1 Anna Arvanitaki Athens 2005 From EIA to SEA : A challenge for improvement of the environmental and planning administration in Greece

2 Why the presentation? The readiness to apply SEA as an extension of EIA :  Same authorities in charge…  Same solutions at hand : more impact studies to introduce, more specifications to commission…  Participation still lagging behind (the Aarchus Convention still waiting to be implemented)…  The Report on Environmental Performance of Greece (OECD, 2000) already prefigured the SEA when noting about the integration of environmental dimension in economic policies: “A strategic approach is needed so that the highest benefit can be obtained from the Operational Programs of the next period and so that the environmental policy (in Greece) can move from recovery and investment to prevention and management”.

3 Is SEA an extension of EIA? Qualitative difference in scope :  From individual physical projects to whole plans and programs  From mainly private units as interloquteurs to basically public bodies, whole policy domains and administrative structures Competent authorities require different “qualifications” and staff profiles

4 New Scope of the SEA: Programs Environmental integration until now in economic development programs (national, regional) in Greece during the 3 rd CSF (GRDP audits): limited to EIA of funded projects SEA application: not easy to intersect economic planning mechanisms (already started for the 4 th CSF), but will foster the need of environmental sustainability integration and use as a cross-cutting theme SEA: the culmination of Environmental policy goals: to put economic policy under its jurisdiction (i.e. ‘80s)

5 New Scope of SEA: (spatial, land-use) plans In Greece, these would be spatial plans of different scales (urban plans, master plans, local development plans, regional sustainable development frameworks, national-global or sectoral sustainable development frameworks etc. Important to note: 2 new laws (L 2508/1997 and L 2742 / 1999) introduced Urban and Spatial Sustainable Development, as a response to European processes on spatial development which resulted in the adoption of GSDP (1993 – 99) A paradox: If the above plans are geared to sustainable development, why then to be subject to SEA? Is it not spatial planning which tried to induce coherence, restraint and ‘environmental logic’ to economic planning?

6 Parameters for a meaningful application of SEA in Greece (1) Learn from EIA experience : Undertake a proper, sincere evaluation of 15 years of EIA application Locate administrative flaws, bottlenecks Analyze reasons of trivialization Locate what worked well Evaluate publicity mechanisms used Identify what were the main obstacles for a proper implementation Compare / locate which are particularly Greek phenomena, which are the ways in other countries of “not taking seriously” the EIA?

7 Parameters for a meaningful application of SEA in Greece (2) Go beyond EIA experience : Redefine competent authorities for SEA, enrich staff profiles Link Environment with Urban/Spatial Planning, create inter- departmental task forces to combat inertia of traditional / hierarchical administration in both domains Don’t rely on ruling by decree (!!) Revive horizontal and vertical communication within the administration Initiate partnership, communicate policies, improve transparency, seek consensus, apply Aarchus Refrain from introducing one more generation of studies, create facilitation processes instead

8 Conclusion In post Johannesburg and Kyoto climate, SEA is a very ambitious tool to implement: the highest caution is needed to avoid distortions The EU, following the excellent guidelines of application, should take more initiatives for a proactive campaigning about the SEA : penalties and fines (for failing to adapt national legislation within the deadline of June 2004) seems a police measure unsuitable for the character of SEA All actors involved in SEA application should avoid undermining the coherence between two strands of EU policy : the Environmental and the Sustainable Spatial Development advanced – although in a non binding way – by DG Regio (ESDP, Interreg etc.) All actors should facilitate the transfer and absorption of new concepts and policy tools like the SEA into adverse and diverse administrative environments, so that to avert unwanted negative consequences (spatial planning being antagonized, one more complex tool introduced into an already burdened planning system)