Dutch SEA case studiesRob Verheem

The Netherlands EIA Commission

Basic Dutch SEA approach

SEA to safeguard ‘good governance’: To involve all relevant stakeholders To make planning transparent To have the best information possible

SEA improves both planning process ánd the information used in this process

SEA improves the planning process

SEA is not a separate process

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Main requirements in Dutch SEAParticipation requirements: All stakeholders involved in both scoping & reviewing

Transparency requirements: Start of the plan process is published Alternatives are compared in the SEA report Decisions are motivated in the final plan

Information requirements: Independent quality control in scoping & reviewing Monitoring and evaluation mandatory

SEA in the planning process

Early publication

Participation/advice on scope of the SEA report

SEA report compares alternatives

Participation/advice on quality of the SEA report

Written motivation of the plan

Monitoring and Evaluation

West Netherlands Spatial Plan

Objective of plan:

To stimulate economic development

Four cities molded into one metropolitan area

Through infrastructure and urban development

Existing situation

valuable landscape

Main elements of the planTo make choices in:

Type and location of new high speed railway system between cities

Location of new urban and industrial areas

Location of new ‘green’ and ‘water’ areas

Purpose of SEA

To show range of potential options

Integrated assessment of options: environmental, social, economic

AlternativesDeveloped in three steps:

First: design of green & water areas

Then: design of infrastructure

Finally: design of housing & industry area

Existing situation

valuable landscape

Alternative 1

Train

Alternative 1

New urban area

Train

Alternative 2

Train

Alternative 3

Train

Alternative 4

Monorail

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Monorail

MethodologyStep 1: identification of issues to examine

Spatial diversity Economic & social efficiency Cultural diversity Social justice Sustainability Attractiveness & human scale Flexibility & robustness Costs & transport effects

IndicatorsStep 2: appropriate indicators for each issue

Extracted from existing policies

Complemented by: Indicators suggested by NGOs Indicators from expert judgment

Example: indicators for spatial quality

Amount of urban and rural areas Surface area open landscape Surface area valuable landscape Surface area historical valuable area Green belts between urban areas

Methods for impact assessment

Most effects: GIS

Some social impacts: transport models

Economic impacts: monetarisation

Expert workshops on methods & results

Methods for comparison of alternativesNot one, but multiple methods were used:

Quantitative score per indicator Ranking per indicator Matrix: ‘best’ & ‘worst’ model per indicat. Contribution to policy objectives Economic cost benefit analysis Qualitative discussion end results

Methods for public participation

Information meetings Discussion meetings Written comments Web site

Quality reviewIndependent EIA Commission concluded:

Positive: good SEA in short time

Negative: no alternatives for: green and water area regional transport alternative

Neutral: social & economic assessment not (yet) good enough

Results of the SEA Alternative 1: good for environment, but

inflexible and costly

Alternative 4: bad at almost all points

Alternative 3: best one overall

All alternatives: costs higher than benefits

Final decision

Government decided for alternative 3

However, with a modified transport option to improve cost benefit ratio:

High speed train between major cities Metro between medium sized cities Bus and light rail for small towns

Lessons learned Overall: methodology & information

useful

Time & cost effective because of previous SEA

Assessment could have been less quantitative

SEA started too late

Case: 2002 waste management plan To set ‘minimum standards’ for waste

processing

Standard = minimum environmental performance for processing techniques

For 26 waste streams

Purpose and context of SEA

To compare environmental performance of alternative processing techniques

Attracted much interest from civil society

Methodology for impact analysis Life Cycle Analysis

Advantages: standardized technique Use of computer model All effects from production to disposal Includes positive effects of re-use

Disadvantage: high data demand

LCA: environmental themes Climate change Acidification Eutrophication Toxicity Use of resources Use of space Biodiversity

Weighting to reflect policy prioritiesFour weight sets were applied:

All effects equally important Contribution to policy objectives most

important Climate change most important Toxicity most important

Methodology for public participation

All major national NGOs: Round tables on alternatives & impacts

Selected national NGOs: Continuous sounding board

Methodology for public participation

Local NGOs and local governments: Actively invited to send comments In both scoping and reviewing stage

Private citizens: Written comments during scoping and

reviewing

Methodology for public participationMethods applied:

Discussion groups in early stage Sounding boards throughout process Technical expert workshops Information meetings for general public Mass media and information bulletin

Results of public participation

High response national NGOs: alternatives

Increased focus on new alternative: separation

High response local groups: local issues

Low response by private citizens

Lessons learned LCA useful, but not in all cases

Extensive public participation useful: Led to broad acceptance of plan Increased ‘holistic’ approach by NGOs

Public should also be involved in stating assumptions

SEA made EIA easier to do: Methodology developed Alternatives compared