of action−forcing mechanism or framework, to ensure the SEA processes´functionality. If this role can be played by the EU SEA Directive is arguable because of the Directive’sdifferent limitations, such as the lack of appliance to policies, the lack of requirements enforcing all plans andprograms to be assessed and the environmental definitions being so vague (Therivel, 2004). It is questionablewhether any mechanism can overcome political reluctance. But further development is certainly needed onproducing a political climate, where responsible decision makers and politicians acknowledge the role ofSEA.

Strength: a flexible framework for integration

SEA provides a framework for flexible evaluation of PPPs. Presenting a clear framework with adaptabilitypossibilities, SEAs can usually be applied on every PPP through external experts and consultants. Through


19/27

presenting such a framework, SEA facilitates environmental as well as broader sustainability policyintegration in every political or strategic decision.

Strength: Early environmental consideration

The integration of the environment into strategic decision−making is oftentimes not optimal because ofthe wrong choice of starting point for the assessment processes. Also, in experiences to date, SEAs have comein when important decisions were already made and the SEA results came too late to be taken intoconsideration. However, if correctly applied, SEA offers the procedure needed to ensure up−streamconsiderations. A stronger consideration of environmental and sustainability factors in the very beginning, atall stages during a whole planning process and overall in decision making, is one of the most importantstrengths of SEA.

However, SEA can influence final decisions on a PPP only to the extent as the responsible decision makerstake account of the SEA findings and final results. It is for example unclear whether hitherto existing Germanenvironmental risk assessment during the planning process of the FTIP was effective, and whetherenvironmental factors later on were given due consideration in the decision making process. When comparingthe results of the environmental risk assessments with actual decision making up to date, it was found that theassessment did not influence project ranking directly (Wende et al., 2004). A similar lack of coherencebetween SEA results and actual decision making could be found for the Dutch E−test. The E−test ensures thecompiling of an environmental report, which is reviewed jointly by the Ministries of Environment and Justice,and finally gets attached to the cabinet proposal. Nevertheless, a recent independent review of the E−testfound that although it was implemented in accordance with procedure, it still had little influence ondecision−making. Therefore initiatives are currently underway to strengthen coherence (Verheem, 2004a).

Strength: legal obligation

It is a major step that the EU SEA Directive was finally adopted and is now forcing way for enhanced SEAimplementation throughout the EU. Applying SEA, now additionally enforced by the EU SEA Directive,provides a legal obligation to assess PPP’s impacts on sustainability and environment. Their considerationcontinues then during the whole planning and implementation process. This is of course SEA’s greateststrength – still, there are some weaknesses in the accomplishment to date. First, the EU SEA Directive itselfdoes not include policies. Second, there are currently substantial uncertainty regarding the Directive’srequirements on object, content and methodology in most European countries.

4.5 Further work

Although SEA methods and application have developed during the last years and will develop even faster dueto the EU Directive, further work and efforts will be needed to secure successful use of SEA. Additionally tothe weaknesses and improvement suggestions mentioned above, some questions remain open:

Guidance: To allow further guidance development and to strengthen correct and comparable SEA applicationthrough greater guidance use, it would be helpful to put even more focus on the relation between guidanceexistence and guidance use to date. Results from such research might support guidance development in thefuture e.g. for countries with little or no SEA experience and the existent guidance material’s upgrading.

Tool use: The connection between tool use and outcome is largely unexpored. Today, there is relatively littletool use within SEA and little variety of implemented tools. The implications of applying tools out of a greaterrange of possibilities is a field that merits further research.

Cross−cutting sustainability aspects: A widened coverage of cross−cutting sustainability aspects during theassessment would enhance SEA´s contribution to sustainable development. To make such an inclusion


20/27

possible, the reasons for its neglect to date and how to enhance problem areas according to cross cuttingsustainability aspects might be starting points for further research.

Successful application – expert interviews: Was SEA application seen as successful by the executorsthemselves? If not, why? Through asking the executors and consultants themselves, it would be possible toobtain additional information on constraints that hinder SEA application to date. SEA experts might then putthis information in an overall relationship and thereby be able to find positive or negative trends, resourceneeds and their solution and open way for further knowledge on development needs, scarcely highlighted byscientific research to date. In case political will and the decision maker´s support for enhancing SEA methodsand application exists, some resource gaps might possibly be filled.

Extending the level of application: The political level, at which SEA is implemented, provides another fieldfor improvement: Whilst the assessment practice is rather widespread at the program level, little is currentlyundertaken at policy and plan levels − particularly few assessments can be found on national−level policies.An initiative for such an approach, enforcing SEA on policy level and thereby promoting a strongerconsideration of sustainability aspects already during policy composition, might lead to an adaptation of asustainable trend on program and plan level at the same time. This in turn disburdens the officials and SEAexecutors in these stages and facilitates environmental contemplation and sustainable development in general.

4.6 References

André P, Delisle C E and Revéret J P (2003) L’évaluation des impacts sur l environnement, Processus,acteurs, et pratiques pour un développement durable (evaluation of environmental impacts – Processes, actorsand practices for sustainable development) Pub. Presses internationales Polytechniques, Montreal, Canada

Andrews, R N L (1997) United States. In: Jänicke, Martin and Weidner, Helmut (eds.): NationalEnvironmental Policies. A Comparative Study of Capacity Building. Berlin etc, Springer. 25−43, Germany

Alcamo J (2002) Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Assessments. Experts Corner Report,Prospects and Scenarios No.5, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

Bailey J and Rention S (1997) Redesigning EIA to Fit the Future: SEA and the Policy Process

Impact Assessment, 15 (4), 319−334

Baker Associates (2002) Sustainability Appraisal of Unitary Development Plans in Wales: A Good PracticeGuide, Publications Centre, Cardiff Bay, Wales, UK

Bertrand, F (2001) l’évaluation environnementale stratégique de programmes de planification régionale:analyse du cadre réglementaire français et européen (strategic environmental assessment of regional planning: analysis of the French and European regulatory framework), presented to the 5th international colloquium offrancophone specialists in impact assessment, May 22−24, 2000,Paris, France

Bundesministerium fuer Land− und Forstwirtschaft, fuer Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (BMLFUW) (2004)Die strategische Umweltpruefung (SUP), Austria, available at: www.lebensministerium.at/umwelt, assessed09/2004

Bregha, F (1990) The Integration of Environmental Factors in Government Policy−Making, CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Research Council, Ottawa, Canada

Bregha, F (2001) The Strategic Environmental Assessment of Policies, Plans and Programmes: Introductionto the Concept and review of Selected International Practices ENACT Project 2300B Presented to the CabinetOffice Of the Government of Jamaica, by Stratos Inc., Ottawa, Canada


21/27

http://www.lebensministerium.at/umwelt

Böhret, C and Konzendorf, G (2000) Moderner Staat – Moderne Verwaltung. Leitfaden zurGesetzesfolgenabschätzung. editor BMI, Berlin, Germany

Cupei J (1994) Vermeidung von Wettbewerbsverzerrungen – Eine vergleichende Analyse der Umsetzung derUVP−Richtlinie in Frankreich, Grossbritannien und den Niederlanden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft,Baden−Baden, Germany

Dalal−Clayton B and Sadler B (2004) The Status and Potential of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)− Draft, 07/21/2004,

Dalkmann, H and Bongardt, D (2002) Case Study (Germany) The Federal Transport Infrastructure Planning(FTIP), ANSEA project – Final Report (Volume III), available at:http://www.taugroup.com/ansea/home/HOMEw.htm, assessed: 06/2004

Dalkmann, H, Jiliberto, R and Bongardt, D (2002) Analytical Strategic Environmental Assessment (ANSEA)– Developing a new approach of SEA, available at:http://www.taugroup.com/ansea/documents/ANSEA_article230502.PDF assessed 09/2003

de Boer J J and Sadler B (eds) (1996) Strategic Environmental Assessment 54: Environmental

Assessment of Policies: Briefing Papers on Experience in Selected Countries, Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment, The Netherlands, and the International Study of Effectiveness ofEnvironmental Assessment, De Hague, Netherlands

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000) Guidance on the Methodology forMulti−Modal Studies (GOMMMS), March 2000, UK available at:http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstrat/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_transstrat_page.hcsp(assessed 06/2004)

Department of Trade and Industry (2001) Strategic Environmental Assessment ot the Mature Areas of theOffshore North Sea SEA 2, report to the Department of Trade and Industry available at:http://www.offshore−sea.org.uk/sea/dev/html_file/pdf2.cgi/SEA2_DCD_W.pdf

Department of Trade and Industry (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment of parts of the northern andcentral North Sea to the east of the Scottish mainland, Orkney and Shetland, May 2004, SEA 5 BackgroundDocument, UK

Diamantini, C and Geneletti, D (2004) Reviewing the application of SEA to sectoral plans in Italy. The caseof the mobility plan of an alpine region, European Environment 14, 123−133 (2004) Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)

Dusik, J (2001) Introduction to the Proceedings of International Workshop on Public participation and healthAspects in Strategic Environmental Assessment, November 23−24, 2000, Szentendre, Hungary

Elling, B (1999) Report of the Evaluation of the Northern Jutland Study on SEA in Regional Planning,Miljoevurdering i regionplanlaegningen – Evaluering af Nordjyllandsprojektet, Miljoe og Energiministeriet,Landsplanafdelningen, Denmark

Ervasti, K; Tala, J and Castrén, E (2000) Lainvalmistelun laatu ja eduskunnan valiokuntatyö (The quality ofthe preparation of legislation and work of the Parliamentary Committees), National Research Institute ofLegal Policy, Publication 172, Helsinki, Finland

European Commission (1997) Case studies on strategic environmental assessment, Final report, Volume 1:Comparative analysis of case study findings, conclusions and recommendations


22/27

http://www.taugroup.com/ansea/home/HOMEw.htm

http://www.taugroup.com/ansea/documents/ANSEA_article230502.PDF

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstrat/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_transstrat_page.hcsp

European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on theenvironment, June 27, 2001

Eykamp, C (1995) EMME/2 an ArcInfo based Highway Project Modeling GIS−Tool, Published in ArcNews,Vol. 17, No.4, Winter 1995, p.15

available at: http://www.eykamp.com/gistools/arcemme2/

Federal Law Gazette (2003) Österreichisches Bundesgesetzblatt No. I 82, Aug 29, 2003, Austria

Finnveden, G; Nilsson, M; Johansson, J; Persson, Å; Moberg, Å and Carlsson, T (2003) Strategicenvironmental assessment methodologies – applications within the energy sector, Environmental ImpactAssessment Review 2003, 23: 91−123

Fischer, T B (2002) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land Use Planning, Earthscan,London, UK

Goodland, R (1997) The Strategic Environmental Assessment Family, Environmental Assessment (EA) 5 (3):17−20

Government Office for the South West (2001) Multi Modal Study Strategy Appraisal: Background TechnicalNote – Composite Strategies, Halcrow Group Limited (available at:http://www.swarmms.org.uk/documents/CompositeStrategiesAppraisalTECHNOTE.pdf)

Government Office for the South West (2002a) London to South West and South Wales Multi Modal Study,SWARMMS final report, Halcrow Group Limited (available at: http://www.swarmms.org.uk/)

Government Office for the South West (2002b) Multi Modal Study Reducing the Growth in Travel Demand,final report, Halcrow Group Limited (available at: http://www.swarmms.org.uk/)

Grazer Öko−Team (1999), Ökostadt 2000 – Evaluierung, Bericht (Gutachten) des Grazer Öko−Teams unterCoordination von Dr. Peter Gspaltl, Grazer Umweltamt, Austria

Hanssen, M A (2003) The SEA−Directive in Norway, paper presented at the 5th Nordic EnvironmentalAssessment Conference, Reykjavik, Island

Hey, Christian, (1998) Nachhaltige Mobilität in Europa: Akteure, Institutionen und politische Strategien.Opladen,Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Hildén M (2003) Proposal for SEA Legislation Submitted Professional News section, IAIA Newsletter,Vol.15, No.1. International Association for Impact Assessment, July 2003, Fargo, North Dakota, USA

Jacob, K and Volkery, A (2003) Potentials and Limits for Policy Change Through GovernmentalSelf−Regulation – The Case of Environmental Policy Integration, paper presented at the 2002 BerlinConference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change, Berlin, Germany (See:http://www.fu−berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2002/proceedings/bc_2002_jacob_volkery.pdf)

Jacobs P and Sadler B (eds) (1989) Sustainable Development and Environmental Assessment: Perspectives onPlanning for a Common Future, Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Ottawa, Canada

Kjørven, O and Lindhjem, H (2002) Strategic Environmental Assessment in World Bank Operations:Experience to Date – Future Potential, Environment Strategy Papers No. 4, The World Bank, Washington DC


23/27

http://www.eykamp.com/gistools/arcemme2/

http://www.swarmms.org.uk/

Lambrecht, H, Kuehne, R and Vieth, O (2002) Praxistest zur Umsetzung des UNECE−Uebereinkommensueber die Umweltverträglichkeitspruefung imgrenzueberschreitenden Zusammenhang (Deutschland−Polen),Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums fuer Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,Forschungsbericht 298 13 162, UBA−FB 000365

Larrue C and Lerond M (1998) Suivi at evaluation environnementale des contrats de plan Etat−région,Ministere de l’Amenagement du Territoire et de l’Evironnement, France

Lee, N and Walsh, F (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment: An Overview, Project Appraisal, 7 (3),126−136

Lee, N and Wood, C (1987) EIA: A European perspective, Built Environment 4: 101−110

Magistrat der Stadt Wien (2004) Strategische Umweltpruefung Entwicklungsraum Nordosten Wien,Vienna,Austria

Available at: http://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/supernow/ (assessed 10/2004)

Markus, E and Emmelin, L (2003) Can good EIA practice criteria be applied to SEA? – the Öresund bridge asa case, paper presented at the 5th Nordic Environmental Assessment Conference, Reykjavik, Island

Marsden, S (1998): Why is Legislative EA in Canada Ineffective, and how can it be enhanced. In:Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1998, 18: 241−265.

Marsden, S (1999): Legislative EA in the Netherlands: The E−Test as a Strategic and Integrative Instrument,European Environment, 9: 90−100

Ministry of the Environment (Japan), Mitsubishi Research Institute INC of Japan (2003): Effective SEAsystems and case studies, available at: http://assess.eic.or.jp/houkokusho/sea0306/0306_en.pdf

Ministry of Defence (2004) Strategic Environmental Appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review, (available at:http://www.mod.uk/issues/sdr/environment/activities.htm) assessed 09/2004

NATO Parliamentary Assembly and Cohen, H (2004) Economic transition in central and Eastern Europe andthe environmental dimension, Sub−Committee on East−West Economic Co−operation and Convergence,Draft report, 27 April 2004

Netherlands CEIA (2003) Annual Report 2002, Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment, TheHague, Netherlands

Nilsson, M; Finnveden, G; and Johansson, J; and Moberg, Å (2001) Naturgasutbyggnad I Sverige – metodför strategisk miljöbedömning inom energisektorn. Naturvårdsverkets förlag, Stockholm, Sweden

Nilsson, M; Björklund, A; Finnveden, G and Johansson, J (2005) Testing a SEA methodology for the energysector: a waste incineration tax proposal, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25: 1−32

Noteboom, S (1999) Environmental Assessment of Strategic Decisions and Project Decisions: Interactionsand Benefits, The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Netherlands

Noteboom, S (2004) at DHV and consultant to the Dutch Commission on EIA in the area of StrategicEnvironmental Assessment, Personal conversation via e−mail to Kerstin Ehrhardt, SEI Stockholm

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance forPlanning Authorities, Practical guidance on applying European Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of


24/27

http://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/supernow/

http://www.mod.uk/issues/sdr/environment/activities.htm

the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment to land use and spatial plans in England,London, UK

Partidario M R (2003) Guia para Avaliacao Estragegica de Impactes em Ordenamento do Territorio,coordenação, Direcção−Geral do Ordenamento do Território e Desenvolvimento Urbano(Directorate−General for Spatial Planning and Urban Development, Ministry of Environment), Lisbon,Portugal

Partidario M.R. and Clark R. (1999): Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Assessment. Lewis Publishers,Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Pinfield G. (1992) SEA and Land−Use Planning, Project Appraisal, 7(3): 157−163

Provincia Autonoma di Trento (PAT) (2000) Atto di Indi−rizzo Sullo Sviluppo Sostenibile, Trento, Italy

Sadler, B (2001) A Framework Approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment: Aims, Principles andElements of Good Practice, paper presented at the International Workshop on Public participation and healthAspects in Strategic Environmental Assessment, November 23−24, 2000, Szentendre, Hungary

Sadler, B (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to ImprovePerformance, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, Final Report, CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Agency, Canada.

Sadler, B and Verheem, R (1996) SEA: Status, Challenges and Future Directions, Report 53, Ministry ofHousing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands

Scott, S, Bacon, P and Fry, J (2003) in association with Peter Bacon & Associates and The Department ofEnvironmental Resource Management University College Dublin Evaluation of Eco−Auditing in the contextof the National Development Plan 2000−2006, Report prepared for the NDP/CSF Evaluation Unit

Schaefer, C and Bongardt, D and Dalkmann, H (2003) Neue Wege fuer das Land. StrategischeUmweltpruefung für eine zukunftsfaehige Bundesverkehrswegeplanun,

Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau− und Wohnungswesen, Bundesverkehrswegeplan, Berlin, Germany

Sheate W. (1995) Transport Policy: A Critical Role for SEA, World Transport Policy and Practice1(4): 17−24

Sheate, W., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R, Palerm, J., Steen, U. and Wolmarans, P (2001): SEA andIntegration of the Environment into Strategic Decision−Making, European Commission Contract No. B4−040/99/136634/MAR/B4, Volume 3

South West Ecological Surveys, Levett−Therivel sustainability consultants and Oxford Brookes University(2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Biodiversity: Guidance for Practitioners, CountrysideCouncil for Wales, English Nature, Environment Agency, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (availableat: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/SEA_and_biodiversity_tcm5−56786.pdf)

Spanish Environmental Authorities Network (2003) Actions of the Spanish Environmental Authoritiesnetwork in relation with Environmental Integration in structural fund programming 2000−2006, Spain

Studsholt, A B (2001) Spatial Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Denmark,

Europejskie Centrum Proekologiczne, Warsaw, Polen

Sunyer, C (2003) Environmental assessment in mid−term evaluation of structural programming –


25/27

Methodology and experiences from Spain, in proceedings of the fifth European Conference on Evaluation ofthe structural funds, “Challenges for evaluation in an enlarged Europa, June 26−27, 2003, Budapest, Hungary

Sustainability Advanced Test project (2004) Analytical framework: Evaluation methodology and guidelinesfor the overview and evaluation papers, WP 1: Design, improved draft (not final) 25th of June 2004,Advanced Techniques for Evaluation of Sustainability Assessment Tools, Sixth Framework Programme,priority 1.1.6.3 (Global change and ecosystems)

The World Bank Group (2004) Other Strategic Environmental Analyses, available at:http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/41ByDocName/AnalyticalandAdvisoryAssistanceOtherStrategicEnvironmentalAnalyses,assessed 09/2004

Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D and Pritchard, D (1992) Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, UK

Therivel, R (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, UK

Therivel R and Partidario M R (1996) The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan,London

Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (2003) Requirements of the SEA−Directive on the German Federal TransportInfrastructure Plan and on the Procedure of Transport Development Plans of the Federal States, FederalEnvironmental Agency (UBA), Berlin, Germany

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2003) Protocol on strategic environmentalassessment to the Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2003) The Protocol on Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, available at: www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.htm

UVP (2003) Report 2/2003, Special Edition on SEA in Germany, UVP Verein (the main German languageEA journal), Hamm, Germany

Verheem, R A A and Tonk, J A M N (2000): Strategic Environmental Assessment : one concept, multipleforms, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18 (3): 177−182

Verheem, R (2004a) Commission for environmental impact assessment, Netherlands Personal conversation toDalal−Clayton and Sadler

Verheem, R (2004b) Commission for environmental impact assessment, Netherlands, Personal conversationvia e−mail to Kerstin Ehrhardt, SEI, Sweden

Volkery, A and Ehrhardt, K (2004) Sustainability and Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Netherlands−unpublished draft, part of IQ−Tools project, ffu, 06/01/2004,

Wathern, P (ed.) (1988) Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice Unwin Hyman, London, UK

Wende, W (2004) TU Berlin, personal conversation via e−mail to Kerstin Ehrhardt, SEI, Stockholm, Sweden

Wende, W., Hanusch, M., Gassner, E., Guennewig, D., Koeppel, J., Lambrecht, H., Langenheld, A., Peters, Wand Roethke−Habeck, P. (2004) Requirements of the SEA Directive and the German Federal TransportInfrastructure Plan, European Environment 14, 105−122 (2004) published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com)


26/27

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/41ByDocName/AnalyticalandAdvisoryAssistanceOtherStrategicEnvironmentalAnalyses

http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.htm

http://www.interscience.wiley.com/

Wolff, H (2004) Environmental ministry Denmark, personal conversation via e−mail to Kerstin Ehrhardt, SEI,Sweden

Wood, C (1997) SEA− The Way Forward, In: IEA (1997): Strategic Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Assessment, Vol.5, Issue 3, September 1997. UK Institute of Environmental Assessment, UK

Wood, C and Djeddour, M (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA of Policies, Plans andProgrammes. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 10 (1) 3−22.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (1997) Exploring Sustainable Development,WBCSD − Global Scenarios 2000−2050, Summary Brochure.


27/27

Documents

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) · SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been defined as "a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of