Strategic environmental assessment of energy planning tools. A study of Italian regions and provinces

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Strategic environmental assessment of energy planning tools. A study of Italian regions and provinces Andrea De Montis 1 Dipartimento di Agraria, Sezione Ingegneria del Territorio, University of Sassari, Viale Italia, 39, 07100 Sassari, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 6 June 2013 Received in revised form 22 January 2014 Accepted 26 January 2014 Available online 9 February 2014 Keywords: Strategic Environmental Assessment Energy and environmental planning tools Comparative analysis Quality review package Insiders and outsiders

a b s t r a c t SEA has been applied in different ways in EU energy and environmental planning instruments, because different member states have interpreted European Directive 2001/42/CE in a variety of ways. Italy, for example, has only recently completed the integration of the directive into its legislation, through a number of decrees which were approved between 2006 and 2010. As a result SEA practice in Italy is very fragmented, particularly with respect to energy planning, and needs to be steered towards homogeneous quality objectives. The aim of this paper is to study the quality of the SEA reports on the energy and environmental planning tools used by Italian regions and provinces. We study nine cases and use the methodology suggested by Fisher (2010) in his review of the quality of SEA. To be more precise, we integrate the views of external evaluators with those of a selection of the personnel directly involved in preparing the plans. Our results show that there are some differences in the quality scores given by the outsiders and insiders, although the two groups identified similar strengths and weaknesses in implementing SEA. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The impact on the landscape and the issue of sustainability are today crucial issues in energy management and planning, and are also of key importance when assessing the environmental impact of plans in these fields. In the last sixty years there have been major changes in the arguments about energy development. These arguments have taken place in several related fields, such as: international politics, energy pricing, EU and national regulations on renewable energy sources and the rational use of energy, the responsibilities of lower tiers of government (i.e. regions and provinces) for energy policies, liberalization of the electricity and gas markets, technological developments and the increasing profits in the energy sector. Rational management of energy sources occurs when local actions form part of the general framework of policies, programmes and interventions, and are integrated into overall landscape planning and management. There is also the question of where energy should best be produced and consumed, and attempts to create institutional agreements and solutions which involve both public and private bodies at local level. Energy is thus a very multifaceted topic, as it cuts across a number of arguments, including the environment, society, and economics. For this reason one cannot only focus on energy per se. One must also adopt an overall perspective, and one which also takes into consideration the landscape and environment as a whole. Environmental and energy planning is a promising way of doing this, with local public bodies

1

E-mail address: [email protected]. Tel.: +39 079229242.

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.01.006

establishing the means, and deciding on the ways, by which energy will be produced, distributed, and consumed in a particular area. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) includes a set of methods and approaches which are designed to verify, in general terms, whether certain plans and programmes comply with the principles of sustainable development and, in particular, to ascertain the intensity of the impact of these plans and programmes on the environment. The ultimate objective of SEA is to incorporate arguments about the environmental context into the very earliest stages of the planning process. Energy plans are among those that will be subject to SEA. In Italy the application of SEA varies greatly, depending on the particular cases, and ranges from complete absence to full implementation. This is because SEA regulations are not applied in a consistent way throughout the country. Its use varies by region, and often depends on whether particular local public authorities have a traditional history of actively applying innovations in urban and environmental planning. Hence in this paper we aim to study examples of SEA being integrated into the energy and environmental strategic planning tools used by nine Italian regional and provincial administrations, and how effective or ineffective this has been. The methodology used is based on the SEA report quality review package developed by Fischer (2010), modified to include insider information from those involved in managing SEA. The paper is constructed as follows. In the next section the methodology is presented, with an emphasis on the modifications made to, and integration of, the original SEA report quality review package (Fischer, 2010). In Section 3 we describe the use of SEA in Italian strategic energy planning, and its impact on research studies and planning practice. Nine strategic energy plans issued by five regions and four provinces are selected and certain homogeneous features are analysed. In Section 4

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

the results of the paper are presented and discussed, and in Section 5 there are some concluding remarks, and future perspectives are developed.

2. Measuring the quality of SEA reports: integration of a method While SEA was formally introduced by the Directive 2001/42/CE (Directive) (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2001) in 2001, its principles have not been effectively applied in a homogeneous way in the EU. This is because of a number of factors, including problems in integrating SEA into the national legal systems, the planning contexts, the type of institutions, the environmental awareness of the public, transparency, and public participation in decision-making and planning. As a result, more than a decade after the publication of the Directive, there are still a number of flaws in how SEA is applied in practice, and these are of great interest for researchers. A typical research framework consists of an analytical assessment of the effectiveness of the use of SEA, and is based on measuring the performance of certain SEA procedures according to given criteria, which are often divided into sub-criteria (see De Montis, 2013; Fischer, 2007, 2010; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Jiricka and Pröbstl, 2008; Noble, 2009; Retief, 2007; Sadler et al., 2011). In this paper, we assess the quality of the SEA report on strategic planning tools for energy by adopting and integrating a method introduced by Fischer (2010). His paper develops on SEA reports about the environmental effects of planning instruments published by 117 local authorities in the United Kingdom. The instruments consisted of local development documents, including core strategies and site-specific allocation of land. The tool he used is the SEA quality review package. This method was first introduced by Lee and Colley (1992) and further developed for teaching purposes by Fischer (2007). It incorporates concepts included in the British system for assessing sustainability (ODMP, 2005). The tool uses a 43 item questionnaire to qualitatively grade the performance of the SEA report. The questions reflect the priorities of the Directive, and are grouped into the following six sections: plan and environmental (and sustainability) baseline description, plan and SEA process integration; identification and evaluation of key issues/options; determination of impact significance; consultation process; presentation of information and results; and recommendations on preferred options, monitoring. The replies to each question are graded, from A to G. The SEA report quality review package has been applied to a variety of contexts and sectors. Fischer et al. (2011) adapted the review package to assess 25 British Municipal Waste Management Strategies (MWMSs) with SEA (completed in February 2010), while Fischer (2012) tailored the same tool to scrutinise the SEAs for 7 British Local Transport Plans (LTPs) (completed by mid-2011). In 2012 Fischer presented a comparative analysis of the use of the SEA report quality review package for landscape planning (see Fischer, 2010), MWMSs, and LTPs. Fischer (2012) questioned the fact that satisfactory scores for all sectors are generally found in Sections 1 (plan and environmental/sustainability baseline description, plan and SEA process integration) and 2 (identification and evaluation of key issues/options). He noted that the following issues have been rarely, or poorly, addressed: definition of alternatives, impact of public participation and SEA on the plan, significance identification and impact evaluation, elaboration of relationships with other policies, plans, programmes and assessments, tiering, and uncertainties. Following the adaptations introduced by Fischer et al. (2011) and Fischer (2012), a modified SEA report quality review package (briefly referred to as QRP1 hereafter) has been used in this study (see Table 1). As Annex 2 details, the number of questions has been reduced to forty-one, some questions have been discarded, and some others split into two separate questions. These changes were the result of a preliminary discussion with the interviewees, and are meant to facilitate the

33

completion of the package. QRP1 was completed by five academic experts on SEA, i.e. graduate students on Ph.D. and Master's programmes. Because QRP1 clearly reflects the perspective of the evaluators, who are external observers, it is important to complete this representation with the assessments of SEA process management made by internal experts. Hence in the second step a reduced SEA report quality review package (briefly referred to as QRP2 hereafter) was proposed for use with experts in SEA implementation. This simplification was introduced to create a user friendly questionnaire for the internal experts. It consists of: i) reducing the information required by QRP1, through distilling it into ten issues (see Table 2); ii) giving each issue a quantitative score based on the interviewee's judgement (see Table 3). Using these two packages enabled to construct a single measurement which was able to merge, and represent together, two crucially important points of view. In the next section we describe SEA implementation in the context of Italian energy planning. 3. SEA use for strategic energy and environmental planning tools The use of SEA procedures on energy and environmental planning tools dates back to the 1990s, when SEA methods and research were still in their infancy. Sheate (1996) suggested that specific SEA procedures could be developed which would evaluate the effects of energy plans, with particular emphasis on the use of renewable energy sources. Byron and Sheate (1997) considered the potential environmental impact of using clean coal technologies in the United States. The reader may refer to Jay and Marshall (2005) for a review of other cases. During the first decade of the new millennium SEA was institutionalised, and has since guided practice, through the establishment of a legislative corpus on the meaning and procedures of SEA. The incorporation of the Directive into the laws of EU member states has occurred at various times and has affected a variety of institutions. In Italy this process took many years, until finally Legislative Decree (LD) no. 152 was published in 2006 (Repubblica Italiana, 2006) and amended by LDs no. 8 and no. 128 (Repubblica Italiana, 2008 and 2010) in 2008 and 2010. Energy planning in Italy involves the creation of different instruments at different administrative and functional levels of government. Energy planning tools are complementary to the corresponding landscape planning tools, as they integrate landscape planning with elements and concepts which are designed to harmoniously couple the needs of human settlements with those of the production, distribution, and consumption of energy in a sustainable and long-term way. As Table 4 reports, at coordination level the Regional Energy Plan (REP) complements the Regional Landscape Plan (RLP), as the same thing is true for provincial plans. One must bear in mind that while there is no landscape planning tool for the whole of Italy, in 1988 the National Energy Plan (NEP) was approved and updated. This plan promotes: i) the rational use and conservation of energy; ii) the regulation of the self-production of energy; iii) encouraging the introduction and expansion of renewable energy sources. At the municipal level, the Municipal Energy Plan (MEP) integrates the concepts in the Municipal Master Plan (MMP), while the Local Development Plan (LDP) is complemented with guidelines which regulate changes. Each tool has a particular function within the general framework of landscape planning in Italy. Only strategic tools are investigated in this paper. They are part of coordination planning, address the general guidelines for human settlements over wide areas, indicate what type of planning tools can be used to implement landscape planning and the content of such plans, and establish the limits and possibilities of development within the context of environmental and landscape conservation and enhancement. Master planning tools are part of another cluster of instruments. Their focus is the regulation of land use, defining infrastructure development in a municipality, and providing a framework for the implementation of planning tools. These tools complete the

34

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Table 1 SEA report quality review package QRP1 (modified after Fischer, 2010). Section 1. Plan and environmental/sustainability baseline description, plan and SEA process integration

Issues

The SEA report: 1. Outlines the contents and main objectives of the plan 2. Outlines the relationship with other relevant plans and programmes 3. Describes how the SEA was conducted 4. Describes how SEA and plan making processes were integrated (i.e. SEA should take place during plan preparation and before plan adoption or submission to the legislative procedure) 5. Provides information on the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment, economy and social aspects likely to be significantly affected and … 6. … the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan and indicates data gaps 7. Provides information on any existing environmental/sustainability problems which are relevant to the plan including, in particular, those relating to any areas of particular environmental/sustainability importance 8. Provides information on environmental protection/sustainability objectives, established at international, European or national level, which are relevant to the plan and … 9. … the way those objectives and any environmental/sustainability considerations have been taken into account during its preparation 10. Evaluation of Section 1 2. Identification & evaluation of key issues/options The SEA report: 11. Describes how reasonable alternatives were identified, considering objectives and geographical scope of the plan 12. Lists the environmental/sustainability issues considered in assessment 13. Describes how environmental/sustainability issues considered in assessment were identified 14. Provides information on the likely significant effects of different options on: Biodiversity, Population, Human health, Fauna, Flora, Soil, Water, Air, Climatic factors, Material assets, Cultural heritage, including architecture and archaeology, Landscape, and the interrelationship between the above factors 15. Tests plan objectives against SEA objectives (SEA framework) 16. Lays out what matters are more appropriately assessed at other levels or layers of decision making, with a view to avoiding duplication 17. Shows how state-of-the-art knowledge and methods of assessment were used 18. Evaluation of Section 2 3. Determination of impact significance The SEA report explains how impact significance was determined by: 19. Identifying the degree to which the plan sets a framework for project/other activities, either in terms of location, size, nature and operating conditions or by allocating resources 20. Identifying value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to special natural characteristics or cultural heritage, exceeded environmental/sustainability quality standards, exceeded limit values or intensive land use 21. Identifying the probability, duration (short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary), frequency and reversibility of effects, both positive and negative of the various options 22. Identifying the secondary, cumulative and synergistic nature of the effects of the various options 23. Identifying the trans-boundary nature of the effects of the various options 24. Identifying risks to human health and the environmental/sustainability issues, e.g. due to accidents of various options 25. Identifying the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of population affected) of the various options 26. Evaluation of Section 3 4. Consultation process The SEA report: 27. Describes how authorities were consulted when scope and level of detail of information in assessment were identified 28. Describes how the draft plan and SEA report were made available to authorities and the public likely to be affected or having an interest in the plan and how they were allowed to express their opinions within an appropriate time frame 29. Confirms that consultation results on plan and SA are to be considered in decision-making 30. Evaluation of Section 4 5. Presentation of information and results The SEA report: 31. Is written in concise words, graphic and literal description, faithful data, with a clear viewpoint, sufficient argument, and explicit conclusions 32. Includes a clearly distinguishable SEA section or separate SEA report, prepared according to SEA Directive requirements 33. Provides information on any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) and uncertainties encountered in compiling the required information 34. Once a decision has been made, is accompanied by a statement summarising how environmental/sustainability considerations have been integrated into the plan or programme and how the SEA report and the results of the consultations have been taken into account and the reasons for choosing the plan as adopted in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with 35. Evaluation of Section 5 6. Recommendations on preferred options, monitoring The SEA report: 36. Presents an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment leading to these reasons was undertaken 37. Provides information on the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment/sustainability issues of implementing the plan 38. Describes the measures envisaged concerning monitoring of the significant environmental/sustainability effects of the plan implementation in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects 39. Describes how beneficial effects can be maximised 40. Shall explain how monitoring is done, in order to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action; in this context, the what (accuracy of predictions, achievement of objectives and targets, performance of measures), how (existing data, time, frequency and geographical extent) and who of monitoring need to be specified 41 Evaluation of Section 6

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

35

Table 2 Simplified SEA report quality review package QRP2 (modified after Fischer, 2010). Section

Issues

1. Plan and environmental/sustainability baseline description, plan and SEA process integration 2. Identification and evaluation of key issues/options

1. SEA report describes the main environmental issues 2. SEA report illustrates environmental sustainability objectives 3. There is coherence between spatial planning and environmental objectives 4. All possible relevant impacts have been satisfactorily assessed 5. The intensity attributed to possible impacts is correct 6. Consultation has been judged by stakeholders as a crucial stage 7. Participation has been developed exhaustively 8. The report is clear and sufficient to support SEA of the spatial plan at hand 9. Correct mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives have been considered with respect to spatial planning objectives 10. Monitoring measures have been attributed a correct importance

3. Determination of impact significance 4. Consultation process 5. Presentation of information and results 6. Recommendations on preferred options, monitoring

Table 3 Translation from qualitative to quantitative scores (integrated following Fischer, 2010). In order to avoid ambiguity, for letters A, B, and G, interviewees were required to choose between two alternatives. Qualitative score Meaning +

−

A –A B+–B− C D E F G+–G−

Synthetic judgement Quantitative score

The work has generally been well performed with no important omissions The work has been performed satisfactorily and completed with only minor omissions/inadequacies The work is regarded as adequately satisfactory despite there being some omissions or inadequacies. Some parts are well attempted but, on the whole, are marginally unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies The work is not satisfactory, revealing significant omissions or inadequacies The work is very unsatisfactory with important tasks poorly attempted The task has not been attempted at all

logical planning framework, as they describe in detail the actions and landscape transformation for each type of land use. Strategic planning tools for both land and energy are crucial in regional development, and have a clear influence on the environment. Thus they have been included among the set of plans for which SEA is a compulsory constituent. The strategic regional and provincial energy plans are described in the rest of this section, and some sample cases introduced. 3.1. Strategic energy planning at the regional and provincial level in Italy: some case studies The Regional Energy Plan (REP) is an energy planning instrument which is designed to manage the energy demands of an entire region, in line with the national energy policies and the NEP. Its ambit includes the most critical aspects of energy conservation. The REP is often referred to as the REEP (where the extra “E” stands for “environmental”), as it is designed to produce more efficient energy production, and the resulting changes in the landscape, in a way that is compatible with the dynamics of the environment. Since the 1980s, many Italian regions have been constructing their own REEPs, based on national law No. 308 (Repubblica Italiana, 1982). In 1991 national law No. 10 (Repubblica Italiana, 1991) ordered regions to design their own planning instruments. The energy balance is the main instrument of the REEP. This describes the production and consumption of energy over time, and establishes the main choices that have to be made if planned energy needs are to be met. The balance is a key part of the REEP, as it allows for comparisons to be made with other contexts, other studies of the dynamics of the energy system and estimates of productive capacity, Table 4 Integration between landscape and energy planning tools in Italy. Function

Level

Coordination

Regional Provincial Municipal

Operation Fruition

Tools Landscape planning

Energy planning

Regional Landscape Plan Provincial Landscape Plan Municipal Master Plan Local Development Plan

Regional Energy Plan Provincial Energy Plan Municipal Energy Plan Guidelines

Very good Good Barely sufficient Insufficient Scarce Very scarce Incomplete

10–9 8–7 6 5 4 3 2–1

dependency on imported energy, and overall and sector consumption. Today all Italian regions have approved their environmental energy plans. In the last twenty years Italy has decentralised political and administrative powers, and powers which were previously the responsibility of the regions have been devolved to the provinces. Provincial responsibility for energy planning was institutionalised by legislative degree No. 112 (Repubblica Italiana, 1998). This piece of legislation established that provinces are entitled to issue strategic provincial environmental energy plans with the following aims: interpreting the suggestions of their REEPs and coordinating the actions and policies of their municipalities; programming the implementation of actions in the province; coordinating energy with landscape and other planning instruments; and defining dynamic scenarios for energy production and consumption. Despite the provinces officially acknowledging their responsibility, provincial energy planning has so far been limited to a few virtuous cases. In most cases these specific responsibilities are still managed at national or, often, at regional level. Energy planning instruments, by virtue of their area of competence, may effect the environment. As a result they belong to the set of plans and programmes to be subjected to SEA. Limiting SEA use to energy planning reinforces some major pitfalls. In many cases the energy balance is the only planning tool, in the absence of a proper analysis of the landscape and environmental context. This leads environmental concerns only being integrated to a limited extent in the energy plan. In this respect, integrating SEA in energy planning from the early stages would help to inspire innovative styles and contents based on public participation, consensus building over energy policies and, above all, their compatibility with common environmental goals. This paper focuses on nine strategic energy planning instruments that have been subject to a fully implemented SEA (see Table 5). The planning documents were downloaded from the institutional websites. The relevant websites can be found in Annex 1. The following key features of the nine energy plans and SEA reports are described in Table 6: year of approval, objectives, SEA regulation, SEA methodology, landscape and environmental analysis, evaluation of environmental effects, alternatives, mitigation strategies, consultation, and follow-up. A complete description of the case studies can be found in Farina (2011).

36

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Table 5 Strategic energy plans examined in this paper with respect to the quality of the SEA report. Extended name (Italian/English)

Short name (Italian/English) Administrative level

Piano Energetico Regionale dell'Abruzzo (Regional Energy Plan of Abruzzo) Piano di Indirizzo Energetico Ambientale Regionale della Basilicata (Regional Energy Environmental Steering Plan of Basilicata) Piano Energetico Regionale dell'Emilia Romagna (Regional Energy Plan of Emilia Romagna) Piano energetico ambientale della Sicilia (Regional Energy Environmental Plan of Sicily) Piano di Indirizzo Energetico Regionale della Toscana (Regional Energy Steering Plan of Tuscany) Piano Energetico Ambientale Provinciale di Cremona (Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Cremona) Piano Energetico Ambientale Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Florence) Piano Energetico Ambientale Provinciale di Forlì-Cesena (Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Forlì-Cesena) Piano Energetico Provinciale di Ravenna (Provincial Energy Plan of Ravenna)

PER (REP) PIEAR (REESP) PER (REP) PEAR (REEP) PIER (RESP) PEAP (PEEP) PEAP (PEEP) PEAP (PEEP) PEP (PEP)

Table 7 synthesises the strengths and weaknesses of the various SEA reports on the selected energy plans. Generally speaking, the SEA reports were well drafted. This is especially true for defining the objectives, the methodology, landscape and environmental analysis and impact analysis. However there were a number of weaknesses in the SEA reports, with respect to: generating and processing of the alternatives; indicating mitigation strategies; and follow-up activities. Creating alternatives is a critical issue, and deserves much wider attention. It is often a weak point in the use of SEA in provincial strategic landscape plans everywhere (Sadler et al., 2011), and particularly in Italy (De Montis, 2013). One possible explanation for alternatives not being indicated in strategic planning may be the nature of the tools. These are seen as instruments which describe the general organization of land use patterns, and establish a framework which can then be implemented through other plans. Another critical element is monitoring and follow-up activities, which are often still in their infancy. This may be because the structural components of an environmental information management system (sensors acquisition, data capture and processing, reporting, influence on plan updating) have not yet been set up. 4. Results In this section, we present the results of this paper starting with the development of the SEA quality review package QRP1. Table 8 is a synopsis of the answers assessing the SEA reports of the nine energy plans. The evaluation scores originally used the qualitative letter graded scale proposed by Fischer (2010), and were then converted into quantitative values, following the translation scheme shown in Table 3. As QRP1 was completed by five SEA experts, the values represent the rounded average score. On first analysis, one can make the comments about the distribution of the answers in each section. Section 1 refers to the preliminary elements of SEA: Sicily, Tuscany, and Ravenna have the highest scores (overall score 7), while Basilicata and Florence have the lowest. Section 2 refers to the quality of the information on the environmental impact of the energy plans: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Sicily, and Tuscany have the highest scores, while Florence and Forlì-Cesena have scores below sufficiency level. High values (for instance, Sicily, which scored 8) indicate that in these cases the SEA reports identified the possible effects on the environment exhaustively. Section 3 refers to the size and significance of the environmental impact on protected areas at international, national, and local level. Most scores are well below the sufficiency threshold. The most critical scores (many equal to 1) are for questions 20 and 23 and reflect the lack of information on both the trans-border effects and the areas most likely to be affected by the actions of the energy plan. Only in the case of Ravenna is the overall quality considered sufficient. Section 4 refers to the quality of consultation. The values reported cover an impressively wide range. Abruzzo, Basilicata, Sicily, and Cremona score very high (overall quality score 9), while Florence is very low (overall quality judgement 1). Section 5 concerns the emphasis of non-technical summaries on the integration of sustainability issues into the energy plans, and possible difficulties which may have arisen when drafting the plans. Five cases report values at sufficient levels,

Region Region Region Region Region Province Province Province Province

while for Cremona and Ravenna they are fair, and Emilia-Romagna and Florence insufficient. Section 6 concerns reasonable alternatives and monitoring measures: Emilia-Romagna and Cremona have very poor quality scores (overall judgement around 1), while Basilicata and Sicily have passable quality scores. Table 9 synthesises the overall score for each section. This measure is calculated for each section by averaging the arithmetic mean scores received for each question. Sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 are generally regarded as sufficient, while Sections 3 and 6 are insufficient. These severe judgements reflect the critical points that often occur when SEA is used in energy plan making. Table 10 shows the results of the simplified SEA quality review package QRP2. QRP2 was submitted to nine experts, but only six2 replied satisfactorily. The other three replies were discarded for the following reasons: i) lack of information; ii) judgements too volatile and unreliable, and iii) too many unanswered questions. In Section 1, the answers to questions 1 and 2 generally testify that the environmental analysis was fair and the description of sustainability objectives of high quality. The exception is the SEA report for the EmiliaRomagna REP, whose section on sustainability was judged to be under the sufficiency level. For Section 2, questions 3 (on coherence) and 4 (on environmental effects) generally received decent scores, although Abruzzo, EmiliaRomagna, and Forlì-Cesena were judged to be only sufficient. Section 3 includes only question 5 on the magnitude of the impact. This received passable scores, with the exception of Emilia-Romagna, where the impact was believed to be slightly overestimated. In Section 4, question 6 on consultation quality was generally scored as sufficient, with the exception of Basilicata and Forlì-Cesena. There was a wide variety in the scores for question 7 (on participation throughout the process), ranging from high for Abruzzo to insufficient for Basilicata and Tuscany. Section 5 only contains question 8 (on the clarity of SEA reports). This always scored above the sufficiency level, which clearly indicates that the officers trust the capacity of the reports to support SEA development. Section 6 includes question 9 on mitigation measures and the generation of alternatives, and question 10 on the importance given to mitigation measures. In both cases there was a wide variety in the answers, ranging from very low for Emilia-Romagna to fair/high for Ravenna. Table 11 shows the average mean score received for questions in the same sections of the simplified SEA report on the QRP2 quality review package. In general the scores reflect the positive feelings of public officers for each section of the review package. Section 6 (on reasonable alternatives and monitoring measures) was given the lowest score and was deemed to be of insufficient quality. Section 1 (on the preliminary elements of SEA) received the highest score.

2 They work for the following Italian agencies: Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca per le Scienze Ambientali, CIRSA [Interdepartmental Center for Environmental Sciences Research], University of Bologna; Environmental Authority Task Force, Region Abruzzo; Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell'Ambiente, ARPA [Environmental Protection Regional Agency], Region Emilia Romagna; settore Valutazione Ambientale e Sviluppo Sostenibile [Environmental Assessment and Sustainable Development Division], Region Basilicata; and Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell'Ambiente della Basilicata, ARPAB [Environmental Protection Regional Agency], Region Basilicata.

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

The average output of the two packages is now worth comparing. Table 12 shows the difference in the average scores for QRP1 and QRP2 for each section, as well as the overall average score. The difference between the average scores is almost always negative with a mean õabsolute value of 1.28. The score for Section 3 is relevant, while those for Sections 2 and 4 are negligible. This means in general that, because the officials are insiders, they tend to judge their own work on SEA as being of slightly higher quality than the external academics do. 5. Discussions In this section, we discuss the methodological innovations and the main results achieved in this paper. In this paper, we assess the quality of SEA when it is applied to õstrategic planning tools for energy. The methodology is a modification of a method introduced by Fischer (2010) and based on the use of the SEA report quality review package (QRP), a questionnaire covering a number of issues, grouped into six thematic clusters covering the õrelevant critical points in the SEA report. Two aspects of the method used in this case are novel ways: i) the number of themes and issues covered by the SEA report quality review package are simplified, and ii) the points of view of the insider professionals and experts directly õinvolved in SEA processes are integrated into our work. The simplification of the issues covered reflects the need to adapt the SEA report QRP when assessing particular planning tools, as the method is applied to the energy sector for the first time and concerns strategic plans. The õlatter are instruments that present a general approach to planning, õaddress broad policy issues, and involve practical microscale effects which are often difficult to perceive and assess. Originally, the SEA õreport QRP was an assessment system which was able to represent the judgements expressed by scientists acquainted with SEA theory and practice, but who were not involved in the actual drafting of the SEA reports. The panel usually included post graduate students who were prepared to judge the quality of the SEA report per se. They were not fully informed on the critical points of the particular contexts and did not experience the many administrative and bureaucratic õobstacles that arise during the whole SEA procedure. The integration of the SEA report QRP was conceived precisely in the attempt to fill that gap. Thus, the questionnaire QRP2 represents the points of view of the professionals who have actually been involved in drafting the SEA report and the energy plan. While it has to be accepted that the judgements expressed on the quality of the SEA report by its designers are biased to some extent, it is still meaningful. It includes the type of perspectives, feelings, and practical advice for modifications, which are typical of internal observers who are immersed in solving problems on a day-to-day basis. In this case, the SEA report QRP has been integrated so that it represents the perspective of the external and the internal referee. The final quality score is obtained as the output of an arithmetic mean formula, where the two different points of view have been given the same weight. While the contribution from the insiders might be more correctly interpreted and downgraded, the scores for QRP1 reflect the external viewpoint of individuals interested in the theory and principles of SEA implementation, whose only source of information on this are the materials in the SEA report. Hence the overall average reported in the last column of Table 12 can be said to represent an ideal, integrated measurement of the quality level of each review section, and to merge external abstract/theoretical perspectives with internal contextual/pragmatic ones. This measurement uses a single value to confirm what was previously elaborated through many different ones. The general quality level is slightly below sufficiency (mean value equal to 5.89). Sections 1, 2, and 5 score above sufficiency, while Sections 3 and 4, and 6 in particular are below sufficiency. The most highly criticised sections were: the description of the effects of the energy plans on the environment; the draft of alternative planning proposals; the consultation; the definition of monitoring measures; and SEA follow-up. These results characterize

37

the quality of SEA reports on energy planning in Italy. They can be compared with Fischer's (2012) results for the quality of SEA reports in the UK, as reported in Section 2. Questions in Sections 1 (plan and environmental/sustainability baseline description, plan and SEA process integration) and 2 (identification and evaluation of key issues/options) received satisfactory scores for both countries. By contrast questions in Sections 3 (determination of impact significance) and 6 (recommendations on preferred options, monitoring) received scores below the sufficiency level. The definition of realistic/feasible alternative scenarios or options for the plan under consideration, and clarification of the impact of public participation on overall SEA quality were the two most widely criticised issues for both countries. 6. Conclusions and perspectives In this section we summarize the rationale behind our work and reflect on possible weak points and unanswered issues that we would like to develop in future studies. In this paper we assess the SEA reports on strategic energy plans issued by some Italian regional and provincial bodies. In Italy SEA has only been used in energy plans in a few cases. As a result it is an ideal field for developing research studies that can steer practice by focussing on critical issues. The Directive and the corpus of SEA national and regional regulations also lay down general rules and broad frameworks. In Italy the responsible authorities retain a certain degree of discretion with respect to relevant issues, such as sustainability and the integration of environmental and energy planning. This study identifies the strengths and weaknesses of SEA use in energy plans. The most highly critical remarks, generally corresponding to scores under sufficiency level, might become the focus of future studies. They can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the presentation of planning objectives is incomplete, and sustainable development issues, climate change concerns, and internal coherence analysis have not been sufficiently developed. As a consequence the likely evolution of the environment under the zero option (no energy planning) is often poor and, more broadly speaking, alternative planning proposals are not sufficiently developed. Secondly, the assessment of the effects is often qualitative and superficial, while trans-border impacts are very rarely taken into account. Indirect, cumulative, and synergy effects are very seldom described and measured, while the assessment of the vulnerability of certain areas, due to their cultural heritage and natural assets, is not always developed. Many actors suggest establishing information systems that are able to support the creation of more effective and accessible environmental analysis indicators. Thirdly, it is not clear how, when, and in what ways public participation occurs and, moreover, how much public concerns have been taken into account in planning. There is a lack of information on the difficulties, and the non-technical summary is not always a distinct section or document. Fourthly, there are no instruments for maximising the positive effects of implementing the energy plan. Mitigation strategies are often formulated in too general and abstract terms: it is difficult to understand how they assist in defining definitive plans. The measures and indicators are sometimes not described sufficiently, while the duties of the various responsible agencies are not clearly indicated. Contextual and policy-led indicators are also not clearly specified, and often selected indicators do not explain direct action–effect relationships. Finally, the SEA report quality review package applied to Italy in this paper produced results which are comparable to those found when the same tool was used for the UK. While the baseline description and illustration of key arguments and scenarios covered in Sections 1 and 2 can be interpreted as strengths, the questions in Sections 3 and 6 received unsatisfactory scores, and here further research is required. To be more precise, two areas of weakness were found in SEA practice in the two countries. These were the construction of reasonable alternatives and the impact of public participation on SEA efficiency. The SEA

38

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Table 6 Comparative synopsis of examined SEA reports. Plan

Year of approval

Objectives

SEA regulation

SEA methodology

Landscape and environmental analysis

REP Abruzzo

2009

Energy production and conservation

Integration of environmental concerns Definition of consultation patterns Follow up and monitoring measures

SWOT analysis of environmental components Construction and use of indicators

REESP Basilicata

2009

Scoping, Analysis (Environmental Report), Consultation, Follow-up

REP Emilia Romagna

2007

RL 20/2000 Legislative Decree (LD) 152/2006

Four phases: state of play, coherence with global and local environmental objectives, impact assessment, and monitoring

Emphasis on environmental component analysis: air, climate change, water, soil, waste disposal, nature and biodiversity, landscape, and human health. Use of impact assessment matrices. Environmental indicators and matrix. Focus on air, land, and landscape

REEP Sicily

2009

Energy conservation and efficiency, Renewable Energy Sources (RES) development and diversification, energy demand definition, energy infrastructure supply Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, increase in energy system performance, sustainable energy consumption, and promotion of the adoption of RES Rational energy management, RES development, energy cost reduction, pollution reduction, energy system stability

Regional Law (RL) 27/2006, art. 11 DGR no. 48 April 13 2007 RL 48/2000

Decree 748/2004

SEA development inside planning processes: dissemination of the actions, consultation, project amendments suggested by public remarks and comments

RESP Tuscany

2008

Sustainability, security, efficiency

RL 10/2010

Six steps from illustration of objectives to monitoring and follow-up

PEEP Cremona

2003

RL 12/2005

Definition of specific sustainability objectives and indicators, contribution to the definition of planning actions

PEEP Florence

2008

RL 10/2010

Scope, Analysis (Environmental Report), Consultation, Follow-up

PEEP Forlì-Cesena

2005

Definition of actions allowing: the best use of all energy sources and the most efficient techniques to produce energy at low environmental cost Development of RES, energy efficiency, reduction in CO2 emissions Decrease in environmental pollution, abatement of greenhouse gas emissions

LR 20/2000, LD 152/2006

PEP Ravenna

2010

Better life and health in urban settlements, eco-compatible energy infrastructures, severe reduction in greenhouse gases emission

LR 20/2000

Definition of environmental and energy planning objectives, assessment of internal and external coherence, indicator based assessment of environmental impacts Scoping, analysis (environmental report), consultation, follow-up

report quality review package has been proven to be a powerful tool for investigating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of SEA practice in different contexts. Further research is needed. This should include other countries and create a wider and more significant framework for SEA use in Europe and elsewhere. Acknowledgements The author was supported by the funds received from the Autonomous Region of Sardinia during the research project “Efficacia ed efficienza della governance paesaggistica e territoriale in Sardegna: il ruolo della VAS e delle IDT” [Efficacy and efficiency of landscape and environmental management in Sardinia: the role of SEA and of SDI]. The authors would like to thank Donatella Farina for the stimulating discussions and the anonymous reviewer for the insightful comments on the earlier versions of this paper. Annex 1. Legislative materials and websites Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale (ARPA) Emilia Romagna. Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico Ambientale della Provincia di Forlì-Cesena [Environmental Report. Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Forlì-Cesena]. Retrieved from http://www.provincia.fc.it/

Direct and indirect potential impact assessment over: population and health, nature and biodiversity, atmosphere, water, soil, landscape, cultural, archaeological, and architectonic heritage Environmental indicators: CO2 emissions, energy production by source, other atmospheric emissions, waste management, protected species and areas, landscape, archaeological, historic, and artistic heritage Analysis of various components: water, atmosphere, hydro-geo-morphology, soil and geology, landscape and biodiversity, agriculture, urban environment, waste disposal, tourism, and transport Insufficient description of the environmental context: climate change, nature, and biodiversity Emphasis on these components: water, biodiversity, atmosphere, waste

Study of the following components: air, soil, health, landscape, water, waste

ambiente/amm/allegati/190_V.A.S%20Rapporto%20Ambientale.pdf on October 10, 2011. Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca per le Scienze Ambientali (CIRSA) Università di Bologna. Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico della Provincia di Ravenna [Environmental Report. Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Ravenna]. Retrieved from http://www. confindustriaravenna.it/admin/PagPar.php?op=fg&id_pag_par= 3869&fld=file, accessed on December 28, 2012. Ecosistemi e Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale (ARPA) Lombardia. Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico Ambientale della Provincia di Cremona [Environmental Report. Provincial Energy Enviromental Plan of Cremona]. Retrieved from http://www.provincia. cremona.it/settori/ambiente/peap2003/peap/vas.html, on December 28, 2012. Green time srl e Provincia di Florence. Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico Ambientale della Provincia di Florence [Environmental Report. Provincial Energy Environmental Plan of Florence]. Retrieved from http://www.Florencenergia.it/primoPiano/16/V.A. S%20PEAP%20FI%20REL%20TECNICA%20AMBIENTALE%20versione%.pdf on October 10, 2011. Regional Agency for Environmental Protection of Emilia Romagna (ARPA). Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico Regionale Emilia Romagna [Environmental Report. Regional Energy Plan of Emilia Romagna].

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

39

Table 6 Comparative synopsis of examined SEA reports. Evaluation of environmental effects

Alternatives

Mitigation strategies

Consultation

Follow-up

An “environmental objectives vs activities” matrix measures direct and indirect impacts

Two alternatives are compared, according to their effects on the atmosphere

Two groups of strategies to be implemented in the long (environmental management system) and short run (specific interventions)

Negative impacts of: solar and photovoltaic plants, energy transportation, non-renewable resources consumption Analysis of pressures caused by energy production, transformation, transport and consumption. Focus on climate change, land, waste, nature, and biodiversity Adoption of impact/component assessment matrices

Two alternatives: zero and plan alternative.

Conformance to the measures indicated in other plans and programmes. Indication of eligibility criteria for allowed transformations Poor description of these measures

Performed during the whole construction and approval procedure Consultation developed since the early stage of the process Public participation throughout the whole process

Two sets of measures: context (related to environmental objectives) and performance (related to the efficiency of monitoring) indicators The adoption of specific indicators supports follow-up activities

An impact matrix conveys the measure of the intensity of the impacts (positive, negative, unknown) Adoption of the Determinant Pressure State Response (DPSR) model. Insufficient description and evaluation of the effects Adoption of objectives vs effects matrices

Three alternatives: low and high energy demand scenario; higher electric energy demand scenario Three alternatives: low, intermediate, and high tendency scenario Three alternatives: zero, maximum, and minimum impact alternative. Strong emphasis over the third alternative Two alternatives: zero and planned scenarios

Transparency and visibility of public participation since the early stages Poor description and management of public participation

Action plans concerning: crude oil and natural gas, electric sector, rational energy use in industry, research on environmental effects Strategies based on a framework including two types of requirements: eligibility (access to funding for minimum impact actions) and premium (access to funding for more sustainable actions) Action directed to prevent environmental effects mostly on atmosphere and water

Insufficient coverage. Two alternatives: zero and max scenarios

Poor description. Unclear indication of the actions

Adoption of co-axial impact matrices

No alternative generated

Poor description of mitigation actions

Adoption of the DPSR model, control matrices, and evaluation forms

Two alternatives: zero (or BAU, “Business As Usual”) and planned scenario

Incentive payment for RES development, and sustainable procurement for firms

Retrieved from http://www.arpa.emr.it/cms3/documenti/_cerca_doc/ energia/val_amb.pdf on December 28, 2012. Regional Agency for Environmental Protection Tuscany (ARPAT) and Unified Center for Evaluation (NURV). Rapporto Ambientale. Piano d'Indirizzo Energetico Regionale Toscana [Environmental Report. Regional Energy Steering Plan of Tuscany]. Retrieved from http://www.arpat. toscana.it/cms3/documenti/doc/energia/val_amb.pdf on October 10, 2011.

Consultation performed inside the process during the Energy Forum Poor development

Consultation performed inside the process during the planning conference Public participation developed since the early stages

Only qualitative indication of monitoring indicators

Monitoring report based on context and sustainability indicators Three sets of indicators for measuring: implementation, result, and impact

Insufficient use of indicators able to monitor and address planning processes Based on three types of measures: implementation, effectiveness, and environmental impact indicators Poor development of this part

Monitoring report based on two types of measures: performance and environmental indicators

Regione Abruzzo. Allegato 1 della DGR del 19 febbraio 2007 n. 148 Disposizioni concernenti la Valutazione Ambientale Strategica (V.A.S) di Piani e Programmi regionali [Regulations about Strategic Environmental Assessment of regional plans and programmes]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Abruzzo 13 Aprile 2007, n. 21. L'Aquila: 2007. Regione Abruzzo. Legge regionale del 9 Agosto 2006 n. 27 Disposizioni in materia Ambientale [Regulations about the Environment]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Abruzzo 30 agosto 2006, n. 46. L'Aquila: 2006.

Table 7 SEA report of energy plans: synthesis of the strengths and weaknesses. Keys: ☺ stands for strong; ☹ for weak; and Plan

Objectives

SEA methodology

Landscape and environmental analysis

Evaluation of environmental effects

REP Abruzzo RAEEP Basilicata REP Emilia Romagna REEP Sicily RAEP Tuscany PEEP Cremona PEEP Florence PEEP Forlì-Cesena PEP Ravenna

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☺ ☺

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☺ ☺

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☹ ☺ ☺

for indifferent issue. Alternatives

☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☹

Mitigation strategies

☹ ☹ ☺ ☹ ☹

Consultation

Follow-up

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☺ ☺

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☹ ☺ ☹ ☺

40

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Table 8 Results of the modified SEA report quality review package QRP1. Qualitative judgements have been translated into quantitative scores. Section

No.

REP Abruzzo

RAEEP Basilicata

REP Emilia Romagna

REEP Sicily

RAEP Tuscany

PEEP Cremona

P.E.A.P Florence

PEEP Forlì-Cesena

PEP Ravenna

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

9 8 6 5 5 5 1 9 9 6 5 7 7 7 9 2 9 7 6 2 6 2 1 2 6 4 9 9 8 9 5 9 3 6 6 5 7 6 2 3 5

8 6 2 3 7 7 4 6 5 5 7 6 7 7 6 9 9 7 2 2 7 9 1 7 3 4 9 9 9 9 7 7 3 4 5 8 7 6 6 9 7

9 9 6 6 4 1 1 8 7 6 2 4 3 6 8 8 8 6 4 3 2 6 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 6 3 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 1

9 9 8 1 6 8 6 8 7 7 8 8 6 8 9 6 8 8 6 8 2 7 1 5 2 4 9 9 9 9 7 9 3 5 6 8 8 9 2 9 7

6 7 7 6 6 6 7 8 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 7 1 8 6 2 1 3 3 4 1 1 6 3 6 8 3 6 6 7 8 5 2 3 5

7 6 7 7 7 7 5 6 1 6 1 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 1 2 2 1 5 6 3 10 9 9 9 5 8 9 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 1

9 9 1 1 7 7 3 6 4 5 5 2 5 4 4 7 6 5 2 2 2 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5 6 3 3 4 2 4 2 1 1 2

9 6 2 2 6 1 5 1 1 4 2 2 2 8 2 8 8 5 2 2 6 2 1 2 2 2 8 6 2 5 6 9 3 6 6 2 2 7 2 2 3

9 5 9 7 7 9 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 7 3 2 9 8 1 8 8 6 2 6 7 5 6 6 8 8 7 7 8 7 2 6 6

2

3

4

5

6

Regione Abruzzo. Rapporto Ambientale. Piano Energetico Regionale dell'Abruzzo [Environmental Report. Regional Energy Plan of Abruzzo]. Retrieved from http://www.regione.abruzzo.it/xambiente/docs/ pianEnergetica/PER_dichiarazione_sintesi.pdf on December 12, 2012. Regione Autonoma della Sicilia. Decreto 7 luglio 2004, n. 748 Disposizioni relative alla Valutazione Ambientale Strategica su strumenti di programmazione e di pianificazione inerenti le materie indicate nell'art. 3, paragrafo 2°) della Direttiva 2001/42/CE [Regulations about Strategic Environmental Assessment of plans and programmes in subjects indicated in the Directive 2001/42/CE, art. 3, paragraph 2]. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Regione siciliana 16 luglio 2004, n. 30. Palermo: 2004.

Table 9 Modified SEA report quality review package QRP 1 : average score by section. Section

Average score

1 2 3 4 5 6

5.88 6.26 3.60 5.86 5.71 4.17

Table 10 Results of the simplified SEA report quality review package QRP2. Section

Question

REP Abruzzo

RAEEP Basilicata

REP Emilia-Romagna

RAEP Tuscany

PEEP Forlì-Cesena

PEP Ravenna

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 7 6 7 7 6 8 7 7 7

7 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 6 4

8 5 6 6 5 6 6 7 2 2

8 7 7 8 7 6 5 7 8 5

7 8 8 6 7 5 6 8 5 7

8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 8 7

2 3 4 5 6

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42 Table 11 Simplified SEA report quality review package QRP2: average score by section. Section

Average score

1 2 3 4 5 6

7.25 6.92 6.67 5.83 6.83 5.67

Regione Basilicata. Legge regionale del 14 aprile 2000 n. 48 Norme di riassetto dell'organizzazione regionale [Regulations about regional administration management]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Basilicata 19 aprile 2000, n. 30. Potenza: 2000. Regione Basilicata. Rapporto Ambientale Piano d'Indirizzo Energetico Ambientale Regionale Basilicata [Environmental Report. Regional Energy Environmental Steering Plan of Basilicata]. Retrieved from http://www. lucanineuropa.eu/public/upload/downloads/Documenti/Rapporto% 20Ambientale.pdf on October 10, 2011. Regione Emilia-Romagna. Deliberazione dell'Assemblea legislativa 14 novembre 2007, n. 141 Adozione del Piano Energetico Ambientale Regionale [Adoption of the Regional Energy Environmental Plan]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Emilia Romagna del 30 novembre 2007, n. 172. Bologna: 2007. Regione Emilia-Romagna. Legge regionale 24 marzo 2000 n. 20 Disciplina generale sulla tutela e uso del territorio [General regulations about land protection and use]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Emilia Romagna 27 marzo 2000, n. 52. Bologna: 2000. Regione Lombardia. LR 11 Marzo 2005, n. 12 Legge per il governo del territorio [Law on landscape management]. Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Lombardia 16 marzo 2005, n. 11. Milano: 2005. Regione Sicilia e Dipartimento di Ricerche Energetiche e Ambientali (DREAM), Università di Palermo. Rapporto Ambientale Piano Energetico Ambientale Regionale Sicilia [Environmental Report. Regional Energy Environmental Plan of Sicily]. Retrieved from http://pti.regione.sicilia.it/ portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_LaNuoV.A.StrutturaRegionale/PIR_ AssEnergia/PIR_DipEnergia/PIR_PianoEnergeticoAmbientaledella RegioneSicilianaPEARS/Rapporto%20Ambientale%20%20PEAR.pdf on October 10, 2012. Regione Toscana. Delibera del Consiglio Regionale del 8 luglio 2008 n. 47 Approvazione del Piano di Indirizzo Energetico Regionale [Approval of the Regional Energy Plan]. Retrieved from http://www.regione. toscana.it/documents/10180/70960/Pier%20Piano%20di%20indirizzo% 20energetico%20regionale/8915d437-98cc-4909-898b-c469d8a06264 on May 16, 2013. Regione Toscana. Legge regionale 12 febbraio 2010 n. 10 Norme in materia di valutazione ambientale strategica (VAS), di valutazione di impatto ambientale (VIA) e di valutazione di incidenza [Regulations on strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, and appropriate assessment]. Bollettino Ufficiale Regione Toscana 10 ottobre 2010, n. 9. Florence: 2010. Repubblica Italiana. Legge 29 maggio 1982, n. 308 Norme sul contenimento dei consumi energetici, lo sviluppo delle fonti rinnovabili di energia e l'esercizio di centrali elettriche alimentate con combustibili diversi dagli idrocarburi [Regulations over energy conservation, development of renewable energy sources and production plants fuelled by different fuels than hydrocarbons]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 154 del 7 giugno 1982. Rome: 1982. Repubblica Italiana. Legge 9 gennaio 1991, n. 10 Norme per l'attuazione del Piano energetico nazionale in materia di uso razionale dell'energia, di risparmio energetico e di sviluppo delle fonti rinnovabili di energia [Regulations for the implementation of the National energy plan for the rational use of energy, energy conservation, and development of renewable energy sources]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 13 Supplemento Ordinario n. 6 del 16 gennaio 1991. Rome: 1991.

41

Table 12 Comparison and synthesis of the average scores given to QRP1 and QRP2. Section

Difference

Overall average score

1 2 3 4 5 6

−1.37 −0.66 −3.07 0.03 −1.12 −1.50

6.57 6.59 5.13 5.85 6.27 4.92

Repubblica Italiana. Decreto legislativo 31 marzo 1998, n. 112 Conferimento di funzioni e compiti amministrativi dello Stato alle regioni ed agli enti locali, in attuazione del capo I della legge 15 marzo 1997, n. 59 [Attribution of national administrative functions and duties to regions and local bodies, according to law March 15 1997, n. 59]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 92 Supplemento Ordinario n. 77 del 21 aprile 1998. Rome: 1998) Repubblica Italiana. Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 Norme in materia ambientale [Regulations about the Environment]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 88 del 14 aprile 2006 — Supplemento Ordinario n. 96. Rome: 2006. Repubblica Italiana. Decreto Legislativo 16 gennaio 2008, n. 4 Ulteriori disposizioni correttive ed integrative del decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152, recante norme in materia ambientale [Further regulations and integrations of legislative decree April 3 2006 n. 152 concerning regulations about the environment]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 24 del 29 gennaio 2008 — Suppl. Ordinario n. 24. Rome: 2008. Repubblica Italiana. Decreto Legislativo 29 giugno 2010, n. 128 Modifiche ed integrazioni al decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152, recante norme in materia ambientale, a norma dell'articolo 12 della legge 18 giugno 2009, n. 69 [Amendments and integrations of legislative decree April 3 2006 n. 152 concerning regulations about the environment, according to art. 12 Law June 18 2009 n. 69]. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 186 dell'11 agosto 2010 — Suppl. Ordinario n. 184. Rome: 2010. Annex 2. Details on the modification of the SEA report quality review package The following questions have been discarded: 5. [The SEA report] With a view to avoiding duplication of assessment describes what issues are addressed in other assessments, i.e. at other levels/layers within a planning system/hierarchy; 20. [The SEA report explains how impact significance was determined by] Identifying the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised UK, European or international protection status of the various options; 30. [The SEA report] Confirms that if there are significant changes to preferred options in the light of the public participation stage, an SA will be conducted for the changes; and 42. [The SEA report] Shall explain how existing monitoring arrangements may be used, if appropriate in order to avoid duplication. Some questions have been split, as follows: n. 6 has been split into 5 and 6; and n. 8 into 8 and 9. References Byron H, Sheate W. Strategic environmental assessment: current status in the water and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Environ Policy Pract 1997;6(4):155–65. De Montis A. Implementing strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning tools. A study on the Italian Provinces. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;41:53–63. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: European Commission; 2001. Farina D. La Valutazione Ambientale Strategica applicata ai piani energetici nazionali (Strategic Environmental Assessment of National Energy Plans). Tesi di LaureaFacoltà di Ingegneria, Università di Cagliari; 20112010–1 [a.a.]. Fischer TB. Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment. Towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan; 2007. Fischer TB. Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30(1):62–9. Fischer TB. The quality of local transport plan (LTP) 3 SEA reports in North West England — a comparative review with English spatial and waste management planning related SEA practice. Town Country Plann 2012;81(6):281–6.

42

A. De Montis / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46 (2014) 32–42

Fischer TB, Gazzola P. SEA effectiveness criteria — equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26(4):396–409. Fischer TB, Potter K, Donaldson S, Scott T. Municipal waste management strategies, strategic environmental assessment and the consideration of climate change in England. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 2011;13(4):541–65. Jay SA, Marshall R. The place of strategic environmental assessment in the privatised electricity industry. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2005;23(4):315–24. Jiricka A, Pröbstl U. SEA in local land use planning — first experience in the Alpine States. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(4–5):328–37. Lee N, Colley R. Reviewing the quality of environmental statements. Occasional Paper n. 24. EIA Centre. Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester; 1992. [Retrieved from http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/planning/research/publications/wp/eia/eia_op24.htm on December 29, 2012]. Noble BF. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29(1):66–75. ODPM — Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Sustainability appraisal of regional spatial strategies and local development documents; 2005 [London].

Retief F. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27(1):84–100. Sadler B, Aschemann R, Dusik J, Fischer TB, Partidário M, Verheem R. Handbook of strategic environmental assessment. New York: Earthscan Publications; 2011. Sheate W. Environmental impact assessment: law and policy — making an impact II. London: Cameron May; 1996.

Andrea De Montis, civil engineer (laurea cum laude at the University of Cagliari, Italy), is associate professor at Dipartimento di Agraria, University of Sassari, Italy. He holds a Master of Science Degree in Economic Policy and Planning, Northeastern University, Boston, USA, and a Ph.D. in Urban and Spatial Planning Techniques, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy. His research focuses on evaluation in spatial, environmental and landscape planning. Prof De Montis is principal investigator of the research project “Efficacia ed efficienza della governance paesaggistica e territoriale in Sardegna: il ruolo della VAS e delle IDT” [Efficacy and efficiency of landscape and environmental governance in Sardinia: the role of SEA and of SDI] funded by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia.