Ensuring high quality environmental objectives, targets and indicators in SEA Alison Donnelly Terry Prendergast, Mike Jones, Tadhg O’Mahony School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin. Faculty of the Built Environment, Dublin Institute of Technology. Environmental Research Centre, Environmental Protection Agency. IRELAND Introduce myself and institutions

Presentation outline Environmental objectives, targets and indicators in SEA Methods for determining quality Quality assurance checklist Minimum requirements of the SEA Directive Additional recommended tasks Assessing Environmental Reports using checklist Proposed grading system SEA is a measure of the impact of proposed plans and programmes on the environment. A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Environmental objectives, targets and indicators Environmental objectives, targets and indicators in SEA Baseline Monitoring Predicting Proxy for overall ER quality Objective Target Indicator Protect & enhance biodiversity Increase area of land protected by 15% by 2020 Area of land protected Objectives based on Environmental Receptors Protect soil quality & quantity Reduce soil erosion Soil carbon content A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Mehtods of determining quality in SEA Article 12(2) of the Directive puts an onus on Member States to ensure that Environmental Reports are of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of the Directive. ODPM (2004), Thérivel (2004), IEMA (2002), IAIA (2002), EPA Methodology (2001), Bonde & Cherp (2000) Simple evaluation of the expertise of the SEA team Complex determination of quality using checklists, etc. Different authors have adopted different approaches to determine the quality of SEA. The approaches range from a simple evaluation of the expertise of the SEA team (Maćkowiak-Pandera and Jessel, 2005; Václavíková, L. and Jendrike, 2005) to a more complex determination of quality using checklists to determine compliance with legislation (Table 1). Table 1 presents a summary of quality checklists for SEA from various sources. The authors aim to determine quality and use similar criteria to reach the end result. Basically all these checklists ensure compliance with the SEA Directive apart from IAIA (2002) who have taken a more qualitative approach. In addition, 2 (Thérivel, 2004; Bonde & Cherp, 2000) out of the 6 checklists proposed scoring or grading in order to quantitatively assess SEA quality (this will be discussed later in this paper). Where consultants are employed, the consultants should ideally (i) have undergone a qualification in SEA recognised by a Member State of the European Economic Area (EEA) and (ii) have a track record in SEA relating to land use planning. A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Checklist – environmental objectives and targets In relation to environmental objectives; Have environmental objectives established at international, community or Member State level relevant to the plan been considered? Are targets and indicators, suitably linked to the environmental objectives proposed? Annex 1e In relation to environmental targets; Have limits or thresholds been established for each? Has a timescale been set for each? 4.13 DoEHLG A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Checklist – environmental indicators Are the environmental indicators capable of the following; Describing trends in the baseline environment? Demonstrating the likely significant environmental impact(s) of the implementation of the P/P? Being used in a monitoring programme? Providing an early warning of significant unforeseen adverse effects? Prioritising key environmental impact(s) to facilitate allocation of resources? In addition; Is the number of environmental indicators manageable, in terms of time and resources? Has consideration been given to using proxy data? 4.13 DoEHLG 7.11 DoEHLG 7.12 DoEHLG A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Checklist – environmental objectives, targets and indicators Are the environmental objectives, targets and indicators measurable i.e. Is data currently available to support each parameter e.g. existing monitoring? Has provision been made to collect/obtain data where necessary? 7.11 DoEHLG A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Satisfactory: mostly A, B or C. Unsatisfactory: mostly D Grading system     Grade Criteria A Excellent All criteria addresses, logical, accurate and clear, good linkage B Good Most criteria addressed, logical, accurate and clear, some linkage C Adequate Mandatory criteria addressed, some linkage D Inadequate Few criteria addressed, unclear, no linkage,   Satisfactory: mostly A, B or C. Unsatisfactory: mostly D A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Assessing Environmental Reports using checklist Unclear wording and ambiguities ‘conserve and promote the diversity of habitats and species’, ‘protect, conserve and enhance habitats and species’ No clear linkage some objectives do not have associated targets and indicators Environmental objectives confusion between environmental and social objectives Monitoring Ability to provide robust monitoring programme A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea

Thank you for your attention! Conclusions At this stage assessment of environmental objectives, targets and indicators indicate varied quality among ERs and suggest difficulties will be encountered when evaluating the data from the monitoring programme. Environmental objectives appeared to be better understood and used than targets and indicators. Thank you for your attention! A. Donnelly, 6 June 2007 IAIA, Seoul, Korea