The Commission presented its second report on the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Directive).

The report presented the experience gained in applying the SEAD between 2007 and 2014. Its findings will feed into an evaluation of the SEAD that will be carried out as part of the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme.

As a reminder, the SEAD is essentially a process directive, which establishes certain steps that Member States must follow when identifying and assessing environmental effects. The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process is about helping policy makers take well-informed decisions, based on objective information and the results of consultation with the public/stakeholders and relevant authorities.

The report noted that in 2007-2014, Member States did not raise major implementation concerns .

The EU Court of Justice (CJEU) has delivered a comprehensive case-law relating to the SEAD, and thus facilitated its application . The CJEU has confirmed the broad interpretation of the terms and provisions of the Directive.

Where necessary, Member States amended their national legislation to ensure compliance with the Directive.

Effectiveness of the SEA Directive : all Member States have acknowledged that the SEA procedure has influenced the planning process and has improved the quality of plans and programmes . The process appears to be more effective when there is a political will to effectively influence the planning process.

Moreover, the SEA procedure would be more likely to influence regional and small-scale plans and programmes (e.g. land use planning) rather than national plans and programmes for which the strategic decisions are often taken at political level and for which there is little margin for these to be reviewed after the SEA procedure.

Main challenges : some of the challenges in the application of the Directive relate to the different elements of the SEA procedure . This is especially true for plans and programmes that address a broad scope of issues (e.g. national or sectoral).

Member States have encountered two types of challenges in preparing the environmental report : (i) the availability and quality of the data; (ii) the technical knowledge and experience of the experts preparing the report and the authorities in charge of its quality review.

In addition, there are still uncertainties about some key concepts such as ‘ reasonable alternatives ’.

In order to ensure compliance when implementing and applying the SEA Directive, the alternatives that are assessed have to be reasonable taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plans and programmes before setting up their final content.

The SEAD does not define the term ‘reasonable alternatives’, nor does Member States’ transposing national legislation. There is no common approach to define the types and the number of alternatives to be assessed.

As Member States have also noted, due to the specifics when preparing plans and programmes, identifying reasonable alternatives could be a challenge . For example, it is challenging to identify and assess reasonable alternatives at the planning stage either because the plans and programmes strategically address a particular matter, or because of the general content of the plans and programmes.

Member States have considerable discretion in organising the process of informing and consulting the public and the relevant authorities in the different stages of the SEA procedure.

However, Member States have noted that the extent to which the results of the SEA procedure are considered in the final decision of plans and programmes often depends on the decision-making specifics, and can vary.

Relationship with other legislation : the report noted that the interplay between the procedures under the EIA Directive ( EIA Directive ) and SEA procedures seems to be a real challenge.

The CJEU confirmed that EIA and SEA procedures differ in several respects. It is therefore necessary to comply with the requirements of both Directives concurrently .

However, practice shows that the boundaries between the two procedures are not always distinct and tend to overlap, in particular as regards plans, programmes or projects related to land use and/or spatial planning.

In conclusion, the Commission called on all Member States to pursue their implementation efforts to ensure compliance with the SEAD. Where necessary, they should also take proactive initiatives, such as guidance documents, training, information sharing, and establishing environmental information databases.

Based on this report, the Commission will consider in the upcoming evaluation how to increase the positive impacts of the SEAD and better demonstrate its EU added value, effectiveness and efficiency.

COM(2017)0234
EUR-Lex

COM(2009)0469

This report from the Commission is on the application and effectiveness of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive).

Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment requires certain public plans and programmes (P&P) to undergo an environmental assessment before they are adopted.

The Directive requires the Commission to send a first report on its application and effectiveness to the European Parliament and the Council before 21 July 2006. With a view to further integrating environmental protection requirements, this report should, if appropriate, be accompanied by proposals for amendment, in particular on the possibility of extending its scope to other areas/sectors and other types of public plans and programmes (P&P).

Due to delays in transposing the Directive in many Member States and to the limited experience of its application, the information available on 21 July 2006 was not sufficient to produce a report as planned.

The overall picture of the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive across all Member States is a varied one in terms of the institutional and legal arrangements of the SEA procedure, and in terms of how Member States perceive its role. This diverse picture also determines the way in which Member States view the benefits and drawbacks and what measures are likely to improve the implementation and effectiveness of the Directive.

The general findings of this first report suggest that the application of the SEA in Member States is in its infancy, and that further experience is needed before deciding on whether the Directive should be amended and, if so, how this should be done. Member States seem to prefer stability in the legislative requirements, to allow SEA systems and processes to settle down and provide the opportunity to establish robust ways of using SEAs to improve the planning process. The next evaluation report should be prepared in 2013 .

Overall, it can be concluded that the SEA Directive contributes to the systematic and structured consideration of environmental concerns in planning processes and better integration of environmental considerations upstream. In addition, by means of its requirements (environmental report, consultation and information of the authorities and public concerned etc.) it ensures better and harmonized planning procedures, and contributes to transparent and participatory decision making processes.

In the longer term , consideration may be given to some amendments to take into account the entry into force of the SEA Protocol, extend the scope of the SEA Directive (so as to better address certain issues such as climate change, biodiversity and risks), and reinforce synergies with other pieces of environmental legislation.

There is a need to develop capacity in the Member States so as to ensure effective implementation of the SEA Directive. In order to do this, capacity building must be strongly encouraged, in particular through targeted campaigns for the recruitment and training of SEA experts and guidance documents.

Lastly, some Member States have highlighted the need for further guidance , in particular on the interpretation of certain key concepts of the Directive (screening criteria, identification of alternatives, coordination mechanisms and/or joint procedures for fulfilling the requirements for assessment under other Directives, specific guidance on the link between SEA and EIA). EU guidance on consideration of better integration of climate change and biodiversity issues in SEA could be developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States.

COM(2009)0469
EUR-Lex

Article 12(4) of Directive 2001/42/EC requires the Commission to ‘report on the relationship between this Directive and Regulations 1260/1999/EC and 1257/1999/EC well ahead of the expiry of the programming periods provided for in those Regulations, with a view to ensuring a coherent approach with regard to this Directive and subsequent Community Regulations.’ This report is intended to meet that obligation.

According to the report, the ex ante environmental evaluations carried out for the current period to 2006 appear to have had a beneficial influence on the design of SF programmes thanks to a more developed approach when compared with the preceding period (up to 2000). In particular, evaluations have considered more than simply the level at which particular targets should be set but also the rationale for them (whether they are the right targets) and what is the best way of achieving them. It is very important for the ex ante evaluation to establish a clear connection between results, outputs and impacts and the causal relationships between them. It is clear that the evaluation requirements of Regulation 1260/1999 have helped to promote an evaluation culture and capacity in the Member States. In some cases very little evaluation was carried out prior to the advent of significant SF applications.

The overall lesson from past experience is that a well-organised and adequately resourced evaluation system, underpinned by appropriate structures and a clear sense of purpose or focus, is an important instrument in maximising the benefits of Community co-funding. Evaluations carried out at an early stage in planning, by experienced evaluators, focused on appropriate questions and with the commitment of key stakeholders, can deliver a rounded approach to sustainable development which takes account of the interest of different stakeholders and enables environmental opportunities to be developed. There is no clear evidence of whether the decision taken to exempt the programming period 2000-2006 of SEA had harmful consequences on the environment since a separate ex ante environmental evaluation was required. During the 2007-2013 programming period, this separate evaluation will be effectively superseded by the SEA, which will be an important tool in promoting sustainable development, and will benefit in turn from the evaluation expertise developed during the programming period 2000-2006.

COM(2006)0639
EUR-Lex

Directive 2001/42
OJ L 197 21.07.2001, p. 0030

T5-0299/2001
OJ C 047 21.02.2002, p. 0015-0106 E

T5-0299/2001

Debate in Parliament

A5-0177/2001

A5-0177/2001

3619/2001

3619/2001

EUR-Lex
COM(2000)0636

T5-0358/2000
OJ C 135 07.05.2001, p. 0079-0155

Debate in Parliament

T5-0358/2000

A5-0196/2000
OJ C 135 07.05.2001, p. 0012

A5-0196/2000

EUR-Lex
SEC(2000)0568

05685/1/2000
OJ C 137 16.05.2000, p. 0011

05685/1/2000

T5-0013/1999
OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0055-0076

T5-0013/1999

CDR0349/1999
OJ C 374 23.12.1999, p. 0009

A5-0004/1999
OJ C 054 25.02.2000, p. 0010

A5-0004/1999

2194

EUR-Lex
SEC(1999)0581

EUR-Lex
OJ C 083 25.03.1999, p. 0013
COM(1999)0073

EUR-Lex
COM(1999)0073

OJ C 341 09.11.1998, p. 0010-0028
T4-0604/1998

T4-0604/1998

The vote on the report by Mr GAHRTON (V, SE) took place during the October I part-session (Tuesday 6 October 1998). Presenting Mr Per GAHRTON’s report, Mr Paul LANNOYE (V, BE) stressed that the Commission’s proposal met a need and had therefore been favourably received by the Committee on the Environment. He highlighted the important extension in Annex 1. However, the proposal was deficient as it imposed limits on the possibility of assessing projects. Mr Paul LANNOYE therefore indicated the problem which would arise if the impact study was carried out at too late a stage in the process of planning projects, thereby making it difficult to go back. As a result, although this directive was heading in the right direction, the Committee on the Environment felt that it was too restrictive and therefore proposed a series of amendments to improve it. Among these amendments, Mr LANNOYE mainly mentioned those which aimed to ensure that the possibility of carrying out a study was not limited to town and country plans and programmes. The report also proposed a positive and non-restrictive list of plans and programmes requiring a study. Clarifications were also made as regards the conditions for citizens to participate in a public inquiry and the Committee on the Environment hoped that all the alternatives (including option O) would be considered, if necessary.

Debate in Parliament

A4-0245/1998
OJ C 226 20.07.1998, p. 0003

A4-0245/1998

CDR0172/1997
OJ C 064 27.02.1998, p. 0063

CES0608/1997
OJ C 287 22.09.1997, p. 0101

EUR-Lex
OJ C 129 25.04.1997, p. 0014
COM(1996)0511

EUR-Lex
COM(1996)0511