1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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