Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
including surface coal mining in the national energy policy. As the process
proceeded, the analysis of individual surface mining environmental issues
would not have to be totally redone at the program, planning, and project
level. Or at least the treatment of alternatives could be limited to identify-
ing the alternatives applicable to a particular location from the universe of
alternatives identified and evaluated in the SEA. Impacts and mitigation of
the mining methods could similarly be addressed first at the SEA level and
then only as necessary to add specific considerations for other levels down
to individual projects. This approach not only adds efficiency but also con-
sistency. Perhaps, more importantly, if conducted properly, each level (policy,
program, plan, and project) of analysis incorporates lessons learned from
previous levels and allows a revisitation of higher levels in the process, if
the evaluation of a plan or project identifies incorrect assumptions or assess-
ments at the planning or program level. Similar to other multilevel envi-
ronmental analysis techniques, determining which decisions can be made
without constraining future options in the overall PPP and making these
decisions when the “time is ripe” is at the heart of the SEA approach. Other
decisions can be put off until more and site-specific information can be col-
lected. This process can also be a major factor in comprehensive scoping
with the SEA identifying the issues and in some cases even the environ-
mental analysis methods to be used for the evaluation of the specific actions
implementing a PPP.
Most of the potential disadvantages of SEA can be overcome with the
experience gained from more and more successful completion of SEAs and
benefiting from lessons learned. One of the most commonly raised objec-
tions is that the SEA process delays actions that are perceived as necessary
in the short term. This concern can be legitimate because under a properly
conducted SEA, specific actions should not be taken until the context of the
PPP is fully evaluated. However, as evident in the King William Reservoir
example, proposing a project before a PPP and the associated SEA are fully
developed can result in decades of wasted effort and money, far exceeding
that required for an SEA.
Another shortcoming of SEAs has been the lack of adequate guidance and
protocol for conducting the assessments. This has been true in the past and
not only did the lack of guidance constrain SEA development and accep-
tance, but it has also resulted in assessments that are of poor quality, of little
use to decision makers, and do not result in the SEA benefits outlined earlier.
In recognition of these problems, the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (UNECE) developed an SEA Protocol that was signed by
36 nations. The SEA Protocol became effective in 2010 and the European
Union also has an SEA program on a similar time schedule. As part of the
program, UNECE has an ongoing effort to develop SEA guidance and proto-
col including a resource manual to support application of the protocol, which
is available at www.unece.org/env/sea/(Bonvosin 2011). As the benefits of
SEA are more widely understood and SEAs are efficiently conducted in a
Search WWH ::
Custom Search