REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT under Article 12(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EC Directive, EU environmental policy, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, report

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.5.2017  COM(2017) 234 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT under Article 12(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment  
 
 
Introduction 

1. 
This second implementation report1 on Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects 
of certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Directive’, or ‘SEAD’)2 presents the experience gained in applying the SEAD between 2007 
and 2014. The report is based on Article 12(3) of the SEAD and assesses the implementation 
of the Directive in this period.3The findings of this report will feed into an evaluation of the 
SEAD  that  will  be  carried  out  as  part  of  the  Commission’s  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance (REFIT) programme.4  

The SEAD implements the principle of environmental integration and protection laid down in 
Articles 11 and 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It provides for a 
high level of protection of the environment and helps integrate environmental considerations 
into the preparation and adoption of certain plans and programmes. To this end, the Directive 
requires  an  environmental  assessment  of  plans  and  programmes  which  are  likely  to  have 
significant effects on the environment. 

The  SEAD  does  not  lay  down  any  measurable  environmental  standards.  It  is  essentially  a 
process  directive,  which  establishes  certain  steps  that  Member  States  must  follow  when 
identifying  and  assessing  environmental  effects.  The  strategic  environmental  assessment 
(SEA)  process  is  about  helping  policy  makers  take  well-informed  decisions,  based  on 
objective information and the results of consultation with the public/stakeholders and relevant 
authorities.  The  application  of  the  key  requirements  of  the  SEAD  and  its  relationship  with 
other Directives are described in Sections 2 and 3 respectively. 

2. 

Implementation status 

2.1.  Legal and administrative arrangements in the Member States 
All  Member  States  have  transposed  the  SEAD.  The  legislative  framework  transposing  the 
SEAD  varies  across  the  Member  States  and  depends  on  their  administrative  structure  and 
arrangements.  Some  Member  States  transposed  the  SEAD  through  specific  national 
legislation, while  others  have  integrated  its  requirements  into  existing  provisions,  including 
those transposing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (‘EIA Directive’).5 Since 
2007, more than half of Member States have amended their national legislation transposing 
the SEAD to ensure their national provisions comply with the Directive and to resolve cases 
of incorrect application. 

1 The first report was presented on 14.9.2009 (COM(2009) 469). 

2  OJ  L  197/30,  21.7.2001,  p.  30.  The  word  ‘strategic’  does  not  appear  in  the  SEAD  but  this  is  the  most  common  and 
established reference to this Directive. 

3 More information can be found in the supporting study [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study_SEA_directive.pdf] 

4 http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/overview-law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-
laws/reducing-burdens-and-simplifying-law/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly_en. 

5 OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The specific administrative features of each Member State have influenced the organisational 
arrangements  they  have  established  to  transpose  and  implement  the  Directive.  Usually  the 
authority that develops and adopts the plans and programmes is also in charge of carrying out 
the  SEA  procedure.  In  most  Member  States,  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  or  an 
environmental  agency 
the  ‘concerned  authority  with  specific 
environmental  responsibilities’  (Article  6(3)  SEAD).  In  some  Member  States,  the 
environmental  authorities  have  more  responsibilities  and  are  in  charge  of  driving  the  SEA 
procedure. Some Member States have designated a body to supervise and check the quality of 
the documentation and the outcomes of the SEA procedure.  

is  considered 

to  be 

The  Member  States  enjoy  wide  discretion  in  decision-making  (Article  8)  and  the 
arrangements for providing information on the decision once the SEA procedure is complete 
(Article  9).  In  some  Member  States,  the  environmental  authorities  are  entitled  to  issue  an 
administrative act (such as a decision). The decision could be either binding on the content of 
the plans and programmes or merely be issued as a non-binding act. 

Scope of application of the SEA Directive 

2.2. 
In  general,  Member  States  have  transposed  and  implemented  the  SEAD  in  line  with  its 
objectives and requirements, and have not encountered challenges in determining the scope 
of  application  of  the  Directive.  The  EU  Court  of  Justice  (CJEU)  has  delivered  a 
comprehensive case-law relating to the SEAD, and thus facilitated its application. The CJEU 
has  confirmed  the  broad  interpretation  of  the  terms  and  provisions  of  the  Directive.6  For 
example: 

‘Plan and programme’ subject to a SEA (Article 2) 

- 
The SEAD does not define the terms ‘plans and programmes’ but rather qualifies them. In the 
first judgment7 examining the scope of the SEAD, the CJEU clarified that the mere fact that 
plans and programmes are adopted in the form of a law does not exclude them from the scope 
of the Directive8. Further to  this, plans and programmes  that  are required under national or 
regulatory provisions determining the competent authorities and the procedure, but adoption 
of which is not compulsory, may still be subject to the SEAD if they meet the relevant criteria 
set in the Directive.9 Where there is any doubt, the distinction between plans and programmes 
and  other  measures  should  be  drawn  by  referring  to  the  specific  objective  laid  down  in 
Article  1  of  the  SEAD,  namely  that  plans  and  programmes  which  are  likely  to  have 
significant effects on the environment are subject to an environmental assessment.10 

As  regards  the  definition  of  plans  and  programmes,  nearly  half  of  Member  States  have 
transposed Article 3(2) of the SEAD word for word. Most of them have adjusted the type or 
name of the sectoral planning to take specific national arrangements into account. 

6 C-567/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:159, p. 37, and C-473/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:582, p. 50. 

7 C-105/09 and C-110/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:355. 

8 Idem, p. 41. 

9 C-567/10, p. 31. 

10 C-41/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:103, p. 40 and C-567/10, p. 30. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
‘Setting the framework’ (Article 3(2)) 

- 
Plans  and  programmes  for  which  a  SEA  is  required  should  set  the  framework  for  future 
development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive. Almost all 
Member  States  have  transposed  the  term  ‘setting  the  framework’  word  for  word,  often 
developing  it  in  a  legislative  act  or  in  guidance  documents.  CJEU  case-law  has  confirmed 
that this term must reflect the objective of the SEAD taking into account the environmental 
effects  of  any  decision  that  lays  down  requirements  for  the  future  development  consent  of 
projects.11 It can therefore be said that plans and programmes set a framework for decisions 
which influence any subsequent development consent of projects, in particular with regard to 
location, nature, size and operating conditions or allocating resources. 

Screening 

- 
Article 3(4) and  (5) of the SEAD establishes the  process of determining whether plans and 
programmes  are  likely  to  have  significant  environmental  effects  and  thus  require  a  SEA. 
Member States have to take into account the significance criteria set out in Annex II to the 
SEAD. Most Member States have transposed Annex II word for word and apply a case-by-
case  screening  approach.  However,  the  margin  of  discretion  in  screening  certain  plans  and 
programmes  is  limited  by  the  overall  objective  of  the  Directive12,  namely  to  ensure  a  high 
level of environmental protection. 

Scoping (Article 5(4)) 

2.3. 
The scope and level of detail of the information to be covered in the environmental report is 
referred to as ‘scoping’. Member States enjoy wide discretion in organising the scoping phase 
of a SEA, limited by the sole obligation to consult the authorities with specific environmental 
responsibilities. 

In some Member States the preparation of the scoping report is mandatory. The content and 
the  level  of  detail  of  the  information  presented  in  the  scoping  report  can  vary  between 
Member States, and some stipulate its content in national legislation. 

The public authorities in the different Member States have a different role in the scoping. The 
environmental  authorities  should,  as  a  minimum  requirement,  be  consulted  in  the  scoping 
stage. However, in some Member States they also approve the scoping documentation. 

2.4.  Environmental report (Article 5 and Annex I) 
Annex  I  of the  SEAD  provides  the minimum  content  of  the  environmental  report.  Member 
States  should  ensure  that  this  report  is  of  sufficient  quality.  Nearly  half  of  Member  States 
have extended the scope of Annex I in their national legislation. For example, some Member 
States  require  the  environmental  report  to  include  an  assessment  of  certain  economic  and 
social factors that may be relevant in implementing the plan. Other Member States explicitly 
require  the  results  of  the  public  consultations  to  be  included  in  the  environmental  report. 
Regarding the content of the non-technical summary of the report, almost all Member States 
have transposed the relevant provision of the Directive word for word. 

11 C-105/09 and C-110/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:120, p. 60 

12 C-295/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:608, p. 47. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member  States  have  encountered  two  types  of  challenges  in  preparing  the  environmental 
report: 

i. 

ii. 

the availability and quality of the data; 

the technical knowledge and experience of the experts preparing the report and 

the authorities in charge of its quality review. 

Baseline information 

- 
Some Member States have transposed the requirements of Annex I(b) word for word; others 
have  developed  guidance  documents  to  facilitate  the  gathering  of  baseline  information. 
Nearly two thirds of Member States have reported that the relevance, availability and level of 
detail of the data to be collected pose a difficulty when gathering the baseline information, for 
example  such  related  to  climate  change  vulnerability  assessments.13  Experience  shows  that 
the quality of baseline information is better for small-scale plans and programmes due to their 
location-specific character. 

Reasonable alternatives (Article 5(1)) 

- 
The  SEAD  does  not  define  the  term  ‘reasonable  alternatives’,  nor  does  Member  States’ 
transposing  national  legislation.  Many  Member  States  have  prepared  national  guidance 
documents  to  make  it  easier  to  identify  and  select  the  reasonable  alternatives  in  the  SEA 
procedure. There is no common approach to define the types and the number of alternatives 
to  be  assessed.  This  depends  on  the  objectives,  the  geographical  scope  and  the  content  of 
each  set  of  plans  and  programmes.  However,  the  three  most  common  categories  of 
alternatives for Member States are: 

i. 

ii. 

locational alternatives; 

qualitative  and  quantitative  alternatives  (changing  the  scale  or  size  of  the 

intervention in the environment); 

iii. 

technical  alternatives  (related  to  the  design  of  the  future  projects  to  be 

developed on a selected site). 

Member  States  always  consider  the  ‘zero  alternative’14  in  the  environmental  report  but  the 
implementation  approach  varies.  Some  Member  States  take  this  as  one  of  the  ‘reasonable 
alternatives’, while others consider it a self-standing part of the environmental report, and not 
necessarily linked to the reasonable alternatives, but rather to the baseline information. 

To  ensure  compliance  in  implementing  and  applying  the  SEAD,  the  alternatives  that  are 
assessed have to be reasonable taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope 
of  the  plans  and  programmes  before  setting  up  their  final  content.  As  Member  States  have 
also  noted,  due  to  the  specifics  when  preparing  plans  and  programmes,  identifying  the 

13  The  Commission  services  developed  a  guidance  on  integrating  climate  change  and  biodiversity  into  Strategic 
Environmental Assessment [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/SEA%20Guidance.pdf]. 

14 Annex I(b) of the SEAD states that the environmental report must include information about the likely evolution of the 
state of the environment without implementing the plan or programme. This is often called the ‘zero alternative’. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
reasonable  alternatives  could  be  a  challenge.  For  example,  it  is  challenging  to  identify  and 
assess reasonable alternatives at the planning stage either because the plans and programmes 
strategically  address  a  particular  matter,  or  because  of  the  general  content  of  the  plans  and 
programmes. 

2.5.  Consultation (Article 6) 
Member  States  have  considerable  discretion  in  organising  the  process  of  informing  and 
consulting the public and the relevant authorities in the different stages of the SEA procedure. 
They should ensure an early and effective consultation procedure takes place and it is also in 
line with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.15 

Timeframes 

- 
The SEAD does not specify the timeframes for the consultation procedure, but rather requires 
the consultation to be carried out in the ‘appropriate timeframes’ (Article 6(2)). Usually the 
timeframes for consulting the environmental authorities are the same as those for consulting 
the  public.  The  CJEU16  has  confirmed  that  national  legislation  can  prescribe  timeframes, 
provided they do not preclude the effective opportunities of the public and the authorities to 
express their opinion. 

Making screening/scoping information available to the public 

- 
All  Member  States  inform  the  public  about  the  outcomes  of  the  screening  procedure.  This 
information  is  usually  announced  on  the  website  dedicated  to  the  specific  plans  and 
programmes, or the website of the environmental authorities, especially if they take the final 
decision. The screening decision is also published in newspapers, official journals, etc. 

In  some  Member  States  the  public  is  involved  at  the  scoping  stage,  through  receiving 
information,  and  having  the  opportunity  to  provide  written  comments  or  participate  in  the 
scoping consultations. 

Consulting the authorities concerned (Article 6(3)) 

- 
All Member States consult the authorities on the environmental report and the draft plans and 
programmes.  In  some  Member  States  the  environmental  authority  plays  the  role  of  an 
intermediary  between  the  authority  developing  the  plans  and  programmes  and  all  other 
authorities to be consulted in the SEA procedure. The environmental authority also ensures 
the quality of the environmental report. 

The  CJEU17  has  clarified  that  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  a  functional  separation  within  the 
authority responsible for the consultation on environmental matters. This is to ensure that an 
administrative  entity  internal  to  the  authority  has  the  real  autonomy  needed  to  give  an 
objective opinion on the plan and programme subject to the SEA procedure. 

15  UN/ECE  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-Making  and  Access  to  Justice  in 
Environmental Matters. 

16 C-474/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:681, p. 50. 

17 C-474/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:681, p. 42. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Consulting the public on the environmental report 

- 
In most Member States the environmental report is made public at the same time as the draft 
plans  and  programmes.  This  gives  the  public  sufficient  time  to  express  an  opinion  and 
contribute to the development of the environmental report before the plans and programmes 
are formally adopted. The Member States usually publish an announcement about the public 
consultation on the internet. The announcement notes the title of the plan and programme, the 
responsible  authorities,  and  the  place  where  all  documents  related  to  the  draft  plans  and 
programmes, including the environmental report and its non-technical summary, are available 
for  public  consultation.  In  some  Member  States  the  consultation  requirements  are  more 
stringent  than  the  Directive  and  include  the  organisation  of  a  meeting  or  public  hearing  to 
consult the public. 

The public consultation is a key step in the procedure and aims to improve the transparency, 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the planning  process. In  this  way  it  facilitates  and  improves 
the overall perception and social acceptance of the plan and programme, before it is adopted 
and implemented. 

- 

Transboundary consultations (Article 7) 

All  but  two  Member  States  have  noted  experience  in  carrying  out  transboundary  SEA 
consultations,  either  as  an  affected  party,  or  as  a  party  of  origin,  or  both.  In  most  Member 
States, the environmental authorities are responsible for organising these consultations. 

Member States have reported that the main hindrances in the transboundary SEA consultation 
are  the  cost  of  translating  documents,  the  quality  of  the  translated  documentation  and  the 
often short timeframes. 

2.6.  Monitoring significant environmental effects (Article 10) 
Monitoring  allows  the  results  of  the  environmental  assessment  to  be  compared  with  the 
outcomes  from  the  implementation  of  plans  and  programmes,  in  particular  the  significant 
environmental effects. The SEAD does not prescribe the exact arrangements for monitoring 
the significant environmental effects, the frequency of the monitoring, its methodology or the 
bodies in charge of monitoring. 

Member  States  have  noted  that  the  monitoring  depends  on  the  plans  and  programmes,  and 
that  there  are  certain  types  of  plans  and  programmes  for  which  monitoring  reports  are 
regularly  prepared.  However,  most  Member  States  were  not  able  to  provide  information 
about  the  frequency  of  the  monitoring.  Monitoring  can  be  based  on  standard  monitoring 
indicators,  sometimes  set  in  the  national  legislation,  or  be  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  For  the 
SEAD,  and  where  applicable,  Member  States  tend  to  use  the  environmental  monitoring 
arrangements  set  up  in  other  Directives,  such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive,18  the 
Habitats Directive,19 and the Industrial Emissions Directive.20  

18 OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. 

19 OJ L 206, 22.7.92, p. 7. 

20 OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Relationship with other EU legislation and policy areas 

3. 
The  SEAD  has  explicit  links  with  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  Habitats  Directive.  It  is  also 
closely linked to other Directives that prescribe the adoption of certain plans and programmes 
covered  by  the  scope  of  the  SEAD  (such  as  the  Nitrates,  Waste,  Noise,  and  Flood  Risk 
Directives).21 To avoid duplication, Article 11 of the SEAD stipulates that the Member States 
may provide for coordinated and/or joint procedures where there is an obligation under both 
the SEAD and other EU legislation to assess the effects on the environment. 

3.1.  EIA Directive 
Article  11(2)  provides  that  the  strategic  environmental  assessment  procedure  must  be 
performed without prejudice to any requirements under the EIA Directive, or any other EU 
legislation. CJEU case law22 has acknowledged that the environmental assessment carried out 
under the EIA Directive is without prejudice to the specific requirements of the SEAD and 
therefore cannot dispense with the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under 
the  SEAD  if  needed  to  comply  with  the  environmental  aspects  specific  to  that  Directive. 
Moreover, the CJEU has confirmed that the EIA and SEA procedures differ for a number of 
reasons.  Therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  both  Directives 
concurrently.23  

Practice  shows  that  the  boundaries  between  the  two  procedures  are  not  always  distinct  and 
tend  to  overlap,  in  particular  as  regards  plans,  programmes  or  projects  related  to  land  use 
and/or  spatial  planning.  This  is  because  these  kinds  of  plans,  programmes  or  projects  can 
show  the  characteristics  both  of  plans  and  programmes  and  a  project.  Meanwhile,  land  use 
and/or  spatial  plans  are  the  most  frequent  plans  and  programmes  subjected  to  the  SEA 
procedure. In such assessment procedures, it is important to ensure compliance with both the 
SEAD and the EIA Directive, especially where the Member States have opted for coordinated 
procedures. 

The coordinated or joint procedures are subject to Member States’ discretion24 and only 10 
Member States have opted for joint or coordinated procedures in their national legislation. 

3.2.  Habitats Directive  
Many  Member  States  take  the  view  that  there  are  no  risks  in  duplicating  the  appropriate 
assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive with the SEA. This is because of the 
different scope of and interplay between the two procedures. The CJEU has clarified that the 
SEAD would apply on its own merits should the preconditions requiring an assessment under 
the Habitats Directive be met in respect to plans and programmes.25 

21 OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1; OJ L 312, 22.11.2008; OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12; OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27. 

22 C-295/10, p. 58-63. 

23 Idem, paragraph 61-63. 

24 Idem, paragraph 65. 

25 C-177/11, EU:C:2012:378, p. 19-24. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Plans and programmes co-financed by the European Structural and Investment 

4. 
Funds (2014-2020) 

Article  3(9)  of  the  SEAD  provides  that  plans  and  programmes  co-financed  by  the  EU  fall 
under the scope of the Directive. The Common Provisions Regulation26 and the fund-specific 
Regulations  govern  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period  the  five  relevant  European 
Structural  and Investment Funds27  (ESIF). The SEAD  was applied to  most of the ESIF co-
financed  programmes  for  2014-2020,  as  they  set  up  a  framework  for  future  consent  of 
projects. 

The Common Provisions Regulation has improved the application of the SEAD in two ways. 
Firstly,  under  Article  55(4)  of  the  Regulation  ‘the  evaluation  must  incorporate,  where 
appropriate, the requirements for the Strategic Environmental Assessment’. The Commission 
has  prepared  guidance  documents28  to  facilitate  the  ex  ante  evaluation.  The  guidance 
documents provide that the SEA has  to be carried out early in the preparation of plans and 
programmes and must be completed before they are adopted. 

Secondly,  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  introduced  ex  ante  conditionalities  as  a  new 
feature of the 2014-2020 programming period. The purpose of the ex ante conditionalities is 
to ensure that the necessary prerequisites for effective and efficient use of EU co-funds are in 
place and to ensure the effective application of the EIA and SEA Directives. The general ex 
ante conditionalities include arrangements that ensure the effective application of the SEAD. 
Few  Member  States  had  to  amend  their  national  legislation.  Consequently,  the  regulatory 
framework  related  to  environmental  decision-making  process  has  been  clarified  and  the 
knowledge  and  skills  of  the  authorities  applying  the  SEAD  has  been  strengthened.  The 
Regulation also introduced a thematic ex ante conditionality for the transport sector, requiring 
comprehensive  master  plans  and  programmes  for  transport  investment,  which  comply  with 
the legal requirement of the SEAD. 

Almost  all  Member  States  have  fulfilled  the  general  ex  ante  conditionalities  as  regards  the 
SEAD. Most Member States have noted that the general and multi-sectoral nature of the ESIF 
programmes has complicated the SEA procedure, which often had to be accelerated. Member 
States have pointed out that the information available on the likely significant effects of plans 
and  programmes  is  rather  general  at  the  time  of  preparing  and  adopting  their  plans  and 
programmes.  This  has  been  a  particular  obstacle  when  assessing  the  impacts  of  the  cross-
border programmes. Few Member States developed specific guidance documents for carrying 
out  SEAs for the ESIF plans and programmes.  Most Member States relied on the guidance 
provided by the Commission. 

26 OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320. 

27 ESI funds include the ERDF, the CF, the ESF, the EAFRD, and the EMFF. 
28 Guidance document on ex ante evaluation (ERDF, CF, ESF)[ 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/ex_ante_en.pdf ]; Guidelines for the ex-ante evaluation 
of 2014-2020 EMFF OPs [ http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/guidelines-ex-ante-evaluation-2014-2020-emff-
ops_en.pdf ]; Synthesis of the ex-ante evaluations of RDPs 2014-2020 
[http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/evaluation/rural-development-
reports/2015/ex_ante_rdp_synthesis_2014_2020/fulltext_en.pdf]. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Effectiveness of the SEA Directive 

5. 
The effectiveness of implementing the SEAD can be assessed as a function of its potential to 
influence  both  the  planning  process  and  the  final  content  of  plans  and  programmes.  All 
Member  States  have  acknowledged  that  the  SEA  procedure  has  influenced  the  planning 
process at least to a certain degree, and that it improved the quality of plans and programmes. 
There  is  also  a  common  and  shared  understanding  among  the  Member  States  and 
practitioners  that  the  procedure  is  more  effective  if  there  is  the  political  will  to  effectively 
influence  the  planning  process.  This  ensures  that  environmental  considerations  are  fully 
integrated within the planning and decision-making process. 

Many  Member  States  have  noted  that  the  SEA  procedure  is  more  likely  to  influence  small 
scale  and  regional  plans  and  programmes  (e.g.  land  use)  rather  than  national  plans  and 
programmes  for  which  the  strategic  decisions  are  often  taken  at  political  level  and  there  is 
little margin for these to be reviewed after the SEA procedure. For example, most Member 
States have acknowledged that the proper consideration of the alternatives can influence the 
content of plans and programmes, but in practice the alternatives focus mainly on reducing or 
mitigating  the  negative  impacts.  However,  such  measures  can  also  effectively  ensure 
environmental protection.   

Many Member States have acknowledged the role of the public consultation in enhancing the 
transparency  and  credibility  of  the  assessment.  This  is  important  because  the  results  of  the 
assessment have to be taken into account in the final decision when adopting the plans and 
programmes. However, after 10 years of implementing the SEAD, the Member States have 
noted  that  the  extent  to  which  the  results  of  the  SEA  procedure  are  considered  in  the  final 
decision of plans and programmes often depends on the decision-making specifics, and can 
vary from a committed reflection of the results of the assessment to a simple procedural box-
ticking requirement. 

Conclusions  

6. 
In  2007-2014,  Member  States  did  not  raise  major  implementation  concerns.  The  CJEU  has 
delivered  case  law  clarifying  the  requirements  of  the  SEAD.  Member  States  have 
strengthened the implementation of the Directive and gained more experience in applying it. 
Where  necessary,  Member  States  amended  their  national  legislation  to  ensure  compliance 
with the Directive. 

The  degree  to  which  the  SEAD  is  implemented  in  the  Member  States  depends  on  the 
different  administrative  and  legal  arrangements  supporting  its  application.  Some  of  the 
application challenges relate to different elements of the SEA procedure (such as the quality 
and  availability  of  the  information  used  in  the  environmental  report).  This  is  particularly 
relevant  for  plans  and  programmes  that  address  a  broad  scope  of  issues  (e.g.  national  or 
sectoral).  There  are  still  uncertainties  about  some  key  concepts  such  as  ‘reasonable 
alternatives’. While some of these issues could be resolved by means of guidance documents, 
the interplay between the EIA and SEA procedures appears to be a challenge, particularly for 
plans and programmes which have the characteristics of a project.  

All Member States should pursue their implementation efforts to ensure compliance with the 
SEAD.  Where  necessary,  they  should  also  take  proactive  initiatives,  such  as  guidance 
documents,  training,  information  sharing,  and  establishing  environmental  information 
databases.  Based  on  this  report,  the  Commission  will  consider  in  the  upcoming  evaluation 

10 

 
 
 
 
how to increase the positive impacts of the SEAD and better demonstrate its EU added value, 
effectiveness and efficiency. 

11