The document discusses the SEA Directive and its implementation. It provides an overview of the directive's requirements, benefits, and opportunities for improvement. Some key points include: 1) There was delayed transposition of the directive into national law, but it is now established in all EU member states. Issues remain with some incorrect transpositions. 2) Benefits include better integration of environmental considerations into decision making, less mitigation needs, and increased transparency. 3) Opportunities for improvement include clarifying the scope and concepts and strengthening links to other environmental directives.

1. The SEA Directive – Implications,
Obligations, Strengths and Weaknesses
Conference “Strategic environmental assessment:
A tool to promote the quality of plans and programs”
Tuesday, 6th March 2012
Barcelona
Louis Meuleman
Unit Cohesion Policy and Environmental Impact Assessments
European Commission, DG Environment
1

2. Outline of the presentation
1. Main achievements and challenges in the
implementation of the SEA Directive
• Transposition/implementation phases
• Examples
2. Benefits of SEA
3. Opportunities for improvement
4. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
5. The future of the SEA
2

3. The SEA procedure
Water Framework
Directive Habitats and
Policies Birds Directives
Waste 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. The SEA procedure
Elaboration of P/P Beginning
Draft P/P
Environmental 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. 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. Examples of incorrect transposition of the SEA (1)
National legislation only covers P/P established by a
legislative procedure.
Exclusion from the SEA scope of P/P in “small areas at
local level” (by reference to big administrative units or
criteria).
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 to
take into account the objectives and the geographical
scope of P/P.
6

7. Examples of incorrect transposition of the SEA (2)
No precise identification of the public.
Lack of concrete designation/timeframes/methods to
consult environmental authorities or their exclusion from
consultation for some P/P.
Results of consultations to be taken into account after
adoption (instead of before).
Lack of concrete arrangements to inform affected MS
(before and after adoption of the P/P).
7

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. Implementation of the SEA in the EU-27
Sample of 28 infringement cases
14
14
12
10 Temporal scope
7 Definition P/P
8
Screening
6 5 Designation env. auth.
Public participation
4
2 1 1
0
9

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. 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. 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 money
The overall assessment is positive, e.g. in Cohesion Policy
12

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. ‘Minor modifications’ of Operational programmes
Letter from Commission to all Managing authorities in all
27 MS on 07.12.2011 on the implementation of SEA for
modifications of Operational programmes (Cohesion
Policy):
• 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. Example to avoid – National OPs
Country X: OP Transport
Environmental report
• Not a thorough consideration of environmental impacts – noise?
Consultation-Partnership
• Commitment to environmental partnership is unclear
Environmental 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/indicators
Monitoring
• Monitoring system is incomplete, insufficient indicators
Other
• Insufficient consideration of relevant EC legislation: Habitats
Directive (Natura 2000) & Water Framework Directive 15

16. Example to learn from – Regional OPs
Country Y: Regional OPs
Environmental 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 background
Consultation – Partnerships
• Close links established between OP developers and
environmental authorities
Findings from Theophilou (2007)
16

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. 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. 4. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
Common Provisions Regulation
The CPR sets out common rules for 9 proposed regulations:
1. European Regional Development Fund – ERDF
2. European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)
3. European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation - EGTC
4. Cohesion Fund – CF
5. European Social Fund – ESF
6. European Globalisation Adjustment Fund – EGAF
7. European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation – PSCI
8. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - EAFRD
9. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - EMFF
19

20. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
Common Provisions Regulation
Article 48.4: The ex ante evaluation [of Operational programmes] shall
incorporate, where appropriate, the requirements for Strategic
Environmental Assessment set out in implementation of Directive
2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001
on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the
environment.
-> some clarification needed, as SEA applies on its own merits and is more
than an ex ante evaluation (e.g. requirements on monitoring, on informing the
public)
Article 91.1 (f): The Member State or the managing authority shall submit
the following information on major projects to the Commission as soon as
preparatory work has been completed: (…) (f) an analysis of the
environmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation and
mitigation needs, and disaster resilience.
20

21. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
Common Provisions Regulation
ANNEX IV Ex ante conditionalities (Road, Rail): A comprehensive
transport plan is in place that contains: (…) a strategic environmental
assessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan.
ANNEX IV General ex ante conditionalities: The existence of a
mechanism which ensures the effective implementation and application
of Union environmental legislation related to EIA and SEA
21

22. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
Trans-European Transport Network Guidelines
Article 5 (e): MS and, as appropriate, regional and local authorities,
infrastructure managers, transport operators and other public and private
entities shall plan, develop and operate the trans-European transport network in
a resource efficient way, through: (…) (e) the assessment of strategic
environmental impact, with the establishment of appropriate plans and
programmes and of impacts on climate mitigation.
Article 42: (Environmental Protection):
Member States and other project promoters shall carry out environmental
assessment of plans and projects in particular as provided in Council Directives
[on EIA, SEA, Habitats, Birds, Water Framework], in order to avoid or, when
not possible, mitigate or compensate for negative impacts on the environment,
such as to landscape fragmentation, soil sealing, air and water pollution as well
as noise, and to effectively protect biodiversity.
22

23. SEA in the proposed 2014-2020 MFF regulations
Trans-European Energy Infrastructure Guidelines
Rec. 23: The correct and coordinated implementation of Council Directive
85/337/EC [= EIA] as amended and of the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions
should ensure the harmonisation of the main principles for the assessment of
environmental effects, including in a cross-border context. Member States
should coordinate their assessments for projects of common interest, and
provide for joint assessments, where possible.
Art. 8.4 (Priority Staus PCIs): (…) take measures to streamline the
environmental assessment procedures (…) to ensure the coherent
application of environmental assessment procedures required under EU
legislation 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 joint
procedures, particularly with regard to the assessment of environmental
impacts. 23

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. 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).
• Commission's 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. Thank you for your attention
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm
26