Report from the Commission - Relationship between the SEA Directive and community funds {SEC(2006) 1375}
Date: 2006-10-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, EU environmental policy, EU programme, Structural Funds, environmental impact, environmental protection, project evaluation, report, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.10.2006 
COM(2006) 639 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEA DIRECTIVE AND COMMUNITY FUNDS  

{SEC(2006) 1375} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEA DIRECTIVE AND COMMUNITY FUNDS 

1. 

BACKGROUND TO AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 

Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the 
environment  (the  ‘Strategic  Environmental  Assessment’  (SEA)  Directive)1  was  adopted  in 
July 2001 and was to be transposed in the Member States by 21 July 2004. It requires a wide 
range  of  plans  and  programmes  to  undergo  an  environmental  assessment  before  they  are 
adopted.  

Similar, but not identical, requirements for an ex ante environmental evaluation have applied, 
during  the  current  programming  period  (2000-2006),  to  Structural  Fund  (SF)  development 
plans,  assistance  and  programme  complements  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1260/1999 of 21 June 1999, laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.2,3 This 
Regulation defines 'Structural Funds' as meaning the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(EAGGF)  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  and  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries 
Guidance (FIFG).4 

These SF plans and programmes were specifically exempted from the application of the SEA 
Directive for the current programming period.5 The reason was that SF plans and programmes 
would almost certainly  have  been  adopted before the Directive  was due to be  transposed in 
the  Member  States  (i.e.  21st  July  2004)  and  would  have  undergone  ex  ante  environmental 
evaluation.  The  exemption  avoided  any  risk  of  duplicate  or  conflicting  requirements  for 
assessment  arising  from  the  application  of  the  two  legal  instruments  and  any  uncertainty 
which might ensue. The exemption does not apply to future programming periods (from 2007 
onwards) under the new Regulations.6 

1 

2 
3 

4 

5 
6 

OJ L 197/30, 21.7.2001. The word ‘strategic’ does not appear in the Directive or its title. It is used here 
for convenience only. 
OJ L 161/1, 26.06.1999. 
SF plans and programmes are also subject to ex ante evaluation in respect of the social and economic 
situation  and  of  equality  between  men  and  women.  These  aspects  are  not  the  subject  of  Directive 
2001/42/EC and are not discussed further in this report. 
See Article 2 of Regulation 1260/1999. Article 49 of the EAGGF Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 
No  1257/1999  of  17  May  1999,  on  support  for  rural  development  from  the  European  Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, OJ L 160/80, 
26.6.1999)  requires  that  evaluations  of  plans  and  programmes  under  that  Regulation  must  follow  the 
principles  of  Articles  40-43  of  Regulation  1260/1999.  Article  1  of  the  FIFG  Regulation  ((EC)  No 
1263/1999)  requires  the  structural  measures  implemented  with  financial  assistance  under  that 
Regulation to support the objectives set out in (amongst others) Regulation (EC) 1260/1999. 
Article 3(9) of Directive 2001/42/EC. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1083/2006  of  11  July  2006  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the 
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/1999;  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005  of  20  September  2005  on 
support  for  rural  development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD); 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 12(4) of Directive 2001/42/EC requires the Commission to ‘report on the relationship 
between  this  Directive  and  Regulations  (EC)  No  1260/1999  and  (EC)  No  1257/1999  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. It outlines the policy and legal background to 
the  environment  and  EC  co-financing,  explains  how  the  scope  of  application  of  the  SEA 
Directive  should  be  identified  and  how  it  relates  to  the  2007-2013  programming  period, 
compares ex ante environmental evaluation for 2000-2006 with SEA under the Directive, and 
draws some conclusions about the SEA-SF relationship based on past experience. 

2. 

THE ENVIRONMENT AND EU CO-FINANCING 

The  EC  Treaty  provides  in  Article  6  that  environmental  protection  requirements  must  be 
integrated  into  the  definition  and  implementation  of  EU  policies.  Article  174  (2)  and  (3) 
provides that ‘Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection 
taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community,’ and 
that  ‘in  preparing  its  policy  on  the  environment,  the  Community  shall  take  account  of  … 
environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community … the economic and social 
development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions.’ In 
addition, one of  the purposes  of the  Cohesion Fund is to provide a financial contribution to 
projects in the field of the environment (Article 161). 

The  EU’s  strategy  for  sustainable  development,  endorsed  by  the  Gothenburg  European 
Council  in  2001,  underlined  the  political  imperative  that  all  policies  must  have  sustainable 
development as their core concern. It emphasised that better information is needed in order to 
assess proposals systematically.7 The SEA Directive is an important instrument in providing 
such information so that environmental factors can be better integrated in sectorial proposals 
as they are developed, and more sustainable solutions can thereby be found. Its objectives are: 

‘to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the 
integration  of  environmental  considerations  into  the  preparation  and  adoption  of 
plans  and  programmes  with  a  view  to  promoting  sustainable  development’  (Article 
1). 

These objectives are to be achieved by: 

ensuring first, that ‘an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and 
programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment’ (Article 
1) ; and second, that the ‘effects of implementing [these] plans and programmes are 
taken  into  account  during  their  preparation  and  before  their  adoption’  (Preamble, 
paragraph 4). 

For  the  current  programming  period  of  Structural  Funds,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  Nº 
1260/1999  takes  into  account  Article  6  of  the  EC  Treaty  by  linking  pursuit  of  the  Funds' 
priority  objectives  with,  inter  alia,  sustainable  development  and  the  protection  and 
improvement  of  the  environment  (Article  1),  and  by  requiring  the  Commission  and  the 

7 

COM(2001)264 final. The Presidency Conclusions are SN 200/1/01 REV 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States to integrate the requirements of environmental protection in the definition and 
implementation  of  the  operations  of  the  Structural  Funds  (Article  2).  In  particular  it  makes 
provision  for  the  ex  ante  assessment  of  Community  assistance,  including  its  environmental 
aspects (Article 41). 

Similarly, Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 includes ‘the preservation and promotion of a high 
nature  value  and  a  sustainable  agriculture  respecting  environmental  requirements’  as  one  of 
the purposes of the EAGGF (Article 2). 

During  the  current  programming  period  (2000-2006)  the  Cardiff  process  has  improved  the 
focus  on  environmental  integration  and  the  longer  term  effects  of  sectorial  strategies;  and 
there has been more use of environmental targets and indicators, environmental assessment of 
projects and ex ante evaluation of programmes in accordance with the requirements of Article 
41  of  Regulation  1260/1999.  Use  of  the  funds  has  thus  been  an  important  plank  for  the 
delivery of EU environmental policy. 

For the next programming period (2007-2013), the funding process has been simplified and 
decentralised.  Within  the  overall  context  of  reform,  the  objectives  of  furthering  sustainable 
development and the protection and improvement of the environment in accordance with the 
Gothenburg Conclusions have been retained.  

The Financial Perspectives 2007-13 have reduced the number of Structural Funds. The SFs in 
the period 2007-13 will consist of the ERDF and the ESF, plus the Cohesion Fund (CF). The 
European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD) are no longer SFs in the strict sense and are located under a different heading of the 
Financial Perspectives. For consistency and because the same rationale applies in each case, 
this  Report  discusses  the  relationship  between  the  SEA  Directive  and  all  of  these  Funds, 
including the CF which, under the new Regulation, will be in the form of a programme. 

Although ex ante evaluation is required for Operational Programmes (OPs), it is not required 
for  National  Strategic  Reference  Frameworks  (NSRFs)  (or  National  Strategic  Plans  in 
EAFRD and EFF) nor is a separate ex ante environmental evaluation now required (being in 
effect superseded by the SEA Directive. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on 
the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund 
and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1260/19998  states  that  'the  action  taken  under  the  Funds 
shall  incorporate,  at  national  and  regional  level,  the  Community’s  priorities  in  favour  of 
sustainable  development  by  strengthening  growth,  competitiveness,  employment,  and  social 
inclusion, and by protecting and improving the quality of the environment’ (Article 3). It also 
makes clear that the objectives of the Funds shall be pursued in the framework of sustainable 
development  and  the  Community  promotion  of  the  goal  of  protecting  and  improving  the 
environment as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty (Article 17). 

The  overall  mission  of  the  EAFRD9  is  to  ‘contribute  to  the  promotion  of  sustainable  rural 
development  throughout  the  Community’  (Article  3)  and  amongst  its  objectives  is  that  of 
‘improving  the  environment  and  the  countryside  by  supporting  land  management’  (Article 
4(b)).  

8 
9 

OJ L 210/25, 31.7.2006 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20th September 2005 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Similarly, Council Regulation No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) includes 
the objective of fostering 'the protection and the enhancement of the environment and natural 
resources  where  related  to  the  fisheries  sector'  and  of  encouraging  'sustainable  development 
and  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of  life  in  areas  with  activities  in  the  fisheries  sector' 
(Article 4(e) and (f)). 

In  the  next  programming  period,  therefore,  support  from  these  European  co-financing 
instruments will continue to be a major catalyst for environmental improvement. 

3. 

APPLYING THE SEA DIRECTIVE TO PLANS AND PROGRAMMES UNDER COMMUNITY 
FUNDS 

The  SEA  Directive  applies  to  any  plan  or  programme  which  comes  within  its  scope  of 
application as defined in Articles 2 and 3. The exemption for SF plans and programmes will 
not  apply  in  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  and  both  Regulations  1083/2006  and 
1698/2005  refer  explicitly  to  the  need  to  take  environmental  impact  assessment  (EIA)  and 
SEA legislation into account in the evaluations which are to be carried out under the Funds.10 
It  follows  that  any  post-2006  plan  or  programme  under  the  new  Regulations  which  comes 
within its scope of application will require assessment as provided for in the Directive.11  

Articles 2 and 3 of the SEA Directive contain a series of tests which must be applied in order 
to decide whether SEA is required for a plan or programme. Annex 1 below (which is based 
on earlier guidance produced by the Commission)12 briefly analyses how these tests apply to 
plans and programmes under the Community Funds. The Commission's conclusion (without 
prejudice to the role of the European Court of Justice in interpreting EC law) is that, for the 
programming period 2000-2006, many SF plans and programmes met the criteria in Articles 2 
and  3  of  the  SEA  Directive  and  would  have  required  assessment  under  it  if  it  had  applied 
when they were prepared.  

For  the  period  2007-2013,  Regulation  1083/2006  does  not  require  ex  ante  evaluation  of 
NSRFs but does require it of OPs (Article 48(2)). The absence of a requirement for a specific 
ex  ante  environmental  evaluation  means  that  no  danger  of  legal  incoherence  in  Community 
law or inconsistency with the SEA Directive could arise as was feared for the programming 
period ending in 2006.  

The requirement under Article 47 of Regulation 1083/2006 for evaluations to take account of 
Community  legislation  concerning  environmental  impact  and  strategic  environmental 
assessment emphasises that the respective directives apply when the criteria they contain are 
met.  

Because of the way the scope of application of the SEA Directive is defined and of variations 
in  the  nature  of  the  plans  and  programmes  under  the  Funds,  it  is  not  possible  to  say 

10 

11 

12 

See Article 47 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, and Article 84 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No  1698/2005.  Article  44  of  the  EFF  Regulation  refers  in  a  more  general  way  to  taking  the 
environmental impact into account. 
The only exceptions would be cases in which a Member State determined under Article 3 (3) or (4) that, 
because  the  plan  or  programme  would  not  be  likely  to  have  significant  environmental  effects, 
assessment was not necessary, or cases which fell within the exemptions in Article 3(8). 
Implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC; see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
categorically in advance which plans and programmes might be within its scope but SEA is 
most likely to be needed for OPs. 

The key test in deciding on application in this context is normally whether the OP in question 
sets  the  framework  for  future  development  consent  of  projects  since  it  is  expected  that  the 
other criteria (those in Article 2) will be met in relation to OPs. 

OPs should therefore be screened to assess the need for SEA and, so far as the Structural and 
Cohesion  Funds  are  concerned,  many  may  require  assessment  under  the  Directive, 
particularly (but not exclusively) if they include projects that are listed in Annex I or II to the 
EIA Directive.13  

Provided the Member States keep to the minimum requirements of Regulation 1083/2006, the 
Commission does not consider that SEA will be required for NSRFs (because they will not set 
the  framework  for  future  development  consent  of  projects)  although  Member  States  may 
nevertheless find it useful.  

The  same  rationale  applies  to  the  national  strategic  plans  for  rural  development,  and  rural 
development  programmes  required  under  the  EAFRD  Regulation,  and  the  national  strategic 
plans and OPs required under the EFF Regulation. Here too it is not expected that the plans at 
national  level  which  adhere  to  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  respective  Regulation  will 
need SEA (because they do not set the framework for future development consent) but rural 
development programmes and OPs (for fisheries) will be likely to require it. Accordingly they 
should be screened against the Directive's requirements, as should any regional programmes 
which might meet the Directive's criteria.  

Authorities will need to exercise caution in considering the application of the SEA Directive, 
in  order  to  avoid  any  risk  of  non-compliance  and,  when  it  applies,  Member  States  must  be 
able to demonstrate, before the adoption of the OP, that they have met its requirements.  

Member  States  have  been  reminded  of  their  obligations  towards  the  SEA  Directive  in 
guidance on ex ante evaluation prepared by the Commission which also suggested how SEA 
could  be  made  complementary  to  ex  ante  evaluation  (a  question  touched  on  in  section  6 
below).14 

4. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SEA DIRECTIVE 

Environmental  assessment  in  accordance  with  the  SEA  Directive  contains  the  following 
elements: 

a) 

The scoping of the environmental report 

Environmental authorities designated by the Member State must be consulted when 
deciding on the scope and level of detail of the information which must be included 
in the environmental report (scoping) (Article 5(4)). 

13 

14 

Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects 
on the environment (85/337/EEC) as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_sf2007-
2013_en.pdf 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
b) 

The preparation of the environmental report 

The  report  (which  must  be  of  sufficient  quality)  must  contain  the  information  that 
may reasonably be required (Article 5(2)) and its detailed contents are prescribed in 
Annex I of the Directive (see Annex 2 below).  

c) 

Carrying out consultations 

Once the draft plan or programme and the environmental report have been drawn up, 
the  public  and  the  environmental  authorities  must  be  given  the  opportunity  of 
commenting  on  the  draft  plan  or  programme  and  the  environmental  report  (Article 
6). ‘The public’ is defined as meaning ‘one or more natural or legal persons and, in 
accordance  with  national  legislation  or  practice,  their  associations,  organisations  or 
groups.’ The public must be identified and must include ‘the public affected or likely 
to  be  affected  by,  or  having  an  interest  in,  the  decision-making  subject  to  [the] 
Directive,  including  relevant  non-governmental  organisations,  such  as  those 
promoting  environmental  protection  and  other  organisations  concerned.’  The 
Directive is thus aligned with the Aarhus Convention.15 

Other Member States that are likely to be affected by the environmental impacts of 
the  plan  or  programme  must  also  be  informed  and  asked  if  they  wish  to  enter  into 
consultations (Article 7). 

d) 

Taking account of the environmental report and the results of the consultations 
in the decision-making process 

The environmental report and the opinions received during the consultation process 
must be taken into account during the preparation of the plan or programme (Article 
8).  Hence  it  may  be  found  necessary  or  desirable  to  introduce  amendments  to  the 
draft plan or programme. 

e)  Notification of decision 

The  designated  environmental  authorities  and  the  public  (and  any  Member  State 
consulted)  must  be  informed  of  the  adoption  of  the  plan  or  programme  and  certain 
additional  information  (including  how  environmental  considerations  and  the  results 
of  consultation  have  been  taken  into  account)  must  be  made  available  to  them 
(Article 9). 

f)  Monitoring 

Monitoring is not included in the definition of environmental assessment in Article 2 
but  in  Article  10  the  Directive  requires  the  significant  environmental  effects  of  the 
implementation  of  the  plan  or  programme  to  be  monitored  in  order,  inter  alia,  to 
identify unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial 
actions.  To  avoid  duplication,  existing  monitoring  arrangements  may  be  used,  if 
appropriate (Article 10). The precise arrangements for monitoring will depend on the 

15 

United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe,  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public 
Participation  in  decision-making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters,  done  at  Aarhus, 
Denmark, 25th June 1998. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
nature  and  content  of  the  plan  or  programme  concerned.  For  example,  what  is 
appropriate  for  a  small-scale  fisheries  programme  envisaging  only  one  or  two 
projects will be very different from one involving heavy investment in infrastructure. 

5. 

COHERENCE  BETWEEN  PRACTICE  UNDER  CURRENT  SF  REGULATIONS  AND  THE 
SEA DIRECTIVE’S REQUIREMENTS. 

The requirements for ex ante environmental evaluation under Article 41(2)(b) of Regulation 
(EC) 1260/1999 are relatively brief. It must include: 

–  an evaluation of the environmental situation of the regions concerned, especially 
the 

that  may  be  considerably  affected  by 

those  environmental  sectors 
environmental impacts of the SF assistance. 

–  The arrangements to integrate the environmental dimension into the SF assistance 
and the coherence with existing short- and long-term national, regional and local 
environmental objectives. 

–  The  arrangements  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  Community  rules  on  the 

environment. 

–  An estimation of the expected environmental impacts of the strategy and the SF 

assistance. 

In putting these requirements into practice, authorities in some Member States used guidance 
produced either on a national basis or by the Commission,16 or found inspiration in Directive 
2001/42/EC even though it did not apply at that time.  

The  main  differences  between  the  SEA  procedure  and  best  practice  in  the  ex  ante 
environmental assessment of plans and programmes in the current programming round can be 
summarised as follows: 

(i) 

under the Directive, environmental authorities must be consulted on the scope 
and  level  of  detail  of  the  information  to  be  included  in  the  environmental 
report; 

(ii) 

there is a formal requirement to consider reasonable alternatives in the SEA; 

(iii) 

the  information  requirements  of  the  Directive  are  expressed  more  fully  and 
rigorously,  and  explicitly  include  an  assessment  of  environmental  problems 
and  objectives  and  how  they  have  been  taken  into  account  (see  Annex  3 
below);  

16 

‘A Handbook on Environmental Assessment of Regional Development Plans and EU Structural Funds 
Programmes’,  prepared  by  Environmental  Resources  Management  for  the  European  Commission, 
DGXI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, August 1998. 
See http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm 
‘Environment  and  Sustainable  Development,  A guide for the  ex  ante  evaluation of  the  environmental 
impact or regional development programmes’ prepared by Ecotec Research and Consulting on behalf of 
DG XVI of the European Commission. Evaluation and Documents No 6, May 1999. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
(iv) 

(v) 

the Directive contains a formal requirement to consult the general public (and, 
explicitly,  environmental  authorities)  on  the  plan  or  programme  and  the 
environmental  report  and  it  provides  for  transboundary  consultation  when 
appropriate; and 

the  environmental  report  and  the  results  of  consultation  must  be  taken  into 
account  during  the  preparation  of  the  plan  or  programme  and,  when  it  is 
adopted,  a  statement  summarizing  how  this  has  been  done  must  be  made 
available  to  the  public,  environmental  authorities  and  any  Member  States 
consulted. 

It  seems  clear  therefore  that,  although  there  are  marked  differences  in  the  way  the 
requirements of the respective legal instruments are expressed, in practice the move from ex 
ante  environmental  evaluation  to  SEA  in  accordance  with  the  Directive  should  be  a 
development  from  previous  best  practice  which  should  not  present  Member  States  with 
insuperable  difficulties.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  Directive  is  specific  in  its 
requirements and that it introduces some additional elements compared with Article 41(2)(b). 
It is moreover legally enforceable unlike the previous guidance.  

Annex  2  compares  the  SEA  process  with  the  requirements  for  the  2000-2006  programming 
period. 

6. 

THE 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD 

The  relationship  between  the  SEA  Directive  and  the  Regulations  governing  the  2007-2013 
programming period appears legally coherent and complementary, and observance of the SEA 
requirements should achieve some worthwhile improvements in comparison with the current 
procedure.17  To  a  considerable  degree,  these  requirements  formalize  what  was  already  best 
practice  in  carrying  out  ex  ante  environmental  evaluations  but  in  order  to  ensure  that 
programming  and  assessment  both  proceed  smoothly,  and  to  derive  maximum  benefit  from 
the SEA in developing the programme, authorities will need to plan the activities carefully.  

The  absence  of  any  requirement  for  an  ex  ante  environmental  evaluation,  coupled  with  the 
provisions  of  Article  11(2)  of  the  SEA  Directive  which  allows  co-ordinated  or  joint 
procedures  to  be  established  to  avoid  duplication  means  that  there  is  no  legal  obstacle  to 
establishing a single assessment procedure at the programming level. 

It will be in authorities' interest to consider the application of the SEA Directive and involve 
environmental authorities at the earliest moment so as to avoid delays in completing OPs and 
rural development programmes. Assessment and programming will need to begin at about the 
same time and each should inform the other in an iterative manner. The environmental report 
required for the SEA should be completed as the programme is being developed so that the 
design  of  the  programme  can  benefit  from  the  growing  understanding  of  the  likely  effects. 
There will need to be close co-operation between the programming team and the assessment 
team (if indeed these activities are not combined within a single team).  

17 

Annex 3 of Working Paper 'The ex ante evaluation of the Structural Funds interventions' advises on the 
procedures  for  ex  ante  evaluation  and  strategic  environmental  assessment  and  is  available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional _policy/sources/docoffic/working/sf2000_en.htm  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In particular, it will be advisable for authorities to consider at an early stage the requirements 
for early and effective public consultation and how they propose to provide for it. Failure to 
consider this sufficiently early in the planning process could lead to delays at a late stage of 
the  evaluation  when  time  can  be  at  a  premium.  Experience  in,  for  example,  Germany  and 
Great  Britain  in  the  2001-2006  period  shows  that  consultation  can  be  carried  out  while 
respecting  time  limits.  Careful  planning  of  the  evaluation  should  enable  an  environmental 
assessment  to  be  carried  out  which  conforms  to  Directive  2001/42/EC  without  unduly 
prolonging the planning process. Provided environmental interests are adequately represented 
in  partnership  arrangements,  environmental  issues  can  be  addressed  and  documented  (and 
opportunities  of  achieving  positive  environmental  outcomes  incorporated)  during  the 
development of the programme.  

The  environmental  report  is  an  important  tool  for  integrating  environmental  considerations 
into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes. It must contain the information 
that  may  be  reasonably  required,  taking  account  amongst  other  things  of  the  contents  and 
level of detail in the plan or programme. This implies that in the report for a general, broad-
brush plan, very detailed information and analysis may not be necessary whereas much more 
detail  would  be  necessary  for  a  plan  or  programme  which  itself  contained  a  higher  level  of 
detail.  In  other  words,  while  meeting  the  requirements  of  Annex  I,  environmental  reports 
should be in proportion to the nature of the plan or programme to which they relate. 

If  SEA  is  carried  out  at  the  strategic  level  (NSRF,  NSP),  it  would  examine  the  broad  areas 
proposed  for  support  so  as  to  ensure  that,  so  far  as  possible,  environmentally  beneficial 
programmes and measures result. At the programme level, SEA would be more detailed. The 
assessment  would  need  to  relate  the  description  of  the  environment  to  the  types  of  effect 
which  are  likely  to  result  from  the  measures  proposed,  in  order  to  show  clearly  how  action 
supported by the Funds is likely to affect the environment. Irrespective of the type of plan or 
programme, the validity and robustness of the chosen indicators should have been established 
in the light of experience and they should be carefully selected in order both to demonstrate 
over  time  the  environmental  benefits  delivered  by  the  measures  in  the  programmes  and  to 
enable  their  achievement  to  be  satisfactorily  monitored,  and  to  enable  unforeseen  adverse 
effects to be identified and remedied as appropriate.  

OPs and rural development programmes may pave the way for a variety of eventual actions 
not all of which will be projects in the meaning of the Directive. In such cases it makes little 
sense to attempt to restrict the SEA to the project-related elements of the programme alone. 
Indeed this may not be compliant with the Directive. The point of SEA is to improve planning 
and it makes more sense to carry out an evaluation of the whole programme (with appropriate 
coverage  of  each  aspect  of  it)  than  to  attempt  to  introduce  artificial  distinctions  which  may 
distort the assessment.  

While SEA will help to optimize programmes' contribution to sustainable development, where 
no SEA is required, the challenge will be to formulate, implement and evaluate programmes 
in  the  light  of  the  sustainable  development  needs  and  to  identify  ways  in  which  sustainable 
development principles can be integrated into projects so as to add value to their outputs and 
impacts and to the broader development objectives of the programme. In these cases ex ante 
evaluation will need to consider the environmental implications of proposals. There are ESF 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
examples  from  the  current  programming  period  which  have  successfully  incorporated  such 
principles.18 

Many authorities should be able to build on previous experience of environmental evaluation 
for the forthcoming programming period but others may find it necessary to engage in some 
capacity-building. Amongst other sources of information, practical guidance on application of 
SEA in the context of the Cohesion Policy can be found in a handbook produced in early 2006 
by the Greening Regional Development Programmes Network (GRDP).19 

7. 

CONCLUSION 

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. 

18 

19 

Macleod  C,  (2005),  'Integrating  Sustainable  Development  into  Structural  Funds  Programmes:  An 
Evaluation of the Scottish Experience. European Environment, 15, 313-331. 
GRDP, Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy, February 2006. 

EN 

11 

   EN