6 jornada aae-060312_louis meuleman

1,057 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,057
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

6 jornada aae-060312_louis meuleman

  1. 1. The SEA Directive – Implications,Obligations, Strengths and WeaknessesConference “Strategic environmental assessment:A tool to promote the quality of plans and programs”Tuesday, 6th March 2012BarcelonaLouis MeulemanUnit Cohesion Policy and Environmental Impact AssessmentsEuropean Commission, DG Environment 1
  2. 2. Outline of the presentation1. Main achievements and challenges in the implementation of the SEA Directive • Transposition/implementation phases • Examples2. Benefits of SEA3. Opportunities for improvement4. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations5. The future of the SEA 2
  3. 3. The SEA procedure Water Framework Directive Habitats and Policies Birds DirectivesWaste Framework Directive Plans & Programmes covered by SEA Directive (2001/42) Projects (public - private) covered by EIA Directive (85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC • 2003/35/EC & 2009/31/EC; • -> Consolidated 2011/92/EU) Landfill IPPC/IED Carbon Capture Directive Directive Storage Directive 3
  4. 4. The SEA procedure Elaboration of P/P Beginning Draft P/PEnvironmental report & Non-technical Summary Consultations (environmental report & P/P)(Also transboundary -> SEA Protocol Espoo Conv.) Decision –Article 9 statement Approval of P/P Information on decision End of process4
  5. 5. 1. Main achievements and challenges: Transposition of the SEA in the EU-27• Delayed transposition of the SEA Directive • Transposition due by 21.7.2004: only 9 of 25 MS had transposed (infringement procedures opened, 5 MS condemned by ECJ). • By 2009, all MS have transposed the Directive. • SEA systems are established and operate in all MS.• Still struggling for correct transposition • The Commission checks the conformity of the SEA transposition in the MS. • Infringement procedures were opened for 23 MS 5
  6. 6. Examples of incorrect transposition of the SEA (1)National legislation only covers P/P established by alegislative procedure.Exclusion from the SEA scope of P/P in “small areas atlocal level” (by reference to big administrative units orcriteria).Failure to transpose all screening criteria of Annex II.Technical character of the summary (instead of non-technical).No reference to “reasonable” alternatives and the need totake into account the objectives and the geographicalscope of P/P. 6
  7. 7. Examples of incorrect transposition of the SEA (2)No precise identification of the public.Lack of concrete designation/timeframes/methods toconsult environmental authorities or their exclusion fromconsultation for some P/P.Results of consultations to be taken into account afteradoption (instead of before).Lack of concrete arrangements to inform affected MS(before and after adoption of the P/P). 7
  8. 8. Implementation of the SEA in the EU-27• Commission’s implementation experience in different areas: • Legal implementation, i.e. handling of complaints and infringements, EP petitions and written questions • Assessment of OPs (Cohesion Policy, Rural Dev., Fishery) • TENs for energy and transport 8
  9. 9. Implementation of the SEA in the EU-27 Sample of 28 infringement cases 14141210 Temporal scope 7 Definition P/P 8 Screening 6 5 Designation env. auth. Public participation 4 2 1 1 0 9
  10. 10. Implementation of the SEA in the EU-27• 14 infringement cases – plan/programme was outside the rationae tempori scope of the SEA (Article 13(3))• 7 infringement cases – definition of plan/programme: • voluntary plan/programme (i.e. policies) • plan/programme at the top of a hierarchy (not required by law)• 5 infringement cases – screening problems: • no screening at all (mainly urban and land-use plans) • incorrect screening (e.g. no consideration of certain screening criteria).• 1 infringement case – environmental authorities to be consulted (Article 6(3))• 1 infringement case – public participation : consultation and information of the public (Articles 6 and 8) 10
  11. 11. 2. Benefits of the SEA (1)1. Scope of the SEA now more clearly delimited (conditions of Articles 2+3).2. Integration of environmental considerations into decision making of P&P.3. “Greening“ of P&P and monitoring of their effects.4. Strengthened role for environmental authorities through their participation.5. Better cooperation different authorities (planning, environment and health).6. Increased transparency in decision making, due to the involvement of all levels of society. 11
  12. 12. Benefits of the SEA (1)7. Less mitigation measures due to the early inclusion of environmental considerations in the P&P.8. Contribution of SEA to improved compliance with the requirements of other specific environmental policy areas.9. Less litigation at project level.10.Consideration of cumulative effects and of alternatives upstream.11.Absorption of EU co-financing made easier.12.SEA saves time and moneyThe overall assessment is positive, e.g. in Cohesion Policy 12
  13. 13. Example: SEA in Cohesion Policy 2007-2013• Uncertainties, initially, about the application of the SEA.• Content of the Ops clearly influenced by the SEA (environmental requirements taken into account at the planning stage).• Relatively low level of public participation in several MS (i.e. tight timetable to adopt the OPs).• Environmental authorities were fully involved in the decision- making process.• Quality of the environmental reports varied considerably among MS, and in some cases relatively poor.• Problems with “minor” modification of OPs. 13
  14. 14. ‘Minor modifications’ of Operational programmesLetter from Commission to all Managing authorities in all27 MS on 07.12.2011 on the implementation of SEA formodifications of Operational programmes (CohesionPolicy):• Simple financial/budgetary changes: no SEA• Any change in physical content of an OP: SEA Directive applies -> This implies that SEA screening is obligatory (determination of likely significant environmental effects): - If no such effects: No new SEA required - If such effects: new SEA has to be made 14
  15. 15. Example to avoid – National OPsCountry X: OP TransportEnvironmental report• Not a thorough consideration of environmental impacts – noise?Consultation-Partnership• Commitment to environmental partnership is unclearEnvironmental commitment• Mention of sustainable development (SD) but no practical commitment• Priorities and adjacent measures are insufficient to meet EC air pollution strategy targets• Insufficient consideration to green transport – unequal distribution of funds between priorities (rail vs. road)• Consideration of climate change but no practical measures/indicatorsMonitoring• Monitoring system is incomplete, insufficient indicatorsOther• Insufficient consideration of relevant EC legislation: Habitats Directive (Natura 2000) & Water Framework Directive 15
  16. 16. Example to learn from – Regional OPsCountry Y: Regional OPsEnvironmental commitment• Environmental concerns mainstreamed throughout OP• Environmentally sound priority axes – environment viewed as economic opportunity• Use of project selection criteria guided by "strategic frameworks" – attract projects focussed on green business, green buildings and green technologies• The team leading development of the OP had an environmental backgroundConsultation – Partnerships• Close links established between OP developers and environmental authorities Findings from Theophilou (2007) 16
  17. 17. 3. Opportunities for improvement (1)• Scope of the SEA • Policies/legislative proposals • Review the definition of P&P (e.g. “not required” by administrative/legislative provisions; private plans?)• Concepts to be clarified: • P&P which “set the framework”. • P&P which determine the use of small areas at local level.• More explicit links with other Directives • Both in terms of substance (assessment) and procedures (e.g. consultation) • Projects: EIA (facilitate interaction – avoid duplication) • P&P from other Directives: Habitats, Water FD, Nitrates, Renewable… 17
  18. 18. Opportunities for improvement (2)• Adopt implementing provisions/guidance: • on concepts (e.g. quality control, monitoring of significant effects…) • on themes (e.g. climate change, biodiversity, resources efficiency…)• Further guidance needed in particular on climate change and biodiversity • Commission guidance for both SEA and EIA Directives under preparation (expected 2012)• Exchange of information within MS• Capacity building (regional/local plans)-> ex ante conditionality 2014-2020 18
  19. 19. 4. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations Common Provisions RegulationThe CPR sets out common rules for 9 proposed regulations:1. European Regional Development Fund – ERDF2. European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)3. European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation - EGTC4. Cohesion Fund – CF5. European Social Fund – ESF6. European Globalisation Adjustment Fund – EGAF7. European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation – PSCI8. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - EAFRD9. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - EMFF 19
  20. 20. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulationsCommon Provisions Regulation Article 48.4: The ex ante evaluation [of Operational programmes] shallincorporate, where appropriate, the requirements for StrategicEnvironmental Assessment set out in implementation of Directive2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on theenvironment.-> some clarification needed, as SEA applies on its own merits and is morethan an ex ante evaluation (e.g. requirements on monitoring, on informing thepublic) Article 91.1 (f): The Member State or the managing authority shall submitthe following information on major projects to the Commission as soon aspreparatory work has been completed: (…) (f) an analysis of theenvironmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation andmitigation needs, and disaster resilience. 20
  21. 21. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulationsCommon Provisions Regulation ANNEX IV Ex ante conditionalities (Road, Rail): A comprehensivetransport plan is in place that contains: (…) a strategic environmentalassessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan. ANNEX IV General ex ante conditionalities: The existence of amechanism which ensures the effective implementation and applicationof Union environmental legislation related to EIA and SEA 21
  22. 22. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulationsTrans-European Transport Network Guidelines Article 5 (e): MS and, as appropriate, regional and local authorities,infrastructure managers, transport operators and other public and privateentities shall plan, develop and operate the trans-European transport network ina resource efficient way, through: (…) (e) the assessment of strategicenvironmental impact, with the establishment of appropriate plans andprogrammes and of impacts on climate mitigation. Article 42: (Environmental Protection):Member States and other project promoters shall carry out environmentalassessment of plans and projects in particular as provided in Council Directives[on EIA, SEA, Habitats, Birds, Water Framework], in order to avoid or, whennot possible, mitigate or compensate for negative impacts on the environment,such as to landscape fragmentation, soil sealing, air and water pollution as wellas noise, and to effectively protect biodiversity. 22
  23. 23. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulationsTrans-European Energy Infrastructure Guidelines Rec. 23: The correct and coordinated implementation of Council Directive85/337/EC [= EIA] as amended and of the Aarhus and Espoo Conventionsshould ensure the harmonisation of the main principles for the assessment ofenvironmental effects, including in a cross-border context. Member Statesshould coordinate their assessments for projects of common interest, andprovide for joint assessments, where possible. Art. 8.4 (Priority Staus PCIs): (…) take measures to streamline theenvironmental assessment procedures (…) to ensure the coherentapplication of environmental assessment procedures required under EUlegislation for projects of common interest. -> Commission Guidance(2012-13): Study on streamlining environmental assessments (TEN-E)(2012) Art. 9.3: (…) Member States shall endeavour to provide for jointprocedures, particularly with regard to the assessment of environmentalimpacts. 23
  24. 24. 5. The future of the SEA• The Directive is still young: in the short term too early to propose amendments.• Merging the EIA and SEA Directives rejected by MS and stakeholders (clear result from the public consultation (2010) in the context of the review of the EIA).• Further experience is needed to understand thoroughly its functioning, also in the light of the experience under: • the SEA Protocol of the Espoo Convention. • the case-law of the ECJ.• Amendments will be considered in the longer term.• Next Commission’s report in 2016. 24
  25. 25. Sources• External study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2009).• Commission’s Report on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (COM(2009)469 final 14.9.2009).• Commissions experience from the implementation and enforcement of the SEA Directive: • Handling of complaints and infringements. • Application of the SEA to the EU co-financed programmes for the period 2007-2013. • Application of the SEA to plans/programmes required by the EU legislation (e.g. RBMP). 25
  26. 26. Thank you for your attentionhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm 26

×