Environmental Impact Assessment Essay

Environmental Impact Assessment Essay

Environmental Impact Assessment Essay

1. Introduction

Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIA) is a procedure that requires developers to check out to become granted authorization for a expansion and was first introduced in EU (EU) in 1985 (Glasson, 1999). The guidelines and requirements of EIA come from a European Directive (85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC). In this technique, developer needs to compile an Environmental Affirmation (Sera) where significant impacts and its own effects on the surroundings consequently of a creation are described including mitigation steps (Lee, 1995). On the other hand, there will be weaknesses in EIA procedure.

As a result of EIA weaknesses, Strategic Environmental Evaluation (SEA) was introduced. SEA process was first introduced by EU Directive 2001/42/EC which environmental safety and sustainable development may be considered. It means that potential impact of proposed plans, guidelines and programmes on the environment are considering in order that mitigation and interaction between open public and decision-makers are given (Benson, 2003). Therefore, SEA is definitely undertaken in the decision-making procedure for a development much earlier than EIA.

In this section, the differences between EIA and Ocean and also the weaknesses of EIA that led the expansion of Ocean in EU Directive in 2001 are being discussed.

2. Dissimilarities between EIA and SEA

2.1. Dissimilarities in provisions between SEA and EIA Directives

Table 1: Overview of variations in action for EIA and Ocean processes (Partidário, 2000).



Nature of action

It is extra strategic and contains visions and ideas in its action

Actions towards the structure and operation level


Involved evaluation

Involved only assessment


More critical decision moments (decision windows) along with decision processes

Only in project level

Level of decision

It involves coverage and planning

Only project level

Relation to decision


Involved evaluator which frequently taking into consideration of administrative requirement


Broader and spatial equilibrium of location, social and physical strategies, technology and economics.

More specific alternative in construction, operation, spots and design

Scale of impacts

Macroscopic involved native, regional, national and global

Microscopic mainly involved local

Scope of impacts good paper topics

Sustainability issues, financial and social issues could be more tangible than physical or ecological issues

Environmental with a sustainability emphasis, physical or ecological issues, and also social and economic

Time scale and review

Long to medium term (after 5 years and 7 years interval)

Medium to short-term (after 5 years therefore silent continuing review).

Key data sources

State of the Environment Reports, Local Agenda 21, statistical data, insurance plan and planning instruments

Field work, sample evaluation, statistical data


Mainly descriptive and mix with quantifiable

More quantifiable

Rigor of examination (uncertainty)

More uncertainty and much less rigor

Less uncertainty and extra rigor

Assessment benchmarks

Sustainability benchmarks (conditions and objectives)

Best practice and legal restrictions

Public perception

Vague/ distant

More reactive


Other strategic actions and project planning

Objective evidence in relation with structure and operation

2.2 Variations in procedural requirements of the EIA and Ocean Directives.

Table 2: Overview of the main distinctions between EIA and SEA Directives payoneer login in procedural requirements ( Resources from : Sheate et al., 2005).





It requires consultation from the environmental authorities.

Publicity: SEA doesn’t need determination and reasons.

It requires no consultation.

Publicity: EIA necessitates dedication and reasons.

Environmental information/report

Member States (MSs) need to ensure that adequate quality and stronger emphasis on alternatives are given in environmental information (ERs).

No quality control necessitates in EIA and just minimun facts shoud be provided


Involved relevant parties other than MSs such as for example public and autorities.

Involved relevant parties other than MSs such as public and autorities and also consultation provision from People Participation Directive.


All consultation feedback and ER should be taken into account.

Consultation feedback and environmental informations will be included in decision-making.

Info on decision

More specific and comprehensive requirements.

Information provision from Public Participation Directive will be mademore specific in the necessity.


Long term monitoring required

Not require monitoring

3. Weaknesses of Environmental Impression Assessment (EIA)

3.1. Lack of consideration of cumulative impacts

EIA process can often be facing problems in addressing cumulative impacts of a expansion. The significant impacts of a creation especially concerns on biodiversity, human health insurance and cultural heritage will be no included in their assessment (McDonald & Brown 1995).

For instance in Scotland, several advancements of wind farms proposed in close proximity contain led to an extremely complicated EIA method (Glasson, 1999). Each developer expected assessing the cumulative impression of landscape and visible software with those of neighboring projects (Benson, 2003). The planning process could encounter a delay due to this issue.

3.2. Insufficient open public participation

Public involvement has proven to be insufficient in EIA process (Gailus, 1995). In a recent research suggested that this is because of the attitude of the developer that discourages the participation of general public in EIA process in the European Network.

Due to insufficient legislation and intensive for general public involvement in Europe in the early 90s to influence your choice of a development, the general public is not alert to their privileges and causes them not really interested in the production involvement (Caddy, 1996).

3.3. Little monitoring and auditing process

Previous study has confirmed that monitoring and auditing issues are still fragile in EIA. Follow-up process is only performed by coders in a minority of circumstances (Arts and Nootebloom 1999).

Monitoring process allows practioners to have better understanding for near future extension, style and restoration tasks (Frost, 1997). On the other hand, the river restoration procedure in UK (UK) was hampered by insufficient monitoring process in EIA.

3.4. Inadequate factor of alternatives

The compilation of alternatives appears to be not a lot of in EIA report (Tesli, 2002). For example in Hungary for radioactive disposal, the report didn’t provide in specifics or alternatively limited in minimizing the impacts of the task to the human wellness (Benson, 2003). It is necessary to add various alternatives to permit solutions being used a development.

3.5. The low quality of environmental effects statements and reports

The reports produced in EIA tend to be too complex in term of duration and technical which is not easily understood by the general public and decision makers (Lee, 1995). It is crucial for Sera to be simple since it has to be made available to the public.

3.6. The timing of decisions

The decision-making procedure in EIA project enters too late where the ramifications of policy and planning crucial decisions aren’t being considered (Lee, 1995). That is due to the lack of systematic impact assessment method where the outcome of it might subsequently influence the job planning and design and style (Harrop & Nixon 1999).

4. Conclusion

There were numerous weaknesses have been recognized in EIA process. Because of these weaknesses, SEA was developed in 2001 under EU Directive to fortify the environmental assessment process.

5. References

Arts, J. and Nootebloom, S. (1999) ‘Environmental Impression Assessment Monitoring and

Auditing’ in: Petts, J. (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment – Volume level 1,

Blackwell, Oxford: 229-251

Benson, J.F. (2003) ‘What may be the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4): 261-266

Caddy, J. (1996). Performing Group on Environmental Research, European University Institute, Florence. [Online] http://www.iue.it/WGES/Iss16/caddy.htm

[Accessed: 29/01/2010].

Frost, R. (1997) Planning and Environmental Influence Assessment used. Chapter 7 EIA monitoring and audit in Weston, J (ed). Longman, Harlow. pp 141 – 175.

Gailus, J. (1995). Regional Environmental Center: Hungary.

[Online] http://www.rec.org/REC/Bulletin/Bull52/PublPart.html

[Accessed: 29/01/2010]

Glasson, J. (1999) ‘The First 10 Years of the united kingdom EIA Program: Strengths, Weaknesses, Prospects and Threats’, Planning Practice and Research, 14 (3): 363-375

Glasson, J. Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, Spon Press, London

Harrop, O. and Nixon, A good. (1999) Environmental Impact Evaluation in Practice, Routledge, London

Lee, N. (1995) ‘Environmental Assessment in europe: a tenth anniversary’, Project Appraisal, 10 (2): 77-90

McDonald, G.T. and Brown, A good.L. (1995) ‘Going Beyond Environmental Impact Evaluation: environmental input to preparation and design’, Environmental Affect Assessment Review, 15: 483-495

Partidário, M.R., 2000, Components of an SEA framework – enhancing the added-value of SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Analysis, 20: 647-663.

Sheate, W. Byron, H. Dagg, S. & Cooper, L (2005), THE PARTNERSHIP between SEA and EIA Directives: Final Report to the European Commission. Imperial School London

Tesli, A. (2002). The usage of EIA and SEA relative to the aim of sustainable advancement, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Analysis (NIBR).

1. Articles of an SEA record as needed by EU Directive

The implementation of programs and programmes (PPs) in which likely significant results produce by the project on the environment may be the key requirement in preparation of an SEA survey (European Parliament and Council of europe, 2001). Physique 1 shows the summary of the contents expected by EU Directive (2001/42/EC) in creating SEA reports.

Not absolutely all projects have to perform SEA process (Barth & Fuder, 2002). The diagram in Figure 2 shows a set of set of requirements for software to PPs under the EU Directive (2001/42/EC). It specifies whether SEA is necessary or not based on the Directive.

For simpleness, the advancements of the PPs and fair alternative options of Ocean will be summarized in five major stages according to

the government instruction in England (URL 1).

1.1. The main element five stages

  • Stage A: Context, Baseline and Scoping (SEA Directive – Annex 1)
  • Authority needs to include indicators, objectives and background information for SEA in the program. The decisions of the scope can be decide by the authority incorporating discussion on the statutory environmental bodies (URL 1).
  • Stage B:Alternatives and Evaluation (SEA Directive – Article 5.1)
  • Authority need to identify reasonable alternatives and assess the effects of the task on the surroundings. Ways of reducing, stopping and offsets the consequences have to be provided aswell (URL 1).
  • Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report
  • Draft plan/programme which includes the information of the consequences must be presented as an integral output of SEA procedure (URL 1).
  • Stage D: Consultation (Ocean Directive – Content 6.2 and Annex 1)
  • The draft method and environmental report should be ready together for discussion where a statement are made from the consultation responses as a way to produce an evolving system (URL 1).
  • Stage E: Monitoring (Ocean Directive – Article 10.1)
  • The implementation of the plan where environment results are produced requirements monitoring process. It helps to supply more baseline information for future programs (URL 1).

2. Difficulties and constraints in fulfilling these requirements

Table 1: Summary of the difficulties and limitations of Ocean reports as needed in EU Directive.

Requirements issues

Difficulties and limitations

Availability and usage of data

Environmental data is often limited and not relevant because it isn’t collected and stored systematically. The procedure of info collection requires extensive solutions and using these info are difficult because diverse departments have a tendency to collect different group of data. The quality of good data is lacking which issue offers been reported by Member Claims such as for example Germany and Poland (European Commission, 2009).

Best exemplory case of this problem is Poland. They will be facing difficulties of generating and collecting info of affected area because of the implementation of a plan/program. The existing picture of the surroundings has to be identified especially in large areas but they indicate that it’s extremely problematic (European Commission, 2009).

Sometimes, the coverage regions of SEA are large (including few countries and creates massive amount alternatives (URL 1). This will increase the complexity of info collection and analysis (URL 1).

Public Participation

The availability of the data for the public is bound. In the UK, documents and details of the plan are not necessary to be published on their website until ER is definitely finalized in line with the draft Rules (Partidário, 1996).

Therefore, public participation is bound as few public will travel to the plan-maker’s office to see the documents at the very least time frame for consultation. It is important to set up a site to facilitate the discussion process for the general public to participate (Partidário, 1996). Else, people is usually unaware that inspection of the documents are available to them and no feedback can be made (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000).

EA at higher levels of decision making

As SEA involves larger levels of decision making, the implementation insurance policy of PPs are subject to numerous departments decisions (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000). For example, a Local Transport Plan requires policy from Regional Spatial Approaches, Aviation and Transport White Papers and Sustainable Communities Method and Planning Coverage Statements (Brown & Thérivel, 2000). Because of these requirements, a complex screening process should be performed and decisions for PPS happen to be even more very hard in the assessment (Brown & Thérivel, 2000).

Deciding on the level of detail of the environmental report

The details of require information in Ocean reports are vary because of insufficient adaptation in evaluation for the amount of abstraction in PPs (European Commission, 2009). According to Member Claims (Latvia and Germany), the practical impacts of PPs will be difficult to be contained in SEA reports because of less information of the proper scale and level required (European Commission, 2009). Therefore, important information for long-term PPs is challenging as no suitable spatial scale of data need to be contained in the report (European Commission, 2009).

Development of assessment methods

As there are no certain guidelines, strong methodological backdrop and insufficient exchange for best practices, developing an effective assessment is quite challenging (Brown & Thérivel, 2000). For example in Operational Programmes’ targets, high level plans in a viable assessment do not necessary show some of the physical ground results although strategic plans are implemented European Commission, 2009).

Assessment of impacts

Although SEA addressing the value of cumulative impacts, there is no standard and effective assessment methodologies are being created (Partidário, 1996). The significant environmental impacts of PPs are difficult to assess and the identification of these aspects happen to be limited (Partidário, 1996).

Monitoring and enforcement (Incorporating issues of indicators)

The assessment of plans is limited because there is no sustainability and environmental standards produced in the monitoring program (European Commission, 2009). Consequently, monitoring indicators (regional agenda 21 for instance) is being used nonetheless it is problematic for monitoring process as mentioned by Member Says like France.

Environmental authorities have no proper enforcement instrument to make certain that monitoring programme is being performed (European Commission, 2009). For instance in the UK, no quality control physique has been set up by the government to monitor the efficiency of monitoring process that is a limitation for Ocean (Verheem, R. & Tonk, J. 2000).

Institutional and legal issues

The supports for Ocean process are still insufficient politically (European Commission, 2009). The bureaucratic prerogatives may hinder the potency of SEA performance. As SEA process is relatively different, lack of human resources especially knowledgeable authorities is a major limitation for SEA (European Commission, 2009).

3. Comparison between requirement of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

In the United Kingdom (UK), SA and SEA are required in organizing program and law for Authorities Programs and Programmes (Smith & Sheate 2001). For some Development Plan Paperwork (DPD) and Supplementary Arranging Papers (SPD), both SA and Ocean process have to be carried out and include in the Local Development Framework (LDF) in the UK (Smith & Sheate 2001). SA was developed to assess the likely economic, social and environmental impacts therefore proposed PPs could be implemented that causes sustainable development unlike Ocean which was previously explained (Lee & Kirkpatrick, 2000).

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and European Directive EC/2001/42 need both SA and SEA techniques to be performed in any planning (Smith & Sheate 2001). Additionally it is requires by environmentally friendly Assessment Regulations for Strategies and Programmes in UK (Smith & Sheate 2001). In table 2, comparison of SA and SEA regarding UK planning program for Authorities PPs are becoming summarized.

Table 2: Evaluation between SA and Ocean requirements within the UK planning system


Strategic Environmental Assessment

Sustainability Appraisals

Overall aims

The aim of SEA is to raise the account of environmental considerations as part of an advocative approach during decision-making process (Kørnøv & Thissen, 2000).

In contrast to SEA, it is make use of as a support process in decision-producing and representing a methodology that working towards in all respects of sustainable development. Therefore, the interests on the line are remained neutral in this process (Minas, 2002).


Environmental effects (Lee & Kirkpatrick, 2000)

A full range of environmental, social and monetary issues (Minas, 2002).

Environmental/ Sustainability aspects

It involves 15 components which is suggested in the 1993 advice with additional social and monetary factors to be considered in 1999 advice (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).

Aspects of biodiversity, human health, cultural factors, drinking water, landscape, population and material assets are considered primarily (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).

Report requirements

There happen to be no formal requirements for SA. In great practice assistance, identification of scoping and impacts levels is preferred (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002). The 1999 guidance also recommends that planners should provide and evaluates alternatives. Environmental baseline conditions is highly recommended as well.

It involved considerable requirements of Annex 1 which have previously mentioned (Barth & Fuder, 2002).


According to DETR Information, the appraisal should emphasize on strategic alternatives, alternatives, and policy impact matrices in achieving sustainable development. As a result, the methodological statement is quite brief if compare and contrast to SEA (Minas, 2002).

In comparison to SA, weighty emphasis is set up on actually baseline info which set as a benchmark to evaluate the alternatives performance. Additionally it is requires authorities to talk to the final environmental report from the general public on the scope of the evaluation (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).


The process has been carried out very early on where every stage of the development program process is recognized as an important component (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).

In comparison to SA, it is usually being carried out during the preparation of an idea before the submission to the legislative process (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).


The appraisals are put through consultation with outside groups such as public consultation during the plan planning. The appraisal usually made available on the internet where it

is being completed sporadically (Thérivel, & Minas, 2002).

It is not required to offer on the web. The consultation can be achieved during scoping level by specified environmental authorities. Opportunity must be given to the public to comment the draft method (Partidário, 1996).

Documentation required

No formal requirements based on the guidance

A statement should be produced by an authority to summarize all of the considerations of the plan have been integrated. They have to provide a report of consultees’ thoughts and opinions which taken through the consultation procedure and valid factors on why the alternatives are being picked (Partidário, 1996).

4. Success of Ocean statement in delivering sustainable development objectives

A broad range of procedures has been included with Ocean report. It has demonstrated to become a systematic process where accountable decision producing can be achieve as a result of earlier evaluating procedure being taken with solid alternative visions (Lumber & Dejeddour, 1992). All these have incorporated in Ocean policy, planning and plan initiatives (PPPs) to make sure sustainable development with total integration of economic, social and political considerations (Partidário & Clarke, 2000).

Although Ocean shows to become a great tool in task level but the process of SEA isn’t easily accepted or consider as an effective solution because of its complexity (Thérivel & Partidário, 2000). Recent study has shown that Ocean produces both great prospects along with failures in sustainable production (Sadler, 1998).

4.1. Sustainability targets are contained in the integrated process of policy making and planning

During the design stage of SEA, goals of sustainability are getting considered which provides a greater plan and insurance plan in decision making (Thompson et al., 1995). It gradually delivers its goals of sustainable development since the use of Ocean articulates sustainability goals by boosting the political actions where substantive action could be taken (Partidário, 1996). As the expectation of interior and external consumer of its delivery increasing, it includes the likelihood of bringing better policy towards sustainable expansion into success.

The changeover of Ocean involved two main techniques:

  • Information gathering and evaluation work
  • The key of strategic decision making

Sustainable development consideration has been protected in a broader selection where strategic level things are separated from advisory conventionally-concentrated (Pezzoli, 1997). Sustainability criteria are used as the key bases to greatly help in strategic decision making on the choice among best options available (Pezzoli, 1997). With these steps being taken, larger context of core policies and programmes in strategic evaluation are identified in pursuing the goals of national sustainability. Therefore, SEA report could be an important instrument to advertise sustainable development when it’s fully integrated (Partidário, 1996).

4.2. Operationalises sustainability principles

In practical application, the concept of sustainability is quite difficult because it faces large complexity and uncertain fact (Pezzoli, 1997). Interconnected generational boundaries and disciplinary of sustainability may further more complicates the idea (Marsden, 1998). Therefore, the use of specific context of sustainability and normally recognized principles are staying clarified by SEA.

SEA identified three key principle of sustainability:

  • Integrated quest for ecological and socio-economic improvements
  • Uncertainty imposes precautionary obligations
  • Public choices involved

SEA is a noticeable confirmation of determination to sustainability as it offers broader contact with notions such as all natural capital and the precautionary basic principle (Pezzoli, 1997). Therefore, it might be translated into the dialect of politics of sustainability and features as a heuristic unit (Thérivel et al., 1992).

4.3. Improves research of broad public purposes and alternatives

With alternative technologies, life-style choices and better information, SEA offers better likelihood in obtaining sustainable development since it has the capacity to contemplating these factors that cannot be address at lower amounts (Wood & Dejeddour, 1992). Therefore, SEA report may be the most reliable and efficient point in finding alternatives and addressing the requirements in pursuing the objectives of sustainability development (Thérivel et al., 1992).

4.4. Facilitates correct focus on cumulative effects

Strategic level proves to come to be the ultimate way to deal with increasing number of cumulative impacts. The scope of SEA helps to identifying these impacts due to its space scales (Ortolano & Shepherd, 1995; Scott, 1992). As SEA is performed in an early stage, this assessment allows assessors to supply more attention in a wider range of actions in a more substantial area. It allows them to supply a broader context of cumulative impacts in addressing each one of the impacts (Thérivel & Partidário 1996).

According to Thérivel & Partidário, unwanted activities as a outcomes of a project can be removed prior to the project stage begins because these cumulative impacts possess influence the project decision where Ocean has incorporated environmental issues intrinsically during the planning stage. Earlier detection of these impacts helps to promote sustainable development.

4.5. Facilitates increased transparency and far better people participation at the strategic level

With the comprehensive involvement of general public participation in Ocean, it has better the credibility and accountability of SEA in sustainability where they facilitating exterior scrutiny of decision (Wood & Dejeddour, 1992). It creates increasing pressures in strategic decision producing process to overcome bureaucratic fragmentation because in many jurisdictions, bureaucratic disorganisation and wastefulness in citizen has been declining.

The expanding purpose of open public provided in SEA allows an intrinsic interconnection between environmental sustainability and equity (George, 1999) to market basic sustainability goals.

5. Conclusion

There are many difficulties ahead for SEA article. There are many difficulties in producing a good SEA report. Nevertheless, SEA report requirements did exhibit success in reaching sustainable development goals. So as to ensure SEA report accomplishment, weaknesses and limitation should be considered and remedy needed as a way to overcome it.

6. References

Barth, R. & Fuder, A. (2002) Implementing Article 10 of the ocean Directive 2001/42/EC. Final Report : Freiburg, Darmstadt, Berlin.

Brown, A L, and Thérivel, R. (2000), “Ideas to guide the advancement of strategic environmental assessment methodology”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 18(3), September, pages 183-189.

Environment Agency (2004) SEA Good Practice Guidelines

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/seaguidelines. Accessed on 27/01/10.

European Parliament and Council of europe (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC on the evaluation of the effects of certain strategies and programmes on the environment Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.


European Commission (2009) Study concerning the report on the application form and effectiveness of the ocean Directive (2001/42/EC): Final record. 2: p-67683-a.

George, C. (1999) Testing for sustainable advancement through environmental evaluation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(2), 109-224.

Kørnøv, L, and Thissen, W A good H (2000), “Rationality in decisionand policy-producing: implications for strategic environmental evaluation”, Impact Assessment and Task Appraisal 18(3), September, pages 191-200.

Lee, N, and Kirkpatrick, C. (2000), “Integrated appraisal, decisionmaking and sustainable advancement: an review”, in N Lee and C Kirkpatrick (editors), ustainable Creation and Integrated Appraisal in a Developing Environment (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham).

Marsden, S. (1998) Importance of context in measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Job Appraisal, 16(4), 255-266.

Minas, P (2002), “The effectiveness of SEA at integrating env ironmental considerations into landuse development strategies in England and Wales”, MSc dissertation, unpublished, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.

Ortolano, L. & Shepherd, A. (1995) Environmental affect assessment: Challenges and chances. Impact Assessment, 13, 3-27.

Partidário, R. (1996) Strategic environmental assessment: Key issues emerging from new practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(1), 31-55.

Partidário, R. & Clarke, R., (2000) Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Evaluation. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Pezzoli, K. (1997) Sustainable advancement: A transdisciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Setting up and Management, 40(5), 549-574.

Thérivel, R. & Partidário, R. (2000). The future of SEA. In Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Evaluation, ed. M.R. Partidário and R. Clarke. Boca Raton: LewisPublishers.

Thérivel, R. & Minas, P (2002), Measuring SEA effectiveness: Ensuring powerful sustainability appraisal. Beech Tree Publishing, 20 (2), pp81-91.

Thérivel, R. et al. (1992), trategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.

Thompson, S., Treweek, R. & Thurling, J. (1995) The potential program of strategic environmental evaluation (Ocean) to the farming of Atlantic salmon (almo salar L.). In Journal of Environmental Management, 45, 219-229.

Sadler, B. (1996) Environmental Evaluation in a Changing Environment: Evaluating Practice to boost Performance. Final Report of the International Study of the Effectivenessof Environmental Assessment. Hull: CEAA.

Scott, S. (1992) Environmental factors in decision making: A role for EIA at the plan level? CEARC MR7-92. Hull: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

Smith, S & Sheate, W. (2001), “Sustainability appraisals of regional planning assistance and regional economic approaches in England: an evaluation”, Journal of Environmental Arranging and Management, 44(5), pages 735-755.

URL 1: Crucial Stages about SEA. http://www.sea-info.net/content/main.asp?pid=230. Accessed on 24.01.10.

URL 2: When is SEA required. http://www.sea-info.net/content/main.asp?pid=229. Accessed on 24.01.10.

Verheem, R. & Tonk, J. (2000), “Strategic environmental assessment: one idea, multiple varieties”, Impact Assessment and Job Appraisal, 18(3), September, pages 177-182.

Hardwood, C. & Dejeddour, M. (1992) Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, strategies and programmes. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 10(1), 3-22.