Feature articleImplementation of SEA in Flanders: Attitudes of key stakeholders and a user-friendly methodology
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was introduced in the Flemish Region of Belgium in 1989 [4] and currently is limited to EIA at the project level. Nonetheless, impact assessment at the level of planning and policy-making is needed to solve problems of efficiency of the existing EIA system [5]. Flemish authorities are attempting to overcome the lack of a formal strategic environmental assessment (SEA) system by introducing “feasibility studies.” Such studies are EIAs of plans prepared voluntarily by public authorities, following the same procedures as the project-level EIA. Limitations include the lack of a formal procedure and guidelines, and the absence of specialized authorities to support the process. Due to these limitations and the Flemish government's intention to introduce a new EIA decree for the Flemish Region, the EIA Centre at the Human Ecology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, was commissioned by the Ministry of the Flemish Community to develop a user-friendly methodology for SEA to be introduced into decision-making by the Flemish government [12]. The European Commission's intention to introduce an EC Directive “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” was an important incentive for the Flemish authorities to be prepared for future SEA implementation.
The project consisted of a survey among stakeholders involved in a future SEA system and the proposal of a user-friendly SEA methodology. This methodology consists of a functional SEA process plus procedure and a practical manual. The current proposal for SEA methodology does not necessarily reflect the position of the Flemish government. Its full or partial adoption and implementation will be a political decision. This paper entails a discussion of the survey results and a presentation of user-friendly SEA methodology.
Section snippets
Methodology
A survey was designed on the basis of questionnaires adapted to four target groups. Each questionnaire consisted of a selection of standard questions. The following SEA-related questions were common to all four questionnaires, on which further discussions are based:
- •
Should SEA be introduced?
- •
Who should decide if an SEA has to be carried out?
- •
When should public participation be organized?
- •
Should alternatives be studied in SEA?
- •
Should quality control of SEA be organized?
The following four groups were
Survey results
Table 1 shows the response rate for the contacted groups. The response rate for EIA experts can be considered sufficient and the response rate for the other groups is high. Not all groups had an official position in relation to SEA. Therefore, the replies sometimes reflect only the personal viewpoints of environmental specialists working in the respective organizations.
Table 2 gives an overview of the most important survey results. All contact groups indicated a strong need to introduce SEA:
Discussion of survey results
The most important result of the survey is the indication of broad-based support among key stakeholders to examine the environmental consequences of PPPs. None of the groups contacted strongly disagree with the introduction of SEA. A minority of public officials are very much opposed to SEA, because they feel it will interfere with the efficient functioning of their service.
Many respondents do not realize the importance of the environmental consequences of the activities of their own
The basics of an SEA system for Flanders
The most important feature of the proposed SEA system is its flexibility. The SEA system can be adapted to either the subject that is being examined or the experience of those who will have to do the SEA.
Administrations are offered the possibility of a gradual introduction and extension of the SEA system. Moreover, they can choose between the introduction of a separate SEA system or the integration of SEA methodology in their existing policy development and planning procedures.
The
Development of an SEA system proposal
Within this SEA system proposal, organizations are given relative freedom, at least for a starting period, to adjust the rate of introduction, the extent of investigation, and the procedural form. The system consists of (a) modules that can be integrated into existing procedures or (b) self-supporting procedures. It is suggested that the latter option be implemented in services where procedures for the development and assessment of decisions are not well structured, not transparent, or
Five variants of SEA procedure
The 1-star procedure is limited to a simple screening of the PPP. A strategic environmental discussion (SED) is added to that in the 2-star procedure. The 3-star procedure includes a screening phase, a limited scoping (without a commission of experts involved), the drafting of an SEA report, and public participation. The main feature of the 4-star procedure is the introduction of an independent commission of experts, which participates in the whole SEA process. The 5-star procedure combines all
Implementing the proposed SEA system in the Flemish region
The proposed SEA system was developed to be implemented by the Ministry of the Flemish Community. Most decisions are made within this Ministry at a regional and strategic level. Decisions include almost all regional policy-making, planning, and program development. The Ministry houses all administrative services of the regional Flemish government. Table 4 shows the basic structure of the Ministry, which is divided into six departments, is as follows: Department of Co-ordination; Department of
Conclusions
One of the major results of the SEA survey among key stakeholders is the finding of broad-based support for the introduction of SEA in Flanders. On the one hand, many respondents from administrative services do not oppose SEA; on the other hand, they do not often correctly estimate the environmental consequences of their own activities. Many respondents from the key stakeholder groups are in favor of an SEA system that includes a screening in collaboration with specialists, the examination of
References (12)
The environmental overview in development project formulation
Impact Assessment
(1997)Proposal for a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans an programmes on the environment. OJ No C 129/14, 25.4.97
(1997)- et al.
Total Quality Management in Government. A Practical Guide for the Real World
(1993) - et al.
Environmental impact assessment in Belgium
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(1991) - et al.
Environmental impact assessment in Flanders, BelgiumAn evaluation of the administrative procedure
Environmental Management
(1993) - Devuyst D, van Wijngaarden T, Hens L. The Introduction of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) at Provincial and...
Cited by (14)
Strategic Environmental Assessment implementation and effectiveness bottlenecks: Lessons from Botswana
2018, Environmental DevelopmentCitation Excerpt :In its dawn years Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) seemed to hold a lot of promise as part of the national environmental management framework (e.g. Noble, 2009). However, due to a number of bottlenecks implementation and effectiveness of SEA seem to have been low in many countries, including in the developed world (e.g. Chaker et al., 2006; De Montis et al., 2016; Devuyst et al., 2000; Hilding-Rydevik and Åkerskog, 2011; Liou and Yu, 2004; Retief, 2007; Stoeglehner, 2010; Zhu and Ru, 2008). Case studies to determine the state of implementation and factors that hinder effective implementation of SEA at country level are, therefore, important.
The paradox of strategic environmental assessment
2014, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewCitation Excerpt :Most prior studies focus primarily on describing lacking features of SEA quality; however, some elaborate on why strategy appears to be missing. Lacking insight of planners, methodological misuses of the tool, and/or a snapshot of progress of an emerging tool are presented as possible causalities for lacking conformity between SEA literature and the environmental reports (Devuyst et al., 2000; Noble, 2004; SÖDerman and Kallio, 2009; Zhou and Sheate, 2011). However, this article suggests a quite different potential causality.
Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach
2011, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewStrategic environmental assessment in Finland
2009, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementThe participation process of strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Application of participation criteria in bolivia's SEA reports
2018, Desenvolvimento e Meio AmbienteAfrican cultural heritage conservation and management: Theory and practice from southern Africa
2016, African Cultural Heritage Conservation and Management: Theory and Practice from Southern Africa