1. Rob Verheem The Netherlands EIA Commission
Dutch SEA case studies
Rob Verheem
The Netherlands EIA Commission

2. 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

3. SEA improves the planning process
SEA is not a separate process
Requirement

4. 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

5. 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

6. West Netherlands Spatial Plan
Objective of plan:
To stimulate economic development
Four cities molded into one metropolitan area
Through infrastructure and urban development

7. Existing situation
valuable landscape

8. 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

9. Purpose of SEA To show range of potential options
Integrated assessment of options: environmental, social, economic

10. Alternatives Developed in three steps:
First: design of green & water areas
Then: design of infrastructure
Finally: design of housing & industry area

11. Existing situation
valuable landscape

12. Alternative 1
Train

13. Alternative 1
New urban area
Train

14. Alternative 2
Train

15. Alternative 3
Train

16. Alternative 4
Monorail

17. Alternative 4

18. Alternative 5
Monorail

19. 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

20. Indicators Step 2: appropriate indicators for each issue
Extracted from existing policies
Complemented by:
Indicators suggested by NGOs
Indicators from expert judgment

21. 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

22. Methods for impact assessment
Most effects: GIS
Some social impacts: transport models
Economic impacts: monetarisation
Expert workshops on methods & results

23. 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

24. Methods for public participation
Information meetings
Discussion meetings
Written comments
Web site

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Lessons learned Overall: methodology & information useful
Time & cost effective because of previous SEA
Assessment could have been less quantitative
SEA started too late

29. Case: 2002 waste management plan
To set ‘minimum standards’ for waste processing
Standard = minimum environmental performance for processing techniques
For 26 waste streams

30. Purpose and context of SEA
To compare environmental performance of alternative processing techniques
Attracted much interest from civil society

31. 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

32. LCA: environmental themes
Climate change
Acidification
Eutrophication
Toxicity
Use of resources
Use of space
Biodiversity

33. 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

34. Methodology for public participation
All major national NGOs:
Round tables on alternatives & impacts
Selected national NGOs:
Continuous sounding board

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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