Implementing the SEA Directive

Article from The Environmentalist magazine – (publication of The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment) Issue 15 February 2003
www.iema.net

Draft guidance on implementing the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive was recently published and Karl Fuller provided a helpful overview in the December 2002 issue of 'the environmentalist'. In this article Sean Nicholson provides a critique of the guidance, based on experience of carrying out a number of high profile sustainability appraisals including the London Plan.

Links to Sustainability Appraisal

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Planning Guidance is now mandatory and the Government is proposing to make SA mandatory for new Local Development Frameworks. Many recent development plans have been subjected to SA. The draft guide encourages SEA to be undertaken within the context of a broader SA but I think this should be mandatory rather than discretionary. There are four reasons for this:

• The concept of sustainable development is about achieving ‘win – win – win’ solutions and to separate out the assessment of environmental impacts from social and economic ones seems a backward step;
• The SEA directive requires consideration of impacts on population, health and material assets so there are clear linkages to social and economic considerations that should be dealt with in an integrated way;
• Paragraph 3.3.9 of the draft guide suggests that the inclusion of economic and social considerations could dilute environmental considerations. My experience of SAs that have incorporated a range of objectives is that this is not the case. This comment could encourage authorities to only consider environmental considerations, which would be contrary to the concept of sustainable development; and
• The draft guide recommends an objectives-led approach to SEA which fits well with the existing approach to SA.

Objectives-led approach

The draft guide advocates an objectives-led approach to the assessment of effects. So for example in the context of air quality an objective might be to ‘maintain or improve existing air quality.’ The extent to which policies move towards or away from the achievement of objectives will be assessed.

I strongly support the objectives-led approach. Experience with SA suggests that the use of objectives is preferable to the use of criteria. Objectives provide a clear indication of the direction in which a plan should be heading. Criteria on the other hand are neutral.

The use of objectives also provides an opportunity to nest SEAs within the Regional Sustainable Development Framework, from which appraisal objectives can be drawn. This will ensure that the appraisal reflects the local situation and priorities, e.g. protection or enhancement of particular environmental assets.

Independent Appraisal

The draft guide recommends that appraisal is carried out by a team that is independent from the team that prepared the document that is being appraised. The appraisal team could comprise officers from the same organisation and/or a different organisation or consultants. This approach is supported but one implication is that the guide needs to give greater consideration to the respective roles of the plan team and the appraisal team and some instances of this are identified below.

Stages in the SEA Process

The draft guide identifies nine stages in the SEA process and includes a useful summary of the relevant requirements of the Directive at each stage. Comments on each stage are given below:

Stage A1: The purpose of this stage is to identify other relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives and their relationship to the plan. Figure 5 of the guide suggests that the review of other guidance could be broad, e.g. to include a review of relevant guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Notes.

I have experience of carrying out this exercise once a plan has been drafted, in order to identify any policy gaps. It strikes me that this exercise will be harder to undertake prior to drafting of the plan, particularly by an independent team who may not know how the document will be structured. For example the third column of Figure 5 in the guide includes comments like ‘include in policy T4’ but how would the appraisal team know the content of policy T4 if the document had yet to be drafted? There may be a need for an iterative process with the first step being for the appraisal team to identify relevant plans and their contents and present this to the plan team as a checklist. The second step would be for the appraisal team to review the content of the plan against the other documents once it is drafted.

Stage A2: The purpose of this stage is to identify relevant visions and problems and relate these to the plan. The guide could clarify the respective roles of the plan team and the appraisal team in this stage. It may be preferable for the plan team to identify key issues because they may be more familiar with the plan area. The appraisal team could then verify the issues by cross-referencing to other documents.

Stage B1: The purpose of this stage is to set SEA objectives. Paragraph 3.3.9 of the draft guide states that objectives should focus on ‘outcomes’ and not ‘inputs.’ The reason for this assertion is not clear and further clarification is required. Paragraph 3.3.11 suggests that some objectives could be considered as more important than others. This seems contrary to the concept of sustainable development, which is about achieving economic, social and environmental objectives together. Existing guidance on SA of Regional Planning Guidance discourages the use of weighting.

Stage C: The purpose of this stage is to consider options. These are described in the SEA Directive as reasonable alternatives to the plan. Figure 9 of the draft guide provides some examples of ‘options’. The examples given include ‘thematic’ options, e.g. in relation to accessibility and housing provision, as well as spatial options. This means that the range of options that may need to be considered is potentially large.

The considerations set out in Figure 9 seem so sensible and reflective of current government guidance that they may not represent options but essential elements of any plan. For example, the considerations relating to housing demand reflect advice in PPG3 and it would need to be demonstrated that they had been thoroughly pursued before greenfield housing allocations could be considered.

Given that the Directive requires consideration of reasonable alternatives to the plan my view is that higher level options should be considered, possibly in the form of scenarios. For example there might be choices to be made between developing different aspects of the economy and different levels of economic activity, see for example the consideration of scenarios for the development of Chester* and options for the Regional Transport Strategy for the South East**. There may be scope for developing three or four such options for a plan area together with spatial development options to accommodate them. Generating options of this nature would seem to be more manageable than the approach set out in the draft guide but would still accord with the requirements of the Directive.

The issue of developing and evaluating options seems so central to successful implementation of the Directive that separate guidance might be required.

Stages D1 and D2: A scoping report is prepared at Stage D1 setting out the proposed appraisal objectives and other key points that will underpin the SEA. The preparation of such a report is supported as this provides the opportunity for stakeholders to buy in to the objectives, options etc. Consultation on this report is undertaken at Stage D2.

Stages E1, E2 and E3: These stages are concerned with the appraisal of options. Subject to the comments made above about how options are constituted the approach to the assessment of options is supported.

Stage E4: This stage involves assessing the cumulative and synergistic aspects of preferred options. This stage may not be needed if higher level options or scenarios are adopted. Consideration of cumulative and synergistic effects could be undertaken as part of the detailed assessment of policies.

Stage F: The purpose of this stage is to screen policies and proposals. This does not seem to be a requirement of the Directive and whilst it is intended to reduce the workload associated with latter stages of the appraisal, I would question whether this would be the case. The danger of screening out policies before they are subjected to detailed appraisal is that opportunities for mitigation and enhancement that might be identified in the detailed appraisal will be missed. Experience with detailed appraisals is that there is often a ‘eureka factor’. Effects do not necessarily become apparent until the policy is appraised against the objectives. In my view once a decision has been taken to carry out the SEA/SA all of the policies should be appraised. Screening should be undertaken on the basis of whether or not to appraise the document as a whole.

Stage F2: This stage involves appraising each of the policies against the objectives. Figure 11 of the draft guide is identified as an example of the matrix that could be used but this does not identify all relevant impacts set out in the Directive. The Directive identifies the need to consider whether impacts are permanent or temporary, their frequency, probability and reversibility. In order to make this process manageable it may be preferable to record effects as shown in Figure 11 and then review all the impacts at the end of the process commenting on the frequency, probability and reversibility of significant effects.

Trying to record all this information on the matrix may make the appraisal process unmanageable. Assessing the geographical scale of impacts - such as urban/rural, regional, national and international - is also an important aspect of current SAs and it is suggested that consideration of the geographical scale of effects should feature in the finalised matrix.

The guide highlights the need for findings to be justified, even where the judgements are qualitative. I support this approach. The Environment Agency's risk based approach to the assessment of policies includes consideration of the 'impact pathway' and I think this provides a useful model for identifying effects.
A transparent approach to the assessment of a policy's impacts on a specific appraisal objective requires:

• reference to an evidence base and to the baseline situation;
• identification of the changes that a policy will bring about, based on the evidence base and the baseline situation;
• identification of the consequences of the changes, derived from the evidence base; and
• an assessment of the significance of these changes derived from the evidence base.

It is acknowledged that this is a complex approach and it may be most appropriate to apply this to key policies such as those judged to have significant effects, based on a more qualitative approach. Separate research on the evidence base for assessing effects may be required.

Stage F3: The purpose of this stage is to identify mitigation that should be included in lower tier plans. The guide suggests that these measures are identified in the SEA/SA. It would make sense for these measures to be incorporated into the plan that is being assessed because this will give them greater weight. Also, the SEA is a means to an end and will have a shorter shelf life than the plan that is being appraised.

Stage G: The purpose of this stage is to propose a monitoring framework. The guide suggests that the appraisal team propose the framework but it may make more sense for the plan team to suggest the framework because they are more familiar with the plan area and the resources available for monitoring etc. This will be the case particularly if the appraisal team are external consultants.

Stage H1: This stage is concerned with preparing the Environmental Report. Article 5 states in part that the Environmental Report shall be prepared taking into account: “the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in the process in order to avoid duplication of the assessment”.

This is an important principle that the guide does not currently appear to comment on. For example in appraising the Regional Transport Strategy for the South East the Entec appraisal team decided not to appraise specific proposals, e.g. a new Thames crossing, on the grounds that the proposals would be subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment. The guide should provide guidance on where to draw the line in order to ensure consistency of approach and compliance with the directive.

Stages H2 to J: These stages are concerned with consultation on the Environmental Report and finalising the plan, and are supported.

Quality assurance: The draft guide identifies a checklist that can be used for assessing the quality of SEAs. The approach to quality assurance is supported. This is similar in style to the Lee and Colley package for assessing the quality of Environmental Statements, which is widely accepted as a tool for assessing the quality of statements in a consistent and transparent way.

Conclusions

The draft guide to implementing the SEA Directive has much to be commended. However, it could be strengthened by requiring compliance with the Directive through the SA process. Implementing the directive will provide a number of challenges, not least of which will be the selection and appraisal of meaningful options.

References

*Chester, The Future of an Historic City, Chester City Council, 1994
**Regional Transport Strategy for the South East of England, Consultation Draft, South East England Regional Assembly, 2002.

Back to top

Click here to load the Entec home page