Strategic environmental assessment integrating landscape and urban planning

UNIPA Springer SeriesFabio Cutaia Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban Planning... Among the questions still open concerning the Strategic Environmental A

UNIPA Springer Series

Fabio Cutaia

Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape and Urban

Planning

Carlo Amenta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Series editors

Sebastiano Bavetta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Calogero Caruso, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Gioacchino Lavanco, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Bruno Maresca, Università di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

AndreasÖchsner, Griffith School of Engineering, Southport Queensland, AustraliaMariacristina Piva, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy

Roberto Pozzi Mucelli, Policlinico G.B.Rossi, Verona, Italy

Antonio Restivo, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Norbert M Seel, University of Freiburg, Germany, Germany

Gaspare Viviani, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13175

Fabio Cutaia

University of Palermo

Palermo

Italy

ISSN 2366-7516 ISSN 2366-7524 (electronic)

UNIPA Springer Series

ISBN 978-3-319-42131-5 ISBN 978-3-319-42132-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016943826

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part

of the material is concerned, speci fically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on micro films or in any other physical way, and transmission

or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speci fic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

In his analysis, Cutaia believes that Strategic Environmental Assessment(SEA) could be correctly addressed, realised and implemented only through par-ticipative processes integrated within town planning The recourse to participationbereft of rhetoric is necessary because its“value”, ever present at the centre of theevaluation, is an expression of judgement belonging to those directly involved inthe process of transformation—in this case, the landscape The same notion is validfor the town plan, but the two kinds of activities—SEA and plan/project of thelandscape—present different yet complementary characteristics with several agentsassuming adhesive roles or being the main factor of integration.

The use of participation in SEA is indispensable, useful and convenient, being:(a) Necessary: in order to define matters and degrees of values regarding agentsand their individual perspectives, so as to understand the range of effects in ashared way, also increasing transparency and comprehension of the evaluativemethodology implemented by the technical–scientific field;

(b) Useful: because due to the involvement of different territorial transformationsagents in the evaluation procedure, we can specifically define the acquisition

of data, use of tools and individuation of indicator arrays according to thegoals, enrichment methods and instrumental resources of the evaluation initself in respect of the plan or project of landscape;

(c) Convenient: because the participative process integrates the objectives of theevaluators (knowledge and transparency for decision-making) with benefi-ciaries of transformations (partisan advantages of the local system), improvingthe delimitation of the analytical field and conferring qualification to thelandscape in the plan project Planning creates the basic conditions for thetransformation of the town, landscape and whole territory, while the evalua-tion contributes to the planning process, qualifying the project through theconstruction and comparison of different visions and scenarios

The evaluation increases the value of the landscape project, above all through thecareful and in-depth exploration of the prevision offered by the plan alternatives

v

When such exploration of alternatives is conducted within informal and institutionalparticipative paths of landscape transformation, it directly takes place inside anevaluative process including technical and administrative authorisations and polit-ical decisions.

Considering the landscape as dynamic and complex anthropologic data, theevaluation cannot assume a mere empiric basis, but should be supported by rolesand analytical methods scientifically founded, noticed and accessible on an inter-national level Regarding the evaluation of specific local transformation phenom-ena, data must be searched for on each occasion, implicating the construction ofknowledge, above all regarding the use of specific resources by local agents.Nowadays, the typology of“institutional planning”, with exception to the Italiancase, is everywhere recursive/circular and based on the interaction between pro-posers and beneficiaries, even before the implementation of the plan processes.Therefore, SEA is inserted into the planning structure in a gradual and incrementalway, without huge innovations or procedural surprises in the regulation of therelationships among the agents of the transformations

Cutaia’s research presents two study cases in which the level of participation isdifferent and with them can be found the success of the landscape transformationprojects Linearity and circularity of the analytical and strategic visioning approa-ches are compared and examined, underlining with effectiveness the success andfailures in landscape terms through the different manners in which the plans wereaddressed and implemented The thesis suggests the prevalence of “urban andregional planning” in respect of “strategic planning” and the implementation of

“placed-based” policies This is because, outside institutional planning, the designapproach to be shared is merely reduced to the analysis or validation of individualprojects in the wider frame of the transformations contemplated by the landscapeplan In the conclusion, the continued relationship and the reciprocal mutualisationbetween plan, evaluation and landscape are highlighted Given that landscaperequires a multi-scale and multi-objective integrated approach, both the institutionalplanning and that of the landscape sector are present near the strategic planning in adirectly related way within a legal procedure In each typology of strategic plan,eventually wefind reference to juridical norms surrounding land use, which makespossible the concrete realisation of strategic visions through systemic or individualprojects in several landscapes In urban planning, despite the guarantee of institu-tional processes, the roles of subjects are attendant or dependant on thedecision-makers With political crises across Europe (especially regarding electoraland voting turnouts), urban planning is often perceived as a discipline that createsmore problems than it is able to resolve Planning, in its acceptation of“strategic”,uses a circular model as in the case of SEA with the implementation of the generalmodel named DPSIR In order to attain effectiveness at an institutional level, itrequires a tight relationship with the traditional town plan, which is instead based

on linear models—not recursive We must not consider SEA merely an mental compatibility procedure because it is a constructive path of politic consensusregarding a common future desirable and reachable

Environmental analysis is included in the wider environmental assessment as aconstitutive part, ever orientated to the qualification of the relationship with thetraditional plan, in order to aim for its effective implementation Therefore, withouturban planning, SEA remains a simple study unable to have a direct bearing on themanagement of landscape transformations Meanwhile, the plan, in order to enjoyreal participation without being rhetoric-specious, has to be constructed from thebeginning of the environmental assessment process A better hypothesis is tosimultaneously implement the planning of interventions linked to environmentalrisk (such as hydrogeological instability, earthquakes, and eruptions) to both SEAand the urban planning process For these reasons, we ought to assume SEA as abase for the urban and the environmental risk plans In fact, this set of plans for landusage risks and regulations supported by strategic dimensions (explicitly orexclusively according to competitiveness and impossible in the case of the tradi-tional regulative plan) could represent innovative modalities of spatial planninginstruments, determinant in order to manage and resolve numerous arising conflictsduring the governing of landscape transformations Risk, urban and extra-urbanland uses and strategies could be kept together by SEA as a sustainable guaranteeboth of the rules and of the innovation projects of the state of the natural andanthropogenic ecosystem Cutaia intents to convince the reader that urban planningand SEA are, in fact, inseparable.

The tight relationship between SEA and plans demonstrates that the value of theenvironmental dimension must necessary be related to other anthropogenicdimensions (including economic, cultural and social) This is important in order toavoid the possibility of planning choices, assuming a characteristic of technocracy

or another bereft of democracy The determinism of the environmental sciencescannot be automatically translated into political choices Shifting focus from theplan to the evaluation, not pertaining to the general environmental assessment butmerely to SEA regarding the different kinds of plans (included those of landscape),

we have to distinguish some aspects of the evaluation procedure in respect of theplanning discipline

Evaluation can be interpreted as a kind of analysis able to include both theanalytical/provisional plan dimension and that of its implementation in the land-scape transformation process Therefore, the evaluation procedure can be consid-ered as a specific analytical field, a frame of construction of the relationship amongagents, of the effects that take place on an institutional level and as evaluativeprocess in respect of the plan The evaluation can guarantee the relationship-basedconditions and the contribution of the agents involved in the transformationsdecisively qualifying and validating the evaluation itself From Cutaia’s research,

we can relieve the centrality of SEA institutionalisation, seen in different evaluativeexamples in the specific sectors of the landscape In front of the landscape matter,intended as an object of planning activity, the peculiarity of evaluative judgementscannot merely be assumed in the descriptions of the plan alternatives The reflection

of the different values in play, from a strategic point of view, implicates a sideration of the logical trajectories that cannot be reduced to functional schema-tisations produced by deterministic approaches In evaluations, values perceived by

recon-individuals involved in the plan often take thefield, forcing a decision between thealternatives on offer and the contradictions of the individual partisan positions Inthis case, we cannot consider out-and-out alternatives, but all plausible actions,respecting the values of the singular agents involved The research of Cutaiahighlights the importance and complexity of the reflective and participative pathsrequired by SEA for landscape transformation management, in spite of the con-tinuing recourse regarding topics scientifically identified and argued.

The disciplinary—rather than scientific—dimension prevails although data andmaterial used in the evaluation (in prevalent measures) and the planning (in variablemeasures) are determined; this is due to the fact that their instrumental use is limited

to specific practices and politics, in which the uncertainty and the incrementalnatural of the tools implemented are determinant

Cutaia started from the landscape in order to confer a constitutive sense toparticipative planning From a disciplinary planning perspective, he had to alignhimself with the environmental evaluation, underlining the SEA procedure inreason of its intrinsic correlation to the planning action Participation is the adhesive

of multi-agent and multi-objective planning The interests of the research did notfocus on the participation procedure itself; through the reading of the study cases, it

is a somewhat unavoidable result of a path concentrated on the analysis of planningpotentiality surrounding landscape problems Furthermore, the work marks aresearch perspective on the theoretical bases of landscape indicator construction Inrespect of environmental indicators, these are differentiated by their connectionswith the relationship-based capability typical of the agents involved in the evalu-ation in the plan of the landscape

The contribution of the evaluation is recognisable in the disciplinary way inwhich all scientific data and knowledge avoid false expectations They unmask thepurely rhetorical arguments while specifying dimensions of deterministic certainty

in respect of communication fluxes and reflections, constantly demanded by theuncertainty dominating the sphere of the plan’s political actions The level ofambiguity could be notably increased in landscape planning, requiring recoursemore frequent than the rhetoric-bereft participation in the planning process.Cutaia displays sensitivity for the etic topic of the centrality of a human inrelation to the social life of the community, deeply present not only in the planningfield The resident community not only asks for environmental sustainability, butalso undertakes research into solutions to problems about equity distribution Cutaiashows attentiveness towards matters of human dignity, which cannot be put in thesecond plan with respect to the deterministic reading of the exact sciences Perhaps,there is consonance with a recent declaration by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in theEuropean Parliament in Strasbourg: respecting nature also calls for the recognitionthat man himself is a fundamental part of it Along with an environmental ecology,there is also need for human ecology consisting in respect for the person

Ferdinando TrapaniUniversity of Palermo, Italy

Among the questions still open concerning the Strategic Environmental Assessment

of urban plans, certainly one of the most complex is represented by the evaluation

of their effects on the landscape It presents complex profiles for two reasons: thefirst being ascribable to the historical dichotomy between urban planning on onehand and landscape on the other; the second connected to the prevalent aestheticapproach that characterises landscape studies, which makes the application of thequantitative methods often employed in Strategic Environmental Assessmentobjectively difficult

Aside from these considerations, the work presented by Fabio Cutaia reaches,through close examination of the open questions and two study cases, afirst sys-tematisation of the matter Although complete response to the different startingquestions is not permitted, it constitutes an important contribution to the con-struction of practical protocols the Strategic Environmental Assessment must abide

by when itfinally attains operating speed For these reasons, the work is a worthyaid for scholars and technicians interested in Strategic Environmental Assessment.Additionally, it can benefit every kind of operator in the landscape field because ofits contents and characteristics, which include the reconstruction of the most recentnormative frame and the new techniques implemented in the analysis and planning

of the landscape

The reasoning of Cutaia starts from an assumption: the introduction of thelandscape dimension in the strategic evaluation can represent, following the clari-fication of particular ambiguities, the opportunity for the definitive convergence ofurbanism with landscape—or rather, to use an expression employed in the previousresearch, to achieve an“armistice in the war of position” between urbanism andlandscape In fact, still today, in spite of numerous attempts at adhesion of urbanismissues—and more generally of planning—with those of landscape and regardingmatters related to its interpretation and modification, we cannot affirm that a fullintegration between the two disciplines has occurred Stiff sectorial laws remainwithin the legal procedures of the majority of European countries—above all in theMediterranean area Even less encouraging is a clear institutional separation of

ix

competence between respective ministers appointed to landscape protection andurban planning due to different technical and cultural educations of the subjectsworking within the two areas Since such integration difficulty exists, there iscertainly a class of reason merely conceptual and philosophical, conducted toperceive the landscape in aesthetical and historical terms, scarcely concerningplanning and protection.

Strategic Environmental Assessment, given that it forces town planners to askquestions of themselves regarding urban effects on the landscape, can represent agood opportunity for the correct integration between the two disciplines Evaluatingthe effects of plans on the landscape requires overcoming the traditional dichotomy

of urban methods along with those of landscape planning and therefore achievingunity—with the inclusion of administrative plans—of two perpetually dividedconcepts This would finally allow the demise of the unacceptable subjectivitycharacterising the judgements of landscape compatibility, often expressed in anextremely monocratic form by the voices in force for protection

The opportunity to integrate knowledge regarding “landscape state” within astructured knowledge of “environmental state” is a challenge that StrategicEnvironmental Assessment could meet In order to obtain this, it is evidentlynecessary to introduce, in the tool chest of the urban and landscape planner spatial,instruments until now rarely or not at all used It is necessary that urban plannersovercome the rigidly bidimensional vision typical of rationalist plans and createtools able to manage territorial transformations with full awareness of their effects

on the environment and landscape Moreover, it is necessary that landscape ners move past the vision based on restrictive approaches in their landscape plans,instead paying attention to projecting the landscape Cutaia, in his work, individ-uates the “landscape indicators” a tool allowing both the renovation of cognitiveand operative equipment The landscape indicators, although included in the widersystem of environmental indicators, have their peculiar complexity, which derivesfrom the difficulty in separating the different phenomena that generate transfor-mations, as in the case of indicators related to environmental factors: air, water, soil,etc Instead, the landscape study requires, as affirmed by Cutaia, a holistic approachthat could allow consideration of the complexity of the system, in spite of itsnumerous individual components It is the real reason motivating the definition ofindicators characterised by a certain degree of significance and ease of imple-mentation Therefore, there is an urgent need to review the paradigms underpinningurban planning and landscape protection disciplines, with a view to how these can

plan-be unified or converged nowadays This is the reason which remains the basis ofthis work: to observe the opportunities offered by the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment normative frame and its implementation in order to find a way ofguaranteeing a synchronised integration of environment and landscape withinplanning tools

Cutaia shows that this procedure can truly represent a bridge between these twoworlds However, together with these possibilities, we can also observe a wide set

of problems concerning the way this procedure should produce selected evaluations

in “perceptible” and “cultural” terms, as required by the European Landscape

Convention The two study cases chosen by him show how we can complete inrange of Strategic Environmental Assessment by the use of indicators, the mostobjective, shared and involving assessment that can communicate the cultural andperceptible dimension of landscape.

Regarding the structure of the work, a three-part consequence of the tions exists The aim of thefirst is the building of a complete, cognitive framework

observa-on the issue, capable of defining research contexts: historic origins; establishment oflegal orders at national and European levels; diversity of methods in environmentalassessment; and“environmental indicators” at large as well as “landscape indica-tors” in particular The study in this section introduces the exposition of twoEuropean study cases about the implementation of the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment procedure in two town plans: an Italian, that of Schio, and a Spanishone, that of Calonge Through experiential observation, we are able to note theelements that have allowed urban planning practice to tie landscape, urbanism andthe environment together, in accordance with the provisions of the EuropeanLandscape Convention and Directive 4/2004 In fact, after examining differentexperiences of interpretation and landscape assessment together with two casestudies of environmental assessment, Cutaia observed the emergence of leanings forevaluating the effects of landscape planning on a local scale In addition to theevaluation of some environmental elements (such as water, soil and air) throughspecific indicators, it became more difficult to evaluate the “landscape” componentwith its“cultural” aspect In the third section, Cutaia suggests a method for land-scape assessment in planning The method developed is the result of observing theabove-mentioned practical cases and of tracking the main recurring elements:landscape unit, indicators and social involvement The latter represents a newchallenge in the participative processes: it also requires the inclusion of people inthe choice of the indicators, since a local community can provide a more subjectiveanalysis, principally by way of perception and identification of places Professionalsusually conduct landscape analysis, but the European Landscape Convention insists

on the importance of the involvement of both citizens and economic agents inlandscape planning and assessment procedures upfront Without claiming tocomplete this complex issue, the last chapter is devoted to a framework related tothe relationship between landscape and people, according to what was foundthroughout this study, informing a new research project

The topic in itself is not novel, and in recent years, many scholars have madeefforts attempting to construct arrays of indicators able to work on the severalacceptances of the term“landscape” Cutaia examines with critical sense the mostcomplete proposals submitted by different scholars, systematising and comparingthem,finally reaching the conclusion that we are too far from the objective for theintroduction of landscape indicators in the evaluative practice of urban plans, interms of their codification in specific application protocols To achieve this purpose,

we need to bring about a complex work of theoretical–methodological construction

of evaluative models, whose guidelines have been marked by Cutaia, starting fromthe examples developed in Italy and Spain in modern times

The experiences analysed and related to the Catalan case, studied during a longperiod of research in Spain, significantly marked the work of the author, openingnew and promising research perspectives The reason is not that the LandscapeObservatory of Catalonia (whose activity was studied by Cutaia from the inside)resolved the complex technical and administrative problems also observed in Spainand relating to the synchronic integration between the procedures and methods

of the urban and landscape planning It bases its activity on the awareness that only

a synergic and multidisciplinary approach—able to collect the contributions of thedifferent institutions, experts and citizens—can achieve a complete analysis andclassification of the landscape and, finally, to define the boundaries of its trans-formability Complying with this principle, since its constitution, the observatoryrepresents a meeting point between the government of Catalonia, local authorities,universities, professional groups and Catalan society in general: a centre of ideasand action in relation to the landscape This institution, apart from conductingactivities from its own research and project office, sets other important objectives,well delineated in the chapter of this work related to the Catalan study case and hereshortly summarised The goals are as follows: to promote social awareness cam-paigns about the landscape, its evolution, functions and transformations; to divul-gate studies, reports and methods about the landscape; to stimulate scientific andacademic cooperation in the landscapefield, as well as the comparison of works andexperiences of specialists and experts from universities and cultural institutions; tofollow European and international initiatives related to the landscape; to organiseseminars, conferences, courses, exhibitions and events in general in order to pro-mote information and education on the landscape; to create a documentation centreopen to all citizens; and, in general, to become an amasser able to house allindividuals interested in the landscape

Beyond the results effectively achieved, is that from the Catalan Observatory is afundamental teaching we have to pick up if we want to confer to the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment the role we previously declared In fact, its contributioncould facilitate the phase of interpretation and evaluation of the landscape, which,

in its own conception, cannot exclude recourse to the participative process Theimplementation of participative process hides, obviously, numerous traps.However, it appears as a unique modality able to reduce the risk of subjectiveinterpretations of a“parameter” as empiric as the landscape The integration of theparticipative tool into the strategic environmental assessment processes—if wellmanaged by subjects able to select the interlocutors; isolate and subdivide prob-lems;fix points; mediate local conflicts; and, finally, be associated with a multi-disciplinary reading approach of physical and environmental components—reallycan represent a key factor in the management of territorial planning processes

Giuseppe TrombinoUniversity of Palermo, Italy

Part I Environmental Assessment: Development, References

and Tools

1 The Origins of Environmental Assessment 3

References 7

2 The Current European Normative Frame 9

2.1 Directive 2001/42/EC 9

2.1.1 Before and After Its Adoption 13

2.2 The European Landscape Convention 16

2.3 The Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4/EC 20

References 22

3 Similarities and Differences in the Evaluative Methods 25

References 28

4 The Use of Landscape Indicators in Environmental Assessment 29

4.1 Aims and Criteria for Implementation 29

4.2 Examples of Landscape Indicators 33

References 42

Part II Landscape Integration in Spatial Planning: Two European Case Studies 5 Veneto (Italy) 47

5.1 Territorial Policy in the Veneto Region 47

5.1.1 Urban Regional Law 48

5.1.2 The Regional Landscape Observatory 52

5.2 The Strategic Environment Assessment in the Veneto Region 54

5.3 The SEA of the Urban Plan of the Town of Schio 57

5.3.1 Analysis with Cones of Vision 59

5.3.2 Structural Reading 60

xiii

5.4 Some Considerations 61

References 62

6 Catalonia (Spain) 65

6.1 The Territorial Policy in Catalonia 65

6.1.1 The Planning Act 66

6.1.2 The Landscape Protection, Management and Planning Act 67

6.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Catalonia Region 77

6.3 Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Urban Plan of the Town of Calonge 80

6.3.1 The Higher-Level Planning: The“PTP de Gerona’s District” 80

6.3.2 The Urban Plan: Preparation, Purposes and Participation 81

6.4 Some Considerations 85

References 87

Part III Evaluating Planning Effects on the Landscape 7 Landscape Assessment 91

7.1 Essential Tools for Landscape Evaluation 91

7.1.1 Landscape Units 92

7.1.2 Participative Processes 94

7.1.3 Indicators 96

7.2 Many Variables, a Possible Unique Method of Assessment 97

References 100

8 Past Objectives and Future Scenarios 103

References 107

Afterword 109

AAA Italian Association of Environmental Analysts

AIES Assessment of the implications

AP Preliminary Draft for the Urban Plan

CEQ Council for Environmental Quality

DMAH Catalan Department of Environment and Housing

DPSIR Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses

DR Reference Document

DSIR Driving forces, State, Impacts, Responses

EA Environmental Assessment

EEA European Environment Agency

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELC European Landscape Convention

EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESPON European Spatial Planning Observation Network

INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European UnionISA Catalan Report of Environmental Sustainability

ISAP Preliminary Catalan Report of Environmental Sustainability

MA Catalan Final Report of Environmental Sustainability

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OTAAs Catalan Techniques Offices of Environmental Assessment

PAT Territorial Spatial Plan

PATI Inter-communal Spatial Plan

PDT Regional Directive Plan

PI Plan of the Interventions

POUM Catalan Municipal Urban Plan

PPP Policies, plans and programmes

PRC Italian Municipal Urban Plan

xv

PTP Catalan Provincial Spatial Plan

SCI Sites of Community Importance

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SPA Special Protection Areas

UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

Part I

Environmental Assessment: Development,

References and Tools

Chapter 1

The Origins of Environmental Assessment

Abstract Looking back through the course of history, it is indeed possible to findmany different forms of“environmental assessment” that relate to a clear, unifyingphilosophy: to consider the impact of such practices before they are implemented.The most important difference that is clearly prevalent in more recent instances isthe consideration of the environmental component in the assessment process, whichcan be straightforwardly be attributed to an increasing awareness within the modernsociety of the ever-growing scarcity and the cost of natural resources combinedwith the resulting quality of life for current and future generations Focusing on theorigin of modern ecological assessment, this chapter will seek to analyse thedevelopments in the disciplines and benefits pertaining to the new StrategicEnvironmental Assessment—an institution conceived in response to the progres-sion of not only particular requirements—but also to economical, social and eco-logical values as well as the complexity of the planning process itself

Keywords Environmental assessment
Environmental protection
NationalEnvironmental Policy Act
European directives
Member state legislation

The need for environmental protection generated a system for distribution oflabour among public servants and citizens, warranted by the gravity of the problemcoupled with an acknowledgement of common duty In the realisation of specific

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape

and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2_1

3

“development” manifestations, consideration towards ecological factors began totake shape only when public and political domains were forced to recognise thethreat of natural resource exhaustion Primary efforts in raising the attention towardsthe matter came from the work of scholars who, since the 1960s, have aided notonly in the cultivation of public interest, but also in the addressing of apprehensionconcerning issues such as pollution, consumption of natural resources and theintroduction of potentially toxic chemicals into production processes (Sheate1994).

In addition to suggestions by O’Riordan and Turner (1983), the main reasonsthat explain the birth of EA in the USA during this period can be traced to thefollowing four aspects:

1 Major scientific knowledge and advertising of information pertaining to ronmental damage caused by the increases in the development and technologicalactivities;

envi-2 Pressure group activity directed at public opinion and government forces—initially in the USA and in the UK with the support of the media—that havebrought to light new environmental issues;

3 The increasing use of certain resources and the provision of disquieting narios, occasionally presented in catastrophic terms and

sce-4 All of the above factors, which contributed to the increased attention bydeveloped Western countries in response to public pressure, thus leading toheated debates on those issues

Within this historical context, many measures were adopted in the USA, with thefirst being approved on 31 December 1969—the “National Environmental PolicyAct” (NEPA), widely regarded as the birth of “modern” assessment The NEPAintroduced a permeable andflexible framework capable of exerting deep influence

on the decision processes of public administrations, forcing bodies to factor servational considerations into their decision-making processes A year after thepromulgation of the primary legislation on policy and protection, the NEPA legalinstitute was operational through two branches: the “Council for EnvironmentalQuality” (CEQ) and the “Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA)—the latterbeing the current controlling agency for protection within the USA The CEQ,established as an advisory board, is tasked with issuing directives to federalagencies, therein lie the origins of mandatory precautionary assessments: effects onthe ecosystem born from certain projects resulted in the ecosystem being factoredinto the technical and socio-economic priority spheres It established the imperative

con-of including, in each legal proposal or relevant federal act potentially able to affectthe human territory, a detailed report: the“Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS),covering the consequences of the actions proposed in addition to possible alter-natives and resources to be used for its implementation

Now known as the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), the formerly titledEIS introduced the first forms of control for human interaction with the naturalsetting through tools and procedures oriented to anticipate and to assess the con-sequences of certain interventions It is an act of executive relevance that

summarises collective opinions expressed by the public administrations and theconservational associations—as well as social and citizen organisations—regardingthe coherence and admissibility of situational impact assessment results If even one

of these stakeholders considers the data insufficient, it is mandatory to present newreports or to improve upon the original project Initially, these directives werecentred on the procedure of adopting, permitting and developing an assessmentmethod able to influence European countries that later embarked on this venture.The NEPA marked a turning point because it established roles and proceduresfor effective environmental protection The basic concept resided with theassumption that within the same process exist environmental, social and economicvalues, all indistinct from one another to a degree In order to implement this, theNEPA proposed utilising a systematic, inter-disciplinary approach to ensure theintegrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts

in planning and in decision-making that may influence human surroundings

A further scheme was to draw a report for each action that could adversely affectenvironmental quality, including its inevitable effects with alternatives to both theaction proposed and the excessive consumption of resources that could result fromthe alteration of the intervention In the dossier—preliminary documents drafted todecide the progress of the writing of the EIS—are exposed significant data char-acterising the location and information about the impact of the project Particularattention is paid to the environmental characteristics of the site selected, the features

of the project, the ecological impacts expected, the design and site alternatives and,finally, the measures considered to eliminate or to reduce the expected impacts.These details carry the importance since the content provided by the EIS can limitthe decision process; in fact, they determine from the outset of the realisation of aproject The selection of undertakings subject to EIS protocol is performed based onproject and place characteristics

With thefirst Environment Action Programmes—in 1973, 1977 and 1983—theEuropean Community, intending to limit the environmental degradation via aprotection system, started to display interest in industrial installations, major publicworks and the exploitative activities relating to natural resources In doing so,Europe tried tofine-tune a tool capable of implementing ecological policies typical

of the three action programmes, preventing from the first instance pollution ornuisances, instead of combating such effects afterwards (Schmidt et al 2005).These were the grounds for the European “Environmental Impact Assessment”(EIA),1introduced by Directive 85/337/EEC, which identifies the guiding principle

of damage“prevention” This directive establishes the authorisation of public andprivate intervention with possible relevant impacts and must only be granted fol-lowing the previous assessment of likely bearings on the settings Finally, it definesthe guidelines that have to be applied by the member states The EIA procedure, the

1 The EIA introduces the first form of control upon the activities that interact with the environment through instruments and processes able to foresee and evaluate the consequences of certain works,

in order to avoid, reduce and mitigate their impacts.

1 The Origins of Environmental Assessment 5

Espoo Convention (1991) and the Directive 97/11/EC represent two milestones: thefirst extends its application to cross-border context; the second, as well as includingnew categories of projects to be subjected to the procedure, introduces the phasescalled “screening”2 and scooping3and, finally, transposes what was stated in theaforementioned Espoo Convention The EIA yields, therefore, a procedure insupport of decisions surrounding the production or intervention of a task and permitpublic administrations to focus on the environmental protection and human health

in the decision process, combining economic development, preservation of natureand social welfare (Daclon 1996) The first countries that introduced the EIA inEurope were the German Federal Republic4and France,5opening the way to theintroduction of the EIA process in all member state regulations With the proposal

of a directive concerning the EIA in the “Second Action Programme on theEnvironment” (1977), intense opposition gave rise to a debate lasting 8 years andfinishing on 27 June 1985, with Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment

of the effects of certain public and private projects on the ecosystem This is thefirstattempt at introducing an organic regulation derived from the 1970 Americanexample, elaborated and improved upon over the course of time On a fundamentallevel, there are three important concepts: publicity, information and participation.Furthermore, the directive offers the definition of “environmental impact”.6

Since the 1980s, the attention of the international community towards ronmental protection has intensified due to the urgent realisation that further effortsmust be exerted The attainability of sustainable development generates conflicts ofinterest between industrialised and developing countries, opening the question ofresearch into equilibrium between two pursuits apparently in opposition: environ-mental protection and the right to develop The affirmation of sustainability prin-ciples as a model for all member states, in order to safeguard ecosystem and naturalresources, marked the limits of tools used to direct related policies and instruments.For this reason, environmental assessment—conceived to evaluate the impact ofindividual projects—became the object of a survey designed to determine its rel-evance to policies, plans and programs (PPP)

envi-2 Member states have to carry out a screening procedure to determine whether the plans/programmes are likely to have signi ficant environmental effects If there are significant impacts, an SEA is needed The screening procedure is based on criteria set out in Annex II of the Directive.

3 The scoping procedure determines the content and extent of the matters covered in the SEA report

to be submitted to the competent authority.

4 In 1976, a decision by the Federal Cabinet introduced an examination of the environmental compatibility of the measures taken by public authorities, including proposed legislation, regu- lations, administrative provisions, programs and projects.

5 On 10th July 1976, in France was enacted Law no 629, which introduced three different levels of evaluation: surveys of environment, notices of impact and studies of impact.

6 This de finition should cover the direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, long-term, permanent, temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.

In the 1990s, the EIA process highlighted the necessity to have at their disposal

an assessment able to consider the territory in its complexity (Garano2005) and theassessment concept was assumed with the intention of surpassing the numerouslimits of the approach project by project Furthermore, we have to consider that thenew challenges of relevant policies today are related to corrective actions in a largerterritorial context Consequently, the global impact of every individual humanactivity makes essential the construction of assessment tools for “precaution”,7

rather than prevention, able to intervene in influences originating from big strategicalternatives as well as spatial regional and sectorial steering (Ferrara2000) Anotherlimit of EIA processes consists of a reduced action boundary, due to the inability tooperate on the cumulative, synergic and indirect effects of design activities Theresearch for these styles of tools is the result of the experience of many uncer-tain situations The risk perceived by public opinion is more acute since science isnot simply limited tofinding solutions; it revels in the uncertainty of its paths andthe ambivalence of its pioneers At the same time, science lights up, explains andunsettles—and permits domination, obscurity and confusion (Crepaldi and Togni

2007)

Within this frame, we can distinguish Holland, in anticipation of each othercountry, as being thefirst nation to apply the new European Directive in 1986 withlegislation enriched by clear references to the evaluations for plans The cornerstone

of the Dutch legislation is represented by the comparison of the different tives and the evaluations of their impacts, in order to determine the best solution interms of sustainability

alterna-On 27 June 2001, upon these foundations was born European Directive2001/42/EC, alongside the new model of “Strategic Environmental Assessment”(SEA), which, coming before planning choices, allows member states coherenceregarding plans and programs surrounding sustainable development goals

References

General References and Literature

Caratti P, Dalkman H, Jiliberto J (eds) (2002) Analysing strategic environmental assessment: towards better decision-making Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Crepaldi G, Togni P (2007) Ecologia ambientale ed ecologia umana Cantagalli, Siena

7 The precautionary principle in the context of environmental protection is essentially about the management of scienti fic risk It is a fundamental component of the concept of ecologically sustainable development and has been de fined in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scienti fic certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation ”.

1 The Origins of Environmental Assessment 7

Daclon C (1996) La VIA in Italia e in Europa Maggioli, Santarcangelo di Romagna

Ferrara R (2000) La valutazione di impatto ambientale Cedam, Padova

Garano M (ed) (2005) La valutazione ambientale strategica: la decisione strategica nelle politiche, nei piani e nei programmi urbanistici Gangemi, Rome

O ’Riordan T, Turner R (1983) An annotated Reader in Environmental Planning and Management Pergamon Press, Oxford

Schmidt M, Jo ão E, Albrecht E (2005) Implementing strategic environmental assessment Springer, Dordrecht

Sheate W (1994) Making an impact: a guide to EIA law and policy Cameron May, Londona

Legislation

USA (1969) The National Environmental Policy Act, Tit I, Congressional Declaration of National Environmental Policy, sec 102, let a

Chapter 2

The Current European Normative Frame

Abstract The rapid introduction of the normative frame on the European scale,both communally and nationally, follows the historical investigation presented inthefirst chapter of this dissertation, with a double purpose: to define the issues ofthe current debate on the one hand and to describe the state of the art on the other.Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 27 June 2001concerning the assessment of effects of certain plans and programmes on the settingwas officialised in July of that year, generating a wide range of experiences Itestablishes a basic framework that should be adopted by the member states of theEuropean Union In the previous chapter, we showed the principal steps of thenormative path culminating in the SEA directive being adopted Here, instead, weattempt to define conceptual interpretations, contents, objectives and procedures ofthe directive Following a general description of itsfirst decade by establishing anintegration of landscape, urbanism and environmental disciplines, we propose aparallel reading with two important motions: the European Landscape Convention,the first international treaty to be exclusively concerned with all dimensions ofEuropean landscape, and the Aarhus Convention, a multilateral agreement pro-viding opportunities for citizens to access environmental information

Keywords Directive 2001/42/EC
European Landscape Convention
AarhusConvention

2.1 Directive 2001/42/EC

When launching the VI Environment Action Programme (Environment 2010: OurFuture, Our Choice, 24 January 2001), the European Commission put at the heart ofits interventions the objective of establishing a broader context of sustainabledevelopment with the integration of environmental considerations into sectorialpolicies Furthermore, for all environmental issues, it seeks a strategic approach inaddressingfive objectives: to improve the implementation of existing legislation; tointegrate environmental issues into other policies; to induce markets to work for the

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape

and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2_2

9

location; to encourage citizen participation and change behaviour and lifestyles; and

to plan and manage the land with a view to maximum sustainability

Directive 2001/42/EC represents an institutional response not only to the VIEnvironment Action Programme, but also to what was underlined by the WeberCommission in the 1980s: the need to submit plans and not solely projects toenvironmental assessment, so as to act effectively within the territorial transfor-mation process The main objective, as set out in Article no 1, is“[…] to providehigh levels of environmental protection and integrate environmental considerationsinto the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes […]” Other purposesare to improve information for citizens and to promote public participation in theplanning process

The emanation of the SEA directive closed a very long normative period whichsaw the European Union and its member states occupied in the individuation andapplication of procedures, methods and techniques able to evaluate—from anenvironmental point of view—projects, programs and plans The directive pro-vides“[…] that Community policy on the background is to contribute to, inter alia,the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the ecosystem, theprotection of human health and the prudent and rational utilisation of naturalresources and that it is to be based on the precautionary principle Article 6 of theTreaty provides that environmental protection requirements are to be integrated intothe definition of Community policies and activities, in particular with a view topromoting sustainable development” Additionally, “The Fifth Environment ActionProgramme: Towards sustainability—A European Community programme of pol-icy and action in relation to the setting and sustainable development (…) affirms theimportance of assessing the likely environmental effects of plans and programmes”

In fact, the report“shall be carried out during the preparation of a plan or gramme and before its adoption or submission to the legislative procedure” Thedirective accentuates a very important question of environmental protection: thespatial dimension of the effects of human activities, generally extended acrossmunicipal borders, which have to be analysed on a suitable scale because of thenature of the environmental system Furthermore, the SEA directive reiterates thenecessity to produce evaluations for plans and programs that guarantee a more

pro-efficient management of the environmental issue and the use of natural resources.The directive underlines the importance of associating with the company systemand the productive sectors in general, as well as adopting measures able to facilitatethe collaboration between players directly involved in the environmental subject.The emanation of the SEA directive constitutes the normative result of a verylong scientific, cultural and institutional path that highlights the urgency to intro-duce strategic assessment instruments within the planning process, in order toruminate various development alternatives This path is characterised by severallegislative bills and statements of principles, in which we canfind the theoreticalpremises of the Strategic Environmental Assessment There are two basic consid-erations: that the pursuit of sustainable development and environmental heritagegoals proves to be better and easier when the decision process is directed upstreamand that social participation vouches for the success of the aforementioned goals

The strategic assessment continues to verify that the goals established arecoherent with those typical of the sustainable developments and that actionsanticipated in the plan are adapted in order to achieve them We can observe threefundamental moments of the assessment process:

• The verification of correspondence of plan goals with the principles of tainable development;

sus-• The verification of coherence of projected plans with environmental ability goals;

sustain-• The verification of coherence of plans forecast between the territorial andenvironmental resources knowledge frame and the sensitivities and weaknessespresent within the vicinity

Directive 2001/42/EC is constituted of 15 articles of procedural character, brieflysummarised and annotated as follows:

Thefirst article declares the goals of the directive and establishes the crux in theassumption of environmental questions in the planning process

Article no 2,“Definitions”, specifies what must be considered when regarding

“plans and programmes”, “environmental assessment”, “environmental reports”and“public”—but gone is the definition of “environmental authority”, adjourned bythe integration of the directive in the member states legislation

Article no 3 defines the area of interest for the directive, specifying the plansand programmes that could have significant effects on the location as well asnecessities in the application of evaluation procedures Some plans and programmesmust undergo environmental assessment, particularly if they are included in thesectors mentioned in the directive, indicating the reference frame for the projectslisted in the annexes I and II of Directive 85/337/EEC, or, finally, if they areincluded in the evaluation in accordance with Directive 92/43/ECC (par 2) Instead,others have to be excluded (parr 8 & 9) Furthermore, member states have todetermine whether the following plans and programmes included in Article no 3.2are likely to have significant environmental effects: those related to the use of smallareas at local levels; those requiring limited modifications; and those includingspatial instruments which set the framework for future consensual project devel-opments, but not mentioned in par 2 Therefore, it is appropriate to examine eachinstance case by case Here, it is convenient to take into account the impossibility ofunequivocally defining the term plans and programmes because they assume dif-ferent meanings in the different European member states

Article no 4,“General obligations”, specifies the temporal collocation of SEAprocedures during the preparation of plans or programmes in order to integrategeneral conditions established by the member states and avoid duplication of theassessments

Article no 5 defines a key element of SEA: the “Environmental Report” Thisinstrument, the heart of the SEA procedure, has to be a part of the plan or pro-gramme documentation, simply to underline the mandatory inclusion of it in theplanning process (Fidanza2005) It states the methods and minimum requirements

for the preparation of the report, which must guarantee the identification, tion and evaluation of the most significant environmental effects that could originate

descrip-by implementing the plan or programme Also contained must be reasonablealternatives, taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of theplan or programme In the annexes can be found a list of contents required by eachEnvironmental Report Additionally, in order to avoid assessment and studyduplications, the directive allows the use of information derived from plans andprogrammes adopted on different levels of the decisional hierarchy

Article no 6, with the objective of addressing “consultations”, permits theauthorities and public in general to express their own opinions regarding both planand programme proposal and the Environmental Report before adoption However,

it does not define the timetable and modalities for the consultation, neither of whichrepresent the authorities involved—leaving open the question of definition withinthe different member states The following article is related to transboundaryconsultations; it is the case of plans and programmes that interest “boundary ter-ritories” between member states With this article lies the obligation of the countrycreating a plan or programme to transmit a copy of it to nearby countries before theadoption of spatial instruments

To the detriment of those who believe in the possibility of separate planning andprogramming process from SEA, Article no 8 establishes that the EnvironmentalReport and all consultations shall be taken into account during the preparation ofthe plan or programme and before its adoption

Article no 9 is titled “Information on the decision” Any authorities, publiccommunities or member states consulted are entitled access to the informationregarding approval For this reason, they should be able to have at their disposal theplan or programme adopted, a summary of statements and measures concerningmonitoring For this last point, as defined in Article no 10, member states have to

define the modalities for implementing the environmental monitoring of plans andprogrammes effects, in order to adopt promptly the necessary corrective measures incase unexpected negative effects should transpire

Article no 11,“Relationship with other Community legislation”, specifies andunderlines that“the environmental assessment carried out under this directive shall

be without prejudice to any requirements under Directive 85/337/EEC and to anyother Community law requirements” In the event that the mandatory realisation of

an EIA occurs simultaneously with that of a SEA, paragraph no 2 establishes theprovision of coordinated or joint procedures fulfilling the requirements of the rel-evant community legislation in order,inter alia, to avoid duplication of assessment.With“Information, reporting and review”, Article no 12 asks that the elabo-ration of Environmental Reports be of a sufficiently high level to satisfy thedirective’s requirements It establishes that member states communicate to theEuropean Commission measures adopted and experiments conducted, in order toexchange information on the experience gained in applying the SEA directive.Furthermore, an important aim consists in the redaction, every seven years, of astate’s report on the application of the directive

The implementation of the directive is controlled by Article no 13, whichestablishes a Europe-wide commitment: that member states must integrate it intotheir national legislative bodies before 21 July 2004, with three years given foraccomplishment Mandatory completion and adherence also applied to plans forwhich preparation procedures had been initiated but not completed until after thelaw became effective.

The remaining two articles, 14 and 15, establish, respectively, the entering intoforce of the directive—21 July 2001—and its recipients: all member states.The European Commission decided to build the SEA upon some essential pil-lars: the elaboration of an Environmental Report; the execution of consultations; theevaluation of the report and of consultation results; and the availability of theinformation surrounding the decision

2.1.1 Before and After Its Adoption

Directive 2001/42/EC is the result of a very long and intense negotiation processbetween the European Community and member states For reasons well docu-mented (Feldmann et al.2002), the necessity to have access to an environmentalassessment of PPP appeared very early, just when the works for Directive85/337/EEC—concerning the assessment of the effects of certain public and privateprojects on the surroundings—were in progress Nonetheless, preparation for thenew directive did not come to fruition until after the 1990s

The SEA directive, promoted diffusely, was regarded as the most concreteproposal about environmental assessment for a long time Today, the Europeansituation with regard to SEA shall be considered an living laboratory, characterised

by dynamism and an abundant host of conceptual declinations, from which, as aconsequence, were generated many kind of practices

We can clearly distinguish two terms in the history of SEA: one before its entryinto force and one later In the first period, the environmental assessment wasprofoundly tied to the regional planning and development policies, conditioning thenature, method and procedures used in the EIA In fact, the formal requisites ofSEA were already included in the EIA, in planning processes and legislations ofmany member states, particularly in the Netherlands, France, Finland, Denmark,Sweden, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and some Spanish andItalian regions Within the most interesting practices, we can count the voluntaryproposals of sustainable development goals included at national, regional and locallevels, national environmental plans, environmental integration in sectorial plan-ning, directives for regional planning, formulations of models and requirements forenvironmental communication and monitoring The “predirective” experienceshows a wide range of SEA applications, from governmental bills and the EuropeanStructural Fund to both regional and urban planning and numerous sectorial plansand programmes Before 2001, that which we now call SEA developed in Europewithout any reference models, giving rise to multiple concepts around the same

tool, laying the foundations for Directive 2001/42/EC in addition to its means ofinclusion Ultimately, the European Commission had presented and promotedvarious applications of SEA and many member states had simultaneously devel-oped their own models.

In sectorial scientific literature, SEA is often identified with the environmentalassessment of PPP While it shall be valid in order to define the instrument, on thecontrary it remains too far from the description of the concept (Partidário2006) Bythe observation of SEA implementation in different countries, we can notice thewide range of proposals developed: those related to sectorial urban planning; thoserelated to management of specific areas (e.g the “Integrated Coastal ZoningManagement”); and those who aim at planning particular contexts, coasts or cor-ridors for transport, for instance Furthermore, the European Union has promotedSEA for the coast erosion phenomena, for structural funds, for the Trans-EuropeanTransport Network and for other similar questions Similarly, with regard to theSEA concept, we can distinguish at least three different meanings along itstrajectory:

1 SEA integrated in the instruments of sectorial spatial planning and strategicmanagement to facilitate planning processes and, especially, to generatedevelopment alternatives with minor impacts and, therefore, be moresustainable;

2 SEA as an evolution of EIA in order to determine the effects of planning andprogramming proposals and to identify directives aimed at avoiding or reducing

at the minimum their effects, even before the decision isfinalised;

3 SEA as a tool of the environmental policy able to summon attention aboutcertain environmental questions and put them inside a wider range of politicaland planning sectors, in order to guarantee sustainable development

The several declinations of the SEA concept present the multiplicity of their use

as being favourable for the strategic promotion of the sustainability process, at theexpense of their reduction to the mere application aimed at guaranteeing a legalanswer to the environmental necessities (Partidário2005; Bina2003)

The European Commission promoted the use of strategic evaluations in differentways and, in several cases, did so in an integrated manner—showing evidence ofthe flexibility of the concept and, consequently, the possibility of occasionalinterpretation of others from a more strategic viewpoint, but all factually efficient.Directive 2001/42/EC, from its approval, has shown the reference model thatmust guide the process, in such a manner that where there is a solid experience ofplanning and programming, SEA shall be perfected, making space for creativity andproducing the best results However, where practice is, instead, more limited—oreven absent—and the planning and programming systems are less consolidated, theadoption of the directive must take on this new challenge, securing the correctintegration of the environmental issues in PPP

The directive of the European Parliament and Council of the 27 June 2001, onthe assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the ecosystem,

entered in force on the 21 July 2001 As already stated, Article no 13 of thedirective compels each member state to make executive its contents before the 21July 2004 By that date, however, only nine countries had implemented a nationallegislation to transpose the SEA directive Moreover, afirst report regarding theapplication and efficacy of the directive was to be sent to the European Parliamentbefore the 21 July 2006 The only countries that adhered were Austria, Cyprus, theCzech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy (certainregions), Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, Spain (certain regions), Sweden andthe UK Amongst these, the cases in which the adoption of the directive wentbeyond the mere legal transposition are very few (Jones et al.2005; Sheate et al.

2005): only Scotland and the Czech Republic have exceeded the sphere of scriptions Other countries, instead, have just inserted one article in the existing EIAlegislation, demanding application for plans and programmes

pre-The obligation to comply to basic prescriptions has conducted important changesinto the national legislations, arriving in some cases to the introduction of formalrequirements and in others determining considerable modifications in good prac-tices already consolidated As reported in Article no 1, the main objective of thedirective is“[…] to provide for a high level of protection of the setting and tocontribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparationand adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainabledevelopment” However, we have to observe that despite the directive requiring theenvironmental evaluation of plans and programmes, it does not indicate how toconduct the assessment process, giving rise to multiple interpretations about itsimplementation The directive’s recommendations basically have a proceduralessence; we know what documents to produce and mechanisms to activate—but nottheir organisation, or better, how to include them in the process of planning andprogramming (Partidário2006) This imposes on each member state the review oftheir own planning and programming processes in order to improve the quality andthe goals of sustainable development Such“freedom” in the selection of ad hocprocesses, or such missed specifications, has facilitated different readings Jones

et al (2005) deliberate the directive establishing a large discretional frame, definingthe profits desired, specifying how to reach them Glasson and Goslini (2001)perceive a compromise to individuate a less common denominator, upon whichRisse et al (2003) agree that the general requirements are not intentionallyrestrictive, but make ample room for creativity,flexibility and adaptability, facili-tating the directive transposition in each member state according to necessity.Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005), on the other hand, wish for an early achievement

of the standardisation of the SEA process

The different ways in which the directive was inflected represent the outcomes ofcultural diversity that determines decision-making and the design of public andplanning policies in the different European Union countries The different territorialexperiences show the potential of SEA as a tool for decision-making oriented to thepursuit of sustainable goals generally and, at the same time, its profile: a processwith strategic purposes characterised by an important proactive role In this context,

we desire to demonstrate SEA, in the European Union, overcomes the concept

established by Directive 2001/42/EC, contrarily as understood from the sectorialliterature The current European situation is largely variegated, not only with regard

to the transposition of the directive, but also to its conception in the judicial system,its implementation in PPP and, in some cases, to the interested sectors Certainly,the experiences before the adoption of the SEA directive have contributed to thesuccess of the directive transposition in all the countries in which such experienceswere maturing (especially in Denmark, Sweden and the UK), serving as a validexample for those in which these kinds of practices are new

As regards the situation after the entry in force of the directive, it is very difficult

to give an exact description for every one of the member states Despite the difculties, Jones et al (2005) have produced a study about the gradual approval of theregulation dictated by the directive solely for urban planning cases, while Sheate

fi-et al (2005) proposed a detailed study for seven European countries The maincontribution offered by the directive is the incorporation of sustainable developmentand environmental quality issues in plans and programmes The new planning andprogramming processes in turn are enriched by the systematic consideration of keyenvironmental elements; public participation; a more efficient institutional consul-tation; the comparison of development alternatives detected; and supervision,revision and monitoring of spatial instruments adopted—factors able to determinethe quality of plans and programmes

2.2 The European Landscape Convention

The European Landscape Convention (hereafter referred to as“the Convention” or

“the ELC”), an international treaty adopted by the Committee of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe, was born to predispose a legislative bill with the purpose ofunifying different focuses existing in Europe pertaining to surroundings andlandscape

In 1994, the Congress of the Local and Regional Authorities of the Council ofEurope initiated the ELC project elaboration, eventually adopting it on 19 July 2000after a lengthy consultation process On the 20th of October that year, theConvention was opened for signatures of member states of the Organisation inFlorence and immediately subscribed to by 18 European governments TheConvention allows, in force of the “subsidiarity principle”, to choose suitablemeans to adopt its requirements in national and regional legal orders, so that theirinclusion in national and local traditions might be harmonious The ELC, todaysigned and ratified (August 2014) by 38 countries out of 47, has sought for over adecade to animate lively debate surrounding landscape issues, policies and relevantrules

The decision to conceive a judicial tool specifically dedicated to the landscapedimension of the territory can be interpreted based on several reading keys Here,

we prefer to deem those related to landscape quality, their evaluations, participationprocesses and the institution of observatories

The ELC elaboration initiative began with the populace, which pushed the localpolitical delegates to undertake action on behalf of the panorama Populationsshow, with more and more strength, concern for the ecosystem, landscape qualityand diversity deterioration because they became aware of the relation between thesephenomena and the quality of life, including economic and social well-being Thesocial request for high landscape quality is increasing and coincides with thedemand to assess the effects of human action Such need originates from deepreasoning and tends to embody new“citizens’ rights” (as the right to enjoy beauty

or appreciate environmental quality), unable to gain a response to “cosmetic”actions or in rational environmental protection mechanisms activated by differentlandscape institutions (Gambino2004) The expression “right to landscape”, used

by Priore (2007), recaps efficaciously the needs and hopes of the European lation regarding the perception of their territories Therefore, we can affirm the ELChasfinally sanctioned the recognition of such a right at European level

popu-Within the other aims, the ELC does not clarify the meaning of“landscape” and,for this reason, establishes in Article no 2 that it“[…] covers natural, rural, urbanand peri-urban areas It includes land, inland water and marine areas It concernslandscapes that might be deemed outstanding as well as everyday or degradedlandscape” The attention for landscape dimension, related to the whole nationalspace, represents one of the fundamental principles of the Convention, thanks towhich we can assert, in practical terms, all the territory is landscape (Priore2007)

So, it is necessary to go beyond the traditional leanings in force for which onlysome parts of territory have to be considered landscape for their aesthetic pecu-liarities and beauty, limiting the juridical efficacy of the landscape discipline andkeeping out vast areas from any public policy or intervention

The Convention identifies the subjective dimension of landscape as the dational principle for its definition For this reason, ELC Article no 1 establishesthat“a ‘Landscape’ means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is theresult of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” Therefore, inpractical terms, a landscape, in order to exist, requires population contribution, asdeclared by the Convention regarding the steps related to the definition andimplementation of policies and specific measures dedicated to the landscapedimension of the territory (Articles 5.b and 6) In fact, the formulation of“land-scape quality objectives”, which represents one of the most important steps of thepublic decision process surrounding the landscape, depends on the values andexpectations expressed by the populations on the landscape characteristics of theirliving location Producing this important innovation in thefield of landscape pro-tection, the ELC acquires the landscape as a political topic of general character, due

foun-to the emphasis placed upon the concept of communities belonging foun-to their roundings, insomuch as they are unable to undergo changes without populationparticipation (Venturi Ferriolo2009)

sur-Population engagement occurs according to three different levels: in the same

definition of landscape (an area as perceived by people); in the emphasis put on theordinary life landscape, so in terms of quality of“civilised landscape” (Preambleand Article no 2); and in the action phases on the landscape, since the ELC

2.2 The European Landscape Convention 17

establishes an active role for the population in the decision process (Articles 5 and6) The landscape is designed by the ELC as a commodity for all to enjoy and towhich access is straightforward because of the close proximity to those who live inand around it The reference principles are defined by the desire to “respond to thepublic’s wish to enjoy high quality landscapes and to play an active part in thedevelopment of landscapes” and by “believing that the landscape is a key element

of individual and social well-being and that its protection, management and ning entail rights and responsibilities for everyone” (Preamble) In that, theConvention declares the central role of the population, which is called to operatethrough suitable participation procedures, in the phase of landscape characterisationand during that of the definition of landscape quality objectives

plan-Having observed the relationship between population and landscape as beingvery close, efforts must be oriented towards growth in the awareness of peopleregarding values transmitted by landscapes The first specific measures of ELCArticle no 6 in fact contemplate not only the technical or specialised levels ofeducation of those directly responsible for the ultimate decision, but also of eachindividual involved in major points within the context of the entire process.The approach of the“right to enjoy high quality landscapes” in relation to the

“responsibility” in playing an active part in the development of landscapes is a topicupon which the ELC pivot on the Preamble, coinciding with the metaphor of the

“landscape as a theatre” proposed by Turri (1998) The roles of the performer inrealising landscapes and of the spectator observing, contemplating and enjoyinglandscapes realised, cannot be separated; both are essential for the construction of acorrect relationship within a quotidian existence We can define each landscape as

an interface between the acting and observing; between observing–performing andacting; and between acting and re-observing (Turri 1998) The responsibleengagement of people has a direct connection with the decisional role assigned tothe population by the ELC, especially if we cogitate the necessary contribution inorder to identify and evaluate landscapes and formulate their quality objectivesbased on protection, management and planning policies (Castiglioni and Varotto

2013)

The ELC innovations originate from the cultural–historical evolution of thelandscape notion throughout different European cultures, from which an icono-graphic meaning is passed, especially in the modern period, to a concept extremelyrich in dimensions In France, the landscape quality is considered an essential areafor the well-being of the individual as well as the community In the UK, landscapeprotection is integrated in economic–productive development policies Irelandcontemplates environmental richness and human transformations to be heritagesable to permeate local community identity In Italy and Spain, the aesthetic–per-ceptive conception of the landscape is still evident and related values are preserved

by prescriptive forms of protection, giving rise to a deep gap between rhetoric andregional policies (Romero 2011) From an operative point of view, in terms ofregional planning and management, when identifying “specific measures”, theConvention requests—amongst other actions—the individuation of structurallandscape characteristics, the phenomena in operation and coming transformations

affecting them as well as the production of an assessment ordered to their tion Prevention and precaution principles emerge and, accompanying them, do thecurrent methods of environmental assessment, constituting its basis Within thisframe, the Convention on the one hand invites knowledge and recognition oflandscape elements and on the other demands the evaluation of forces and pressurestransforming them Despite merely being a partial aspect, this Convention point isvery important because reference is made to studies aimed at defining or outliningpolicies or landscape planning phases, complementary and discrete from regionalplanning, and pushes towards the improvement of environmental assessmentprocedures.

protec-During thefirst decade of ELC implementation, the fulfilment of requirements inthe preparation of spatial planning tools generated methodological innovationopportunities However, it also created uncertainty in the results of planning pro-cesses, especially in countries in which a landscape planning tradition is absent

In order to facilitate the application of the Convention, the principal referencedocument—“Guidelines for the implementation of the European LandscapeConvention” (2008)—proposes that questions related to the protection, manage-ment and planning of landscapes should be the object of constant observation Inaddition, they ought to occupy a suitable place for comparing and exchanginginformation related to techniques and practices In order to apply these measures,the ELC guidelines established“landscape observatories”: places which facilitate

an increase in knowledge of landscapes and their dynamics on different levels, both

in historical evolution and in possible future transformations Such knowledge isnot just related to landscape in itself, but also to the transformation practices andpolicies that perceive the landscape as an object and for which the assessment oftheir efficacy is mandatory

With relation to participation, observatories have to develop wide and efficientcommunication stances, marrying technical knowledge with that of local commu-nities Furthermore, their objective is to perform and promote studies as well asresearch into landscapes, in preparation of planning, tuned to analyse social per-ception and able to expedite participative actions, didactic projects, initiatives ofawareness and disclosure Regarding landscape evaluation and the effects upon it,the aforementioned actions can be categorised with landscape characterisationstudies and the realisation of guidelines and directives for implementation, at locallevels, of actions of environmental protection and regional development In addi-tion, observatories take on the commitment of the promotion of scientific reflectionpaths and of comparison between experts at international levels, through periodicconventions, seminars and publications

Considering these admissions, it is necessary for ad hoc bodies such as theobservatories to exist in order to give support to public administration, includingother territorial organisations operating at different levels (such as universities,professional associations, citizens’ committees), and respond to various requestssurrounding the landscape

2.2 The European Landscape Convention 19

2.3 The Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4/EC

The “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation inDecision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”, signed in theDanish city of Aarhus in 1998, entered into force in 2001 It represents a veryimportant international instrument for the awareness and civil engagement ofsociety in environmental matters Thirty-nine member states of the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe and the European Union adhere to it

Defined by Kofi Annan as the most important example of “environmentaldemocracy” and with the implementation of Principle no 10 of the “RioDeclaration on Environment and Development”, the Aarhus Convention is a newmodel of international treaty, in which human rights and environmental protectionfind affirmation and mutual support The right to information is the fundamentalbasis of each democratic system; the citizen, having elected rights, must be grantedthe ability to access correct, subjective and objective sources of information(Fioravanti and Martinoja2010)

This Convention has three pillars, which, in addition to representing its goals,constitute the tools for the achievement of its principal aim:“(…) to contribute tothe protection of the right of every person of present and future generations to live

in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being (…)” (Article no 1).For this reason, as declared in the title, the Convention demands that the govern-ment intervene in three sectors: access to information, public participation indecision-making and access to justice in environmental matters As for the firstobjective, the Convention makes a distinction between citizens’ rights to accessinformation for which they present requests and the public authority’s right torelease that information This entails, on the one hand, that authorities truly possessthe information required and on the other that it shall be updated and reliable, issued

in reasonable time and without onerous costs Nevertheless, we need to ponder thepossibility in some cases that information can be inadmissible As we can read inArticle no 5, the information disclosure implies an active and communicative role

of the institutions: it has to be realised while respecting the principle of immediacyand making“electronic databases which are easily accessible to the public throughpublic telecommunications networks”

Through the words of Edo Ronchi—President of the Italian SustainableDevelopment Foundation—it can be affirmed that necessary environmental infor-mation holds relevant techno-scientific content that can become a true barrier fordemocratic access We can deduce that access to environmental information sourcesrequires a basic condition: they have to be alive, truly active and of high quality.Simultaneously, in a society characterised by redundant and hyperbolisedinformation, we should avoid underestimating the risk of the proliferation ofenvironmental alarm since this could result in somewhat of a din, making legitimateenvironmental problems and dangers less credible and perceptible This is the case

of several reports of the 1970s, which have presented the environmental crisis incatastrophic terms These “optical aberrations” of the environmental question,

sometimes, have insinuated too much disquiet and impeded the unearthing ofsuitable solutions (Crepaldi and Togni2007) In other terms, regarding environ-mental information access issues, there is not only a problem of quantity, but aboveall of quality: in technical and scientific knowledge, in the data availability and inthe reliability On the one hand, data must be obtained with suitable instruments andanalysis methods, and on the other, who interprets and diffuses data must have attheir disposal a serious technician and scientific education (Ronchi2010).The second Convention axis is represented by the undertaking to facilitate cit-izen participation in the decision-making process that might have various manners

of effects on the location In fact, the concept of information itself is insufficient;information is only a tool, but not the aim, which is, instead, participation Publicparticipation is useful only when it allows participants to be active players, givingpersonal contributions This is the obligated premise in order to share and under-stand the choices made, since without public involvement the implemented policieswill clash with people’s reactions (Leoni2010) In fact, the Convention establishesthe right for the interested public to participate in the decision-making process notonly regarding the authorisation of certain activities with possible impacts on thesetting but also in the preparation of plans, programmes, policies and normative actsadopted by public authorities Those interested enjoy the guarantee of being able topresent observations that public authorities have to study

Article no 6 of the Aarhus Convention, assuring public participation in sions on specific activities, finds its implemental dimension in environmentalassessment procedures since they provide the mechanism for local communityconsultations Furthermore, in order to ensure the efficacy of participation and toguarantee this right, we can read in paragraph no 4:“Each Party shall provide forearly public participation, when all options are open and effective public partici-pation can take place” Citizen participation is also facilitated by the draft of a

deci-“non-technical summary” of the information provided, as established in paragraph

no 6, letter d This is an instructive document about the Environmental Reportcontents; the aim is to provide an overview of the work being proposed to a widepublic constituted by individuals extraneous to thisfield Moreover, the documenthas to be read discretely from the Environmental Report, for which interpretation ismore difficult Therefore, the non-technical summary has to recap and simplify, forthe benefit of a wide range of interested people, all the aspects contained in theEnvironmental Report in order to underline the significant environmental effects,possible or potential, that each plan or programme could generate

Article nos 7 and 8 of the Convention grant citizens the right to participate in thepreparation phases of plans, programmes, policies, executive regulations and otherapplicable legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the ecosystem

We believe the SEA procedure, which also includes public participation andconsultation within its process, with the drafting of a non-technical summary, could

be the pre-eminent tool for the implementation of these instructions

As already disclosed, the third andfinal axis of the Convention corresponds tothe simplification of access to justice Such improvement allows citizens to resort toadministrative and juridical review procedures when they believe their rights in

2.3 The Aarhus Convention and Directive 2003/4/EC 21

environmental or participation matters have been violated for Beyond this, theymay report the violation of the environmental normative by public and privatesubjects.

Directive 2003/04/EC resumes the normative path opened at the European level,not only by Directive 90/313/EEC—the first Convention adoption and EU actdedicated to environmental information—but also by the important internationalconventions on setting and development of 1970s and 1980s (Maglia 2011).Coherently with what is declared in the Aarhus Convention, the directive sum-marises, in its preface, the most important points of the normative evolution inenvironmental matters Focusing on the relationship between environmentalinformation and needs related to protection, it reaffirms the value of including theissues in each policy of the EU from the moment of adoption

References

General References and Literature

Bina O (2003) Re-conceptualising Strategic Environmental Assessment: theoretical overview and case study from Chile Dissertation, University of Cambridge

Castiglioni B, Varotto M (2013) Paesaggio e Osservatori locali: l ’esperienza del Canale di Brenta Franco Angeli, Milan

Council of Europe (2008) Recommendation CM/Rec(2008) of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 February 2008 at the 1017th meeting of the Ministers ’ Deputies

Crepaldi G, Togni P (2007) Ecologia ambientale ed ecologia umana Cantagalli, Siena

Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment, a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience Earthecan, London

Feldmann H, Ebel A, Jakobs HJ, Memmesheimer M, Kerschgens M (2002) Simulation of Intercontinental Transport of Atmospheric Trace Constituents with an Eulerian Mesoscale Model Export-E2, Final report: 67 –69

Fioravanti S, Martinoja D (2010) Guida all ’informazione ambientale Irnerio, Piacenza

Fidanza A (2005) Alcune questioni sulla valutazione ambientale di piani e programme Urbanistica Informazioni 200:77 –84

Gambino R (2004) I paesaggi dell ’identità europea, Prolusione a.a 2004–2005 Politecnico di Torino, Turin

Glasson J, Goslini J (2001) SEA and regional planning —overcoming the institutional constraints: some lessons from the EU In: Environmental policy and governance Wiley, Hoboken Jones C, Baker M, Crater J, Jay S, Short M, Wood C (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: an international evaluation Earthsean, London

Leoni S (2010) Premesse In: Fioravanti S, Martinoja D (eds) Guida all ’informazione ambientale Irnerio, Piacenza

Maglia S (2011) Diritto ambientale: alla luce del T.U ambientale e delle novit à 2011 Ipsoa, Milan Partid ário MR (2005) The contribution of Strategic Impact Assessment to Planning Evaluation In: Miller D, Patassini D (eds) Beyond Bene fit Cost Analysis Ashgate Publishing, London

Partid ário MR (2006) La experiencia de la evaluación ambiental estratégica (EAE) en Europa Ciudad y Territorio: Estudios Territoriales 149 –150:551–562

Priore R (2007) La Convenzione europea del paesaggio: matrici politico-culturali e itinerari applicative In: Cartei GF (ed) Convenzione europea del paesaggio e governo del territorio Il Mulino, Bologna

Risse N, Crowley M, Vincke P, Waaub JP (2003) Implementing the European SEA Directive: the member states ’ margin of discretion Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:453–470

Romero GJ (2011) ¿Territorios inteligentes, sostenibles e inclusivos? Enseñanzas de la experiencia espa ñola Hábitat y Sociedad 2:13–32

Ronchi E (2010) Premesse In: Fioravanti S, Martinoja D (eds) Guida all ’informazione ambientale Irnerio, Piacenza

Sheate W, Byron H, Dagg S, Cooper L (2005) The relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives – final report to the European Commission Imperial College London Consultants, London

Turri E (1998) Il paesaggio come teatro Marsilio, Venezia

Venturi Ferriolo M (2009) Percepire paesaggi: la potenza dello sguardo Bollati Boringhieri, Turin

of the European Communities, no 197, vol 44 of 21st July 2001

Council of Europe, European Landscape Convention, adopted 20th October 2000 in Florence Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21st May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal of the European Communities, no 206, vol 35 of 22nd July 1992

Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7th June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, Of ficial Journal of the European Communities, no 158, vol 33 of 23rd June 1990

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27th June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Of ficial Journal of the European Communities, no.

175, vol 28 of the 5th July 1985

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, adopted 25th June 1998 in Aarhus

Similarities and Differences

in the Evaluative Methods

Abstract The awareness in the last few years surrounding the use of naturalresources and landscape transformations has led to the development of several toolsdesigned to evaluate the effects of human actions on them The environmentalevaluation methods, born in the USA, have known different disciplinary evolutionsaccording to the following factors:firstly, regarding the object to assess; secondly,pertaining to the national juridical framework; and thirdly, relating to the progress

in thisfield Today we can affirm that we have, more or less, as many assessmenttechniques as countries In fact, other than the Environmental Assessment Impactand Strategic Environmental Assessment, common to different countries (includingmany beyond European borders), each nation has developed its own tools related toparticular aspects of reality, as mentioned briefly in the previous chapter Here, welook to compare the two most important methods in force within Europe—thosejust mentioned and an Italian instrument that has as its object a property or an areaknown as a“landscape of interest”, more focused than others on aesthetical levels.The reason for this choice is in the contribution it can give to the development ofother spatial evaluation instruments—but mostly for the questions related to theevaluation of impacts on cultural heritage

Keywords Evaluation methods
Impacts and effects
Environment and landscape

The long normative path—which has seen the European Union and his MemberStates involved in the application of procedures, methods and techniques for theenvironmental valuation of projects, programmes and plans—was completed withthe emanation of Directive 2001/42/EC

The European normative apparatus, covered in previous chapters, has broughtforward many disciplinary evolutions related to territorial management and, inte-grated with varying levels of difficulty for its regions, has started to introduce

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

F Cutaia, Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrating Landscape

and Urban Planning, UNIPA Springer Series,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42132-2_3

25