• Project proposals that require the amendment of land use plans that will require <strong>SEA</strong>,before a developer can apply for development consent and undertake EIA.• Plans and programmes (PPs) which, when adopted, or modified, set binding criteria forsubsequent consent for projects• Hierarchical linking between <strong>SEA</strong> and EIA (tiering)According to the report such overlaps can create confusion to which of the directives applyand in the reports findings the authors recommend that the Member States should considerwhether co-ordinated EIA/<strong>SEA</strong> procedures are possible or appropriate. In cases where theMember States might be faced with either replacing EIA with <strong>SEA</strong> or extending theapplication of EIA to plans and programmes they need to consider carefully how therequirements of both directives are fulfilled. Furthermore the potential gaps between thedirectives that may have appeared in the national application must be examined and the mostappropriate level of assessment chosen.Two of the countries included in the thesis are also included in the review, namelySweden and England. In both of the cases, the areas of greatest potential overlap is relating toindustrial estate and urban development projects where the plans required for the planning ordevelopment application may require an EIA (in the case of the England, masterplansubmitted for outline application, and in Sweden Detailed Development Plans). In the case ofEngland, the potential areas of overlap between the directives are considered to be quitelimited, primarily relating to urban development projects, industrial estates and certain typesof infrastructure, e.g. transport and electricity. In the case of Sweden the greatest potentialfor overlap is for Detailed Development Plans (DDPs). All DDPs will require screening todetermine whether <strong>SEA</strong> is required in a particular case, and for certain types of projects (e.g.industrial estate development projects, urban development project etc) an EIA will also berequired if there are likely to be significant environmental effects. Therefore, it would seemlikely that both EIA and <strong>SEA</strong> would be required for certain plans and it has not been solvedwhether a joint EIA/<strong>SEA</strong> will be adopted. For more detailed discussion on the potentialchallenges of the introduction of the <strong>SEA</strong> directive, see national chapters.Since the approval of the directive in 2001, communication papers (COM (2002) 276final) and (COM (2002) 278 final) have been presented to start a new initiative towards moreintegration with further impact assessment (IA). The aim of these papers is the improvementof the quality and coherence of the policy and legislative development processes. This newtype of assessment applies to strategies, policies, programmes and legislation and is in manyinstances merged together with Sustainability Impact Assessment. An IA should be carriedout for all major initiatives, whether strategies and policies, programmes or legislation.Although the strategy is directed to Community’s acts, it could influence activities of theMember States towards the implementation of IA measures to their national activities.2.6 Main findingsThe directive applies to plans and programmes for which an environmental assessment shallbe carried out. These plans are defined according to the authorities preparing and adoptingthem, their legislative framework, and their scope. The directive also aims at integratingenvironmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes,but does not define what the process entails or in what way this shall be done; as a separateprocess or integrated in the existing planning process. Hence it is difficult to discern whatideas of the planning and the processes of planning are the grounds for the directive. Themain emphasis seems to be on regulatory, physical plans (which set the framework for thefuture development consent of projects that are likely to have significant environmental24
effects), with less attention given to plans that present a strategic vision of the developmentof an area or an authority. The limited guidance available on the procedural elements on theimplementation of the directive will inevitably make its effect dependant on the discretionexercised by the Member States in their transposition and implementation. This alsounderlines the need for studies highlighting the character of the implementation at national,regional as local levels. With regard to the dual objectives of the directive, i.e. environmentalprotection and integration on the one hand and the promotion of sustainable developmenton the other, the procedural steps seem to be better suited to meeting the former objectives.The requirements of the directive and the EC’s <strong>SEA</strong> guidance do not seem to givesubstantive support of how the latter objective shall be achieved, based on the methodologyoutlined in the directive. It could therefore be argued that the picture of environmentalassessment drawn in the directive is primarily concerned with environmental integration, andis less suitable for fulfilling the broader aim of promoting sustainable development.25
- Page 1 and 2: sea in the context of land-useplann
- Page 4 and 5: Blekinge Institute of Technology Li
- Page 7: AcknowledgementsThis thesis has dev
- Page 10 and 11: CHAPTER 5 INTRODUCTION OF SEA TO TH
- Page 13: PART I - Introduction to the resear
- Page 16 and 17: In this research the introduction o
- Page 18 and 19: my studies and work in the area as
- Page 20 and 21: FIGURE 1.1. BASIC TYPES OF CASE-STU
- Page 22 and 23: • Process/Strategy Model; i.e. co
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 2The SEA Directive 2001/42/
- Page 27 and 28: was extended again to also encompas
- Page 29: The plans and programmes referred t
- Page 33 and 34: widespread voluntary application of
- Page 35 and 36: assessment instruments such as Risk
- Page 37 and 38: 3.1.4 The origins of SEA and its re
- Page 39 and 40: 3.2 Relevance of planning theory fo
- Page 41 and 42: development of its central ideas an
- Page 43 and 44: aspects of environmental considerat
- Page 45 and 46: FIGURE 3.2. SEA TOOLS IN RELATION T
- Page 47: planning theory in respect of envir
- Page 51 and 52: Chapter 4 Introduction of SEA to th
- Page 53 and 54: to the ordinance (2005:356), the fo
- Page 55 and 56: planning area and the 0-alternative
- Page 57 and 58: 4.4 Preparation work for SEA applic
- Page 59 and 60: Housing and Planning has argued tha
- Page 61 and 62: Municipal comprehensive plans (öve
- Page 63 and 64: 4.6.2 On-going legal revisionsOn-go
- Page 65 and 66: municipal comprehensive plans (25 p
- Page 67 and 68: A pilot study on impact assessment
- Page 69: despite the committee’s suggestio
- Page 72 and 73: esources, and the community, includ
- Page 74 and 75: There amongst it shall be decided w
- Page 76 and 77: Information made available in the r
- Page 78 and 79: Environmental assessment has been i
- Page 80 and 81:
Level Authority Type ofplanningDesc
- Page 82 and 83:
National initiatives for sustainabl
- Page 84 and 85:
limited research that has been carr
- Page 86 and 87:
equired by the SEA directive. Simil
- Page 88 and 89:
- Setting the context and objective
- Page 90 and 91:
Screening (the determination ifthe
- Page 92 and 93:
assessment for the EU structural fu
- Page 94 and 95:
Level Authority Type ofplanningDesc
- Page 96 and 97:
experience of sustainability apprai
- Page 98 and 99:
ensuring that environmental assessm
- Page 100 and 101:
The second issue that raises some q
- Page 103 and 104:
Chapter 7 A Comparative Description
- Page 105 and 106:
system. This notion is reinforced b
- Page 107 and 108:
Who decides?The authorities respons
- Page 109 and 110:
plans at the municipal level (Impac
- Page 111 and 112:
experience of assessing the plan’
- Page 113 and 114:
preconditions for the introduction
- Page 115 and 116:
that the directive has spurred the
- Page 117 and 118:
the SEArequirements,i.e. whichplans
- Page 119 and 120:
Chapter 8 FindingsThe aim of the re
- Page 121 and 122:
importance of improved knowledge an
- Page 123 and 124:
At the same time HB has had access
- Page 125 and 126:
References and documentsAlfredsson,
- Page 127 and 128:
Christoferson, I. (ed), (2001) Swed
- Page 129 and 130:
Kørnøv, L. (1999) Integrating SEA
- Page 131 and 132:
Sheate, W., Byron, H., Dagg, S. and
- Page 133 and 134:
European Union’s publicationsEC (
- Page 135 and 136:
English documents:Countryside Counc