Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC)
Date: 2009-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, EU environmental policy, application of EU law, environmental impact, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.9.2009 
COM(2009) 469 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

On the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental 
Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

On the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental 
Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Directive  2001/42/EC1  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  plans  and 
programmes  on 
the  environment  (‘Strategic  Environmental  Assessment’  – 
hereinafter  the  'SEA  –  Directive')  requires  certain  public  plans  and  programmes 
(P&P) to undergo an environmental assessment before they are adopted. 

Article 12(3) of 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 P&P. 

Due to delays in transposing the Directive in many Member States (MS) and to the 
limited experience of its application, the information available on 21 July 2006 was 
not sufficient to produce a report as planned. (Moreover, this first report had to take 
into account the experience of the new MS that acceded in 2004 and 2007). 

The main sources used for this report are set out in the Annex. 

2. 

TRANSPOSITION OF THE SEA DIRECTIVE  

MS  had  to  transpose  the  SEA  Directive  into  their  legislations  by  21.7.2004.  As  of 
that date, only nine of the 25 MS had actually transposed the Directive. 

In December 2004, 15 non-communication infringement procedures were opened for 
failure to adopt the legislation transposing the SEA Directive. Subsequently, five MS 
were condemned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for failing to transpose it. 
For the time being, there is no other ECJ case law. 

By 2009, all MS have  transposed  the  Directive. The Commission has undertaken a 
study  to  check  the  conformity  of  its  transposition  in  the  MS.  Where  appropriate, 
infringement  procedures  have  been  or  are  being  launched  to  address  problems  of 
incomplete or incorrect transposition. 

1 

OJ L197/30, 21.7.2001 p.30. The word ‘strategic’ does not appear in the Directive. It is used here for 
convenience only 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

KEY ISSUES OF THE SEA PROCEDURE 

3.1. 

Basic principles 

The P&P covered by the Directive are subject to an environmental assessment during 
their  preparation,  and  before  their  adoption.  This  includes  the  drawing  up  of  an 
environmental report in which the likely significant effects on the environment and 
the reasonable alternatives are identified, and the carrying out of consultations (with 
the  public,  the  environmental  authorities,  and  with  other  MS  in  the  case  of 
transboundary impacts). The environmental report and the results of the consultations 
are  taken  into  account  before  adoption.  Once  a  P&P  is  adopted,  the  environmental 
authorities and the public are informed and relevant information is made available to 
them.  In  order  to  identify  unforeseen  adverse  effects  at  an  early  stage,  significant 
environmental effects of the P&P are to be monitored.  

The  following  P&P,  and  modifications  to  them,  are  covered  when  prepared  and/or 
adopted  by  an  authority2  and  required  pursuant  to  legislative,  regulatory  or 
administrative provisions: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

P&P  prepared  for  certain  sectors3  and  which  set  the  framework  for  future 
development  consent  in  respect  of  projects  under  the  Environmental  Impact 
Assessment-EIA-Directive4. 

P&P requiring an assessment under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC5). 

P&P  setting  the  framework  for  development  consent  in  respect  of  projects 
(not  limited  to  those  listed  in  the  EIA  Directive;  see  (1)  above)  and 
determined by "screening"6 as being likely to have significant environmental 
effects. 

(4)  Minor  modifications  to  P&P,  and  plans  and  programmes  for  small  areas  at 
local level, only if the screening determines they are likely to have significant 
environmental effects. 

(5) 

The  Directive  does  not  apply  to  P&P  in  the  following  sectors:  national 
defence, civil emergency, financial matters and budget. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

The  concept  of  "authority"  has  been  given  a  large  scope  in  the  case  law  of  the  ECJ.  It  covers  public 
authorities,  semi  public  bodies  or  privatised  utility  companies  which  have  been  made  responsible  for 
providing a public service under the control of the State and have, for that purpose, special power. For 
more  details  see  points  3.12  and  3.13  of  the  Commission  guidance  on  Implementation  of  the  SEA 
Directive 
Agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries,  energy,  industry,  transport,  waste  management,  water  management, 
telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning, land use 
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment as 
amended (OJ L 175,5.7.1985, p.40) 
Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  (OJ  L  206, 
22.7.92, p.7)) 
Through case-by-case examination or by specifying types of P&P or by combining both approaches 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Determination of the scope of application of the Directive 

In  general,  most  MS  have  not  encountered  problems  in  determining  the  scope  of 
application of the SEA Directive. Most of them report that their model is based on a 
combined  approach,  whereby  the  list  of  P&P  to  be  assessed  is  supplemented  by  a 
case-by-case approach to determine whether an assessment is needed. 

3.3. 

Determination of the scope of the environmental report (Article 5(4)) 

The  scope  and  the  level  of  detail  of  the  information  to  be  included  in  the 
environmental  report  are  determined  in  conjunction  with  the  environmental 
authorities. This process is currently referred to as "scoping". 

The  SEA  Directive  sets  limited  requirements  for  the  scope  of  the  environmental 
report.  As  a  result,  MS  apply  different  methods  for  "scoping",  as  well  as  for 
consultation  of  the  authorities  concerned.  "Scoping"  procedures  are  mostly 
developed on a case-by-case basis, since most MS do not prescribe specific methods. 

There  are  differences  between  MS  with  regard  to  which  authority  decides  the 
outcome of the "scoping" procedure. This is often the responsibility of the planning 
authority, after having consulted the environmental authority; in other instances, it is 
left to the environmental authority.  

In  a  few  MS,  the  "scoping"  procedure  requires  consultation  of  the  public,  even 
though this is not an obligation under the Directive. 

3.4. 

Environmental report (Article 5 and Annex I) 

The  environmental  report  identifies,  describes  and  evaluates  the  likely  significant 
effects  of  the  P&P  on  the  environment  and  reasonable  alternatives,  taking  into 
account its objectives and geographical scope. 

All  national  transposing  legislation  lays  down  a  formal  requirement  to  provide  a 
description of the baseline situation. Identification of the correct scale of data and the 
level of detail of the assessment are the predominant difficulties reported by the MS. 

Other  difficulties  reported  by  the  MS  are  the  lack  of  good  quality  information,  the 
time-consuming  nature  of  data  collection,  the  lack  of  homogenous  criteria  for  the 
scope  and  content  of  the  baseline  analysis,  and  the  absence  of  a  standard  set  of 
environment and sustainability criteria against which to assess P&P. 

3.5. 

Definition of reasonable alternatives (Article 5(1)) 

Consideration and identification of alternatives in the environmental report is one of 
the few issues that have given rise to problems in MS. Extensive national guidelines 
have been developed by some MS in order to provide support for the identification 
and  selection  of  reasonable  alternatives  in  individual  procedures.  However,  the 
majority of MS have not defined how this should be done. 

Most  national  legislations  do  not  provide  a  specific  definition  of  'reasonable 
alternatives'  or  a  number  of  alternatives  that  must  be  assessed;  the  choice  of 
'reasonable alternatives' is determined by means of a case-by-case assessment and a 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
decision.  All  MS  report  that  the  'do-nothing'  alternative  has  to  be  included  in  the 
environmental report on a mandatory basis. 

3.6. 

Consultations (public, and environmental authorities) (Article 6) 

Since  the  SEA  Directive  does  not  provide  detailed  specifications  about  the 
procedures  for  public  consultation,  a  wide  range  of  methods  are  used:  public 
announcements, publication in official journals or the press, public meetings, internet 
surveys and questionnaires. In terms of the duration of the public consultation, only a 
few  MS  have  set  fixed  time-frames.  Most  MS  allow  for  consultation  periods  of  at 
least one month, while others decide on a case-by-case basis. 

General experience shows that public consultation, especially when organised at an 
early  stage  of  planning  and  when  understood  as  a  process,  contributes  to  a  higher 
acceptance  of  the  P&P,  and  therefore  to  the  early  identification  and  resolution  of 
conflicts. 

3.7. 

Transboundary consultations (Article 7) 

Many cases of transboundary consultations are reported and the level of satisfaction 
appears to be high, with the exception of the language issue. 

The  cost  of  translating  the  documents  and  the  fact  that  the  documentation  is  not 
systematically  translated  are  the  main  concerns  reported.  NGOs  report  that,  in 
practice, the consultation does not always take place at an early stage, but when the 
P&P is already well advanced. 

3.8.  Monitoring significant environmental effects 

Article  10  of  the  Directive  provides  for  significant  environmental  effects  of  the 
implementation  of  P&P  to  be  monitored  so  that  unforeseen  adverse  effects  can  be 
identified at an early stage and remedial action can be taken where needed. 

Very  few  MS  report  that  they  have  established  monitoring  methods  or  drawn  up 
national guidance on how to establish monitoring indicators. The lack of appropriate 
national  guidance  may  raise  the  question  of  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
monitoring provision in certain MS. 

4. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER EU LEGISLATION AND POLICY ISSUES 

The  SEA  Directive  has  formal  and  explicit  links  with  the  Habitats  and  EIA 
Directives,  but  it  is  also  closely  linked  to  other  directives  (Water,  Nitrates,  Waste, 
Noise and Air Quality Directives7) which contain requirements for the establishment 

7 

Directive  2000/60  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  on  water  policy  (OJ  L327, 
22.12.2000, p.1). Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by 
nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p.1). Directive 2006/12/EC on waste, (OJ L 
114 27.4.2006 p.9). Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise, 
(OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p.12). Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, 
(OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p.1) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and assessment of P&P in sectors covered by the SEA, and has relationship with the 
SEA Protocol8. 

Article 11 of the SEA Directive stipulates that MS may provide for coordinated and 
joint  procedures  in  situations  where  an  obligation  to  carry  out  assessments  of  the 
effects on the environment arises from both the SEA Directive and other Community 
legislation. 

Only  a  few  MS  report  the  existence  of  guidance  for  coordination  of  the  joint 
procedures  for  fulfilling  the  requirements  governing  assessments  under  other 
directives.  

4.1. 

EIA Directive 

The two Directives are to a large extent complementary: the SEA is "up-stream" and 
identifies the best options at an early planning stage, and the EIA is "down-stream" 
and  refers  to  the  projects  that  are  coming  through  at  a  later  stage.  In  theory,  an 
overlap  of  the  two  processes  is  unlikely  to  occur.  However,  different  areas  of 
potential overlaps in the application of the two Directives have been identified9. 

In  particular,  the  boundaries  between  what  constitutes  a  plan,  a  programme  or  a 
project are not always clear, and there may be some doubts as to whether the 'subject' 
of the assessment meets the criteria of either or both of the Directives. In this regard, 
the definitions of some project categories listed in Annex II of the EIA in relation to 
changes in land use are not clear, and could create confusion with the SEA. 

The MS have chosen different approaches to resolve potential shortcomings resulting 
from  overlapping  procedures;  these  approaches  range  from  joint  procedures  in 
specific cases to informal coordination between the competent authorities. However, 
many MS often feel that they do not have sufficient experience to properly identify 
and assess any overlapping issues. 

Due to the lack of experience in the implementation of the SEA Directive, many MS 
have  stressed  the  need  for  coordination  of  both  procedures;  however,  it  is  still  the 
case that mechanisms and tools are not always properly developed and tested. This 
could be done by means of Guidance documents to be drawn up in cooperation with 
MS. 

Consideration  could  be  given  to  merging  the  EIA  and  SEA  Directives  in  order  to 
clarify their interrelationship and boost their complementarity and efficiency through 
a  holistic  environmental  assessment  process.  While  this  may  appear  to  be  an 
attractive  option,  very  few  MS  recommended  merging  the  two  Directives;  they 
stressed that each process should be completely separate in its own right, because the 
two Directives are complementary and address different stages and processes. 

8 

9 

Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the UNECE Convention on EIA in Transboundary 
Context (Kiev, 2003). It was approved by Decision 2008/871/EC, OJ L 308, 19.11.08, p.33 
- Where large projects are made up of sub-projects or where projects have more than local significance. 
- Projects that require amendments of land use plans (which will require SEA) before a developer can 
apply  for  development  consent  and  undertake  the  EIA.  -  P&P  which  set  binding  criteria  for  the 
subsequent development consent of projects. - Hierarchical linking between SEA and EIA ('tiering') 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Taking this and the limited experience in the application of the SEA Directive into 
account, it does not seem appropriate at the present time to merge the two processes. 
At  this  stage,  better  coordination  and  coherence  can  be  achieved  by  correcting  the 
inconsistencies  between  the  provisions  of  the  two  Directives  and  by  clarifying  the 
definitions of problematic project categories in the EIA Directive, by amending the 
latter and/or through the development of Guidance as explained above. 

4.2. 

Habitats Directive and Biodiversity Action Plan10 

Regarding  the  Habitats  Directive,  and  in  particular  Article  6(3)  thereof  providing 
for a special assessment in certain cases, MS take the view that there are no major 
problems  to  report  concerning  its  relationship  with  Article  11(2)  of  the  SEA 
Directive, which provides for co-coordinated or joint assessment procedures. Indeed, 
MS report that they have taken steps to avoid duplication and overlapping, mainly by 
means of a coordinated approach, which is preferred to a joint11 approach. 

It should be noted, however, that NGOs have raised concerns about this issue. 

With regard to the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), many MS simply feel that the 
provisions of the SEA are sufficient and take its substance into account. 

The 2008 mid-term Report on the implementation of the BAP12, reveals that the EU 
is highly unlikely to meet its 2010 target of halting biodiversity decline. The report 
stresses  the  need  for  further  progress  in  ensuring  that  SEA  and  EIA  are 
systematically  conducted  in  relation  to  environmentally  sensitive  interventions 
funded by MS and the European Community (EC). 

4.3. 

The SEA Protocol 

The Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context –  to which the EC has 
acceded  -  has  been  supplemented  by  the  SEA  Protocol.  The  SEA  Protocol  was 
adopted  in  Kiev  on  21  May  2003  and  subsequently  signed  by  36  States  and  the 
European Community. In order for it to enter into force, 16 Signatories need to ratify 
it (so far, it has been ratified by 10 Signatories). 

The  SEA  Protocol  is  not  limited  to  transboundary  impacts  from  P&P;  it  is  also 
concerned with impacts from P&P within a Contracting State. Once in force, it will 
require its Parties to evaluate the environmental effects of certain P&P. The Protocol 
also addresses policies and legislation, which is not the case of the SEA Directive. 

10 
11 

12 

COM(2006)216 
Coordination of the SEA assessment with the other assessment(s) and joint procedure with one single 
assessment that meets the requirements of both Directives. 
COM(2008)864 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4. 

Climate change 

The  lack  of  a  well  established  methodology  to  determine  impacts  has  been 
mentioned as a key problem by many MS. Climate change issues are considered in 
SEA  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  and  mainly  in  relation  to  P&P  with  a  potential 
significant impact on climate, such as energy or transport P&P. However, a trend to 
pay more attention to climate change considerations in the other P&P is emerging. 

Some  MS  are  developing  specific  methodologies  to  measure  the  potential 
greenhouse gas emissions of particular P&P; others set a target of "carbon neutrality" 
(i.e.  the  implementation  of  the  P&P  should  not  result  in  an  increase  of  greenhouse 
gas  emissions)  or  identify  impacts  on  climate  change  in  terms  of  an  expected 
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  

Given  the  lack  of  specific  guidance  on  consideration  of  climate  change  issues  in 
SEA, there should be further development of specific guidelines. 

5. 

PROGRAMMES CO-FINANCED BY THE EC IN 2007-2013 

13 

According to Article 3(9), the SEA Directive did not apply to P&P of the 2000-2006 
programming  period.  For  2007-2013,  the  SEA  Directive  was  fully  applicable 
according to its Article 2(a) and to the Cohesion, Rural Development and Fisheries 
Regulations which refer specifically to the need to undertake SEA. 

In  practice,  for  most  of  the  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  adopted  in  2007-13,  an 
SEA  had  to  be  carried  out  under  the  terms  of  the  Directive.  This  meant  that  SEAs 
were  not  carried  out  for  OPs  which  did  not  set  up  a  framework  for  future 
development consent of projects, i.e. mainly the ESF programmes. Compliance with 
the  requirements  of  the  SEA  Directive  was  a  condition  for  the  approval  of  the 
programmes by the Commission. 

More  specifically,  with  respect  to  the  Cohesion  Policy  OPs,  the  SEA  experience 
resulted in the following findings: 

The content of the programmes was clearly influenced by the SEA process, as 
- 
the  environmental  requirements  had  to  be  taken  into  account  at  the  planning  stage, 
although it is difficult to establish to what extent this was the case. 

- 
The level of participation by the public in a number of MS was not as high as it 
might  have  been.  In  fact,  the  tight  timetable  to  adopt  the  programmes  led  several 
planning authorities to carry out the SEA implementation process in a short period of 
time.  On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  noted  that  Article  11  (partnership)  of 
Regulation  1083/2006  provides  for  the  participation  of  bodies  representing  civil 
society at the programme preparation stages. 

13 

Regulation (EC) n° 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25); 
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  (OJ  L  277,  21.10.2005,  p.1)  ;  Regulation  (EC)  No  2371/2002  on  the 
conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 
L 358, 31.12.2002, p.59) 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- 
The  environmental  authorities  were  consulted  and  involved  in  the  decision 
making  process,  even  if  in  some  cases  it  was  difficult  to  take  all  their 
recommendations into account. 

The  quality  of  the  environmental  reports  was  uneven,  and  in  some  cases 

- 
relatively poor. 

The  assessment  of  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  led  to  the  following 
observations in relation to SEA: 

- 

The quality of the SEA varied considerably between MS.  

In  most  cases,  a  large  number  of  stakeholders  took  part  in  the  public 
- 
consultation,  even  if  in  some  cases  there  were  insufficient  opportunities  for  public 
involvement due to inadequate methods of consultation. 

Similar  observations  were  made  with  respect  to  the  OPs  financed  by  the European 
Fisheries Fund. 

Overall,  despite  the  uncertainties  about  the  scope  of  the  SEAs'  influence  on  the 
content of the programmes, it is essential to emphasize the overall positive effect of 
the  first  application  of  the  SEA  Directive  to  Community  co-funded  programmes. 
Although there is scope for improvement, the implementation of the SEA Directive 
has led to a better integration of environmental considerations in the content of the 
programmes.  The  environmental  authorities are  better  involved  in  all  the  phases  of 
the decision-making process. 

6. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  SEA  Directive  has  been  based  on  the 
degree  to  which  planning  and  programming  procedures  and  decisions  have  been 
influenced  by  the  integration  of  environmental  considerations,  and  the  extent  to 
which P&P were amended as a result of the application of the SEA procedure.  

6.1. 

Impact of the SEA on the planning process 

A majority of MS particularly mentioned the contribution of the SEA to an improved 
organisation  and  structure  of  the  whole  planning  procedure,  regarding  this  as  a 
positive  element.  In  particular,  the  formal  requirements  of  consultation  with 
environmental  authorities  and  the  public  have  led  to  increased  transparency  in  the 
planning procedures. 

6.2. 

Impact of SEA on the content of P&P 

The majority of the MS reports that, in many cases, SEA changed the content of the 
P&P.  Experiences  differ  in  this  regard.  It  is  generally  reported  that  SEA  did  not 
change  the  major  goals  or  the  financial  allocation  among  the  funding  objectives; 
what it changed were certain funding objectives, schemes or criteria. However, other 
experiences show that, at the level of the largest national plans, a significant number 
of the SEA findings had a strong influence on the substance of the plans, including in 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
the  selection  of  the  alternatives  or  by  incorporating  important  suggestions  from  the 
SEA. 

A majority of MS also report that the contents of P&P are gradually being modified 
as  a  consequence  of  the  iterative  process  of  conducting  the  SEA,  alongside  the 
preparation  of  the  P&P.  Specifically,  they  mention  that  expensive  mitigation 
measures  which  were  adopted  previously  may  now  be  superfluous  as  a  direct 
consequence of the early inclusion of environmental considerations in the P&P. 

6.3. 

Perception of the benefits of SEA 

MS have identified a number of benefits of SEA, such as: 

The integration of environmental considerations into decision making and the 

- 
"greening" of P&P. 

The 

introduction  of  participation  and  consultation  of  relevant  public 
- 
authorities; this facilitates and strengthens cooperation between different authorities 
(planning, environment and health). 

The  increased  transparency  in  decision  making,  due  to  the  involvement  of 

- 
several levels of society. 

The contribution of SEA to improved compliance with the requirements of the 

- 
specific environmental policy concerned. 

7. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE DIRECTIVE 

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. In 
this regard, the following recommendations could be considered: 

–  The  entry  into  force  of  the  SEA  Protocol  may  result  in  changes  to  the  SEA 
Directive.  Potential  additional  amendments  to  the  SEA  Directive  could  be 
considered.  Some  of  these  amendments  could  be  incorporated  as  part  of  the 
review of the EIA Directive, for instance through amendments to its Annexes. 

–  The SEA Protocol goes further than the SEA Directive, in that it also encourages 
potential application to certain policies and legislative proposals. The fact that the 
SEA Directive does not apply to policies which set the framework of P&P makes 
it  necessary  to  consider  the  possible  inclusion  of  policies  and  legislation  in  the 
application of the Directive as an option for the future. 

–  There  is  a  need  to  develop  capacity  in  the  MS  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. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
–  Finally, some MS 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 MS. 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The overall picture of the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive across 
all MS is a varied one in terms of the institutional and legal arrangements of the SEA 
procedure,  and  in  terms  of  how  MS  perceive  its  role.  This  diverse  picture  also 
determines  the  way  in  which  MS  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 MS 
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. MS 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. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Annex 

Main sources of information 

–  Study  commissioned  by  the  Commission  on  the  report  on  the  application  and 
Directive 

effectiveness 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf  

SEA 

the 

–  MS’  responses  to  the  Commission  questionnaire  on  the  application  and 

effectiveness of the SEA Directive. 

–  Study  commissioned  by  the  Commission  on  "The  Relationship  between  the  EIA 
(2005) 

Directives" 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/final_report_0508.pdf. 

SEA 

the 

–  Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 (2007, GRDP). 

–  Commission's  guidance  on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2001/42/EC,  (2003) 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm 

–  The Commission's experience of the implementation and enforcement of the SEA 
Directive  and  its  application  to  the  EU  co-financed  2007-2013  Programmes  for 
the period. 

EN 

12 

   EN