یک دیدگاه در زمینه تصویب ارزیابی زیست محیطی استراتژیک

A reflection on the last report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is provided. It covers the inadequacies of the approval/permitting context of SEA, which appears to be increasingly applied by a significant number of Member States in recent years. A viewpoint is provided on the main deficiencies of such praxis. As a practical defence of the planning context of SEA, the authors propose that the EC should consider a clear recommendation to Member States to cease performing SEA in the approval/permitting context until proper amendments to the SEA Directive are made and implemented.

1.1. Issue This viewpoint is aimed at drawing attention to the gradually prevailing approval of the purpose of strategic environmental assessments (SEA) in Slovenia and some other countries of the EU. The key issue is that the administrative, permitting context of SEA has ousted the primary environmental impact assessment goal, namely, optimisation of development proposals – plans and programmes (P&P) – for causing minimal environmental impact. The approval context of SEA on the other hand, despite and contrary to its “good intention” and declared aim of protecting the environment and contributing to sustainable development through praxis of assessing acceptability of the P&P, proves less effective in terms of the desired optimisation. In addition, the approval context moves the basic philosophy of environmental evaluation from the area of environmental protection interests, integrated with coherent social and economic development, to the area of political power for deciding about land-use, spatial management, and acceptability of a particular economic development proposal.

Study of the case of the LNG terminals in the Gulf of Trieste shows that both SEA and EIA, as they have been applied so far, were misused. Resolution of the issue may be reached only indirectly, i.e. by adopting some kind of compensatory agreement between the parties that environmental evaluations should be used primarily for improving the project of LNG terminals and not for permitting them! In addition to the compensatory agreement, a high level strategic environmental assessment, focused on future use of the Gulf of Trieste, should be made, taking into account the aspirations and interests of all users (Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia). Such an evaluation should reveal whether LNG terminals are compatible with other economic activities in the Gulf, as well as with energy options in this part of Europe. In addition, for this SEA it would be essential to perform a quality check, with benefit analysis, by answering the following questions: what were specific improvements of the plan for the two LNG terminals triggered by and implemented based on SEA? What is SEA's contribution to sustainability of the Gulf of Trieste? What are the benefits and costs of this SEA considering improvements of the siting process for the two terminals, prevention of cross-border impacts, fulfilment of specific environmental protection goals, and financial costs of the SEA? We also urge the EC to consider such questions when discussing future amendments to the Directive and to include them in the next analysis and report on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment, which is expected in 2013! Finally, a clear recommendation to MS to cease performing SEA in the approval/permitting context would be beneficial in the period prior to amendments to the SEA Directive being made and implemented.