Affiliation:
1. Economic Law Department, Law and Social Sciences Faculty, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4070386, Chile
2. Water Resources Department, Agricultural Engineering Faculty, Universidad de Concepción, Chillán 3812120, Chile
3. Water Research Center for Agriculture and Mining (CRHIAM), ANID Fondap Center, Victoria 1295, Concepcion 4070411, Chile
Abstract
The incorporation of environmental variables into policies, programs, plans and projects has been achieved through the use of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). However, the recognition by scholars of several limitations of the EIA has prompted the consideration of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as the appropriate instrument for achieving this objective. Studies on SEA have concentrated in phases prior to the decision-making, despite the fact that, after the strategic decision has been made, it is also necessary to follow up on the environmental impacts or effects produced by the plan, as well as the possibility of adopting measures to correct them when they cause adverse or unforeseen effects. The way in which this following-up takes place will vary from country to country, based on the respective legal system. Therefore, this study aims to understand these forms of follow-up in urban land planning instruments, at the local level which are legally binding, comparing regulations in France, Portugal and Chile, through three research questions focused on determining whether this phase exists, whether it is possible to modify the local planning instrument in the event of adverse effects and whether there are offset measures for those effects. This study employs a mixed methodology based on the law and content analysis, enabling the identification of pertinent aspects for investigation, the compilation of material for this study, and the answering of research questions through the comparative analysis of the laws of the selected countries. Results show differences and similarities between the regulations of the countries analyzed, regarding the ability to reverse undesired, negative or different effects from those originally considered in urban plans. It will shed light on the possibility for other countries to take follow-up action in the face of undesirable scenarios in the application of planning instruments. The gaps found in our research may also exist in the legislation of other countries.
Funder
National Agency for Research and Development of Chilean Government ANID
National Doctorate Scholarship 2018
CRHIAM Water Center
Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Universidad de Concepción
Reference68 articles.
1. Wathern, P. (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, Routledge.
2. Strategic Environmental Assessment: EA of Policies, Plans, and Programmes;Wood;Impact Assess.,1992
3. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Key Issues Emerging from Recent Practice;Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.,1996
4. Sheate, W. (2009). A Systemic Framework for Environmental Decision-Making. Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Sustainability, Imperial College London & Collingwood Environmental Planning.
5. Decision Making and Strategic Environmental Assessment;Nilsson;Environ. Assess. Policy Manage.,2001