Rob Verheem The Netherlands EIA Commission Dutch SEA case studies Rob 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

Main requirements in Dutch SEA Participation 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 plan To 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

Alternatives Developed 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

Methodology Step 1: identification of issues to examine Spatial diversity Economic & social efficiency Cultural diversity Social justice Sustainability Attractiveness & human scale Flexibility & robustness Costs & transport effects

Indicators Step 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 alternatives Not 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 review Independent 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 priorities Four 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 participation Methods 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