Rob Verheem The Netherlands EIA Commission
-
Upload
moris-raymond-evans -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Rob Verheem The Netherlands EIA Commission
Dutch SEA case studiesRob Verheem
The Netherlands EIA Commission
Basic Dutch SEA approach
SEA to safeguard ‘good governance’: To involve all relevant stakeholders To make planning transparent To have the best information possible
SEA improves both planning process ánd the information used in this process
SEA improves the planning process
SEA is not a separate process
Requirement
Requirement
Requirement
Requirement
Requirement
Main requirements in Dutch SEAParticipation requirements: All stakeholders involved in both scoping & reviewing
Transparency requirements: Start of the plan process is published Alternatives are compared in the SEA report Decisions are motivated in the final plan
Information requirements: Independent quality control in scoping & reviewing Monitoring and evaluation mandatory
SEA in the planning process
Early publication
Participation/advice on scope of the SEA report
SEA report compares alternatives
Participation/advice on quality of the SEA report
Written motivation of the plan
Monitoring and Evaluation
West Netherlands Spatial Plan
Objective of plan:
To stimulate economic development
Four cities molded into one metropolitan area
Through infrastructure and urban development
Existing situation
valuable landscape
Main elements of the planTo make choices in:
Type and location of new high speed railway system between cities
Location of new urban and industrial areas
Location of new ‘green’ and ‘water’ areas
Purpose of SEA
To show range of potential options
Integrated assessment of options: environmental, social, economic
AlternativesDeveloped in three steps:
First: design of green & water areas
Then: design of infrastructure
Finally: design of housing & industry area
Existing situation
valuable landscape
Alternative 1
Train
Alternative 1
New urban area
Train
Alternative 2
Train
Alternative 3
Train
Alternative 4
Monorail
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Monorail
MethodologyStep 1: identification of issues to examine
Spatial diversity Economic & social efficiency Cultural diversity Social justice Sustainability Attractiveness & human scale Flexibility & robustness Costs & transport effects
IndicatorsStep 2: appropriate indicators for each issue
Extracted from existing policies
Complemented by: Indicators suggested by NGOs Indicators from expert judgment
Example: indicators for spatial quality
Amount of urban and rural areas Surface area open landscape Surface area valuable landscape Surface area historical valuable area Green belts between urban areas
Methods for impact assessment
Most effects: GIS
Some social impacts: transport models
Economic impacts: monetarisation
Expert workshops on methods & results
Methods for comparison of alternativesNot one, but multiple methods were used:
Quantitative score per indicator Ranking per indicator Matrix: ‘best’ & ‘worst’ model per indicat. Contribution to policy objectives Economic cost benefit analysis Qualitative discussion end results
Methods for public participation
Information meetings Discussion meetings Written comments Web site
Quality reviewIndependent EIA Commission concluded:
Positive: good SEA in short time
Negative: no alternatives for: green and water area regional transport alternative
Neutral: social & economic assessment not (yet) good enough
Results of the SEA Alternative 1: good for environment, but
inflexible and costly
Alternative 4: bad at almost all points
Alternative 3: best one overall
All alternatives: costs higher than benefits
Final decision
Government decided for alternative 3
However, with a modified transport option to improve cost benefit ratio:
High speed train between major cities Metro between medium sized cities Bus and light rail for small towns
Lessons learned Overall: methodology & information
useful
Time & cost effective because of previous SEA
Assessment could have been less quantitative
SEA started too late
Case: 2002 waste management plan To set ‘minimum standards’ for waste
processing
Standard = minimum environmental performance for processing techniques
For 26 waste streams
Purpose and context of SEA
To compare environmental performance of alternative processing techniques
Attracted much interest from civil society
Methodology for impact analysis Life Cycle Analysis
Advantages: standardized technique Use of computer model All effects from production to disposal Includes positive effects of re-use
Disadvantage: high data demand
LCA: environmental themes Climate change Acidification Eutrophication Toxicity Use of resources Use of space Biodiversity
Weighting to reflect policy prioritiesFour weight sets were applied:
All effects equally important Contribution to policy objectives most
important Climate change most important Toxicity most important
Methodology for public participation
All major national NGOs: Round tables on alternatives & impacts
Selected national NGOs: Continuous sounding board
Methodology for public participation
Local NGOs and local governments: Actively invited to send comments In both scoping and reviewing stage
Private citizens: Written comments during scoping and
reviewing
Methodology for public participationMethods applied:
Discussion groups in early stage Sounding boards throughout process Technical expert workshops Information meetings for general public Mass media and information bulletin
Results of public participation
High response national NGOs: alternatives
Increased focus on new alternative: separation
High response local groups: local issues
Low response by private citizens
Lessons learned LCA useful, but not in all cases
Extensive public participation useful: Led to broad acceptance of plan Increased ‘holistic’ approach by NGOs
Public should also be involved in stating assumptions
SEA made EIA easier to do: Methodology developed Alternatives compared