Long-distance transport infrastructure
From SEA.unu.edu/wiki
From Dalkmann, H. (2001) "Future Perspective of SEA - Transport case study in Germany", presented at NECTAR Conference no. 6, European Strategies in the Globalising Markets, 16-18 May 2001, Espoo, Finland.
The FTIP is a long-term plan for German long-distance transport infrastructure (railways, inland waterways, motorways). It provides the financial framework of transport infrastructure owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. It is called an integrated transport plan combining the goals for different transport modes. The FTIP incorporates new roads and railways as well as recondition of the existing transport infrastructure.The FTIP is the basis for single-mode Demand Plans (Bedarfspläne) defining the needs of transport infrastructure construction. These follow-up plans become law through the federal parliament as Transport Infrastructure Extension Acts (Fernstraßen-ausbaugesetz and Schienenwegeausbaugesetz). The last FTIP was finalised in 1992 and considered the transport infrastructure demand due to the German unification. The current FTIP process is to be scheduled for the year 2002.Transport infrastructure planning must be seen in the context of national transport policy as well as the federal structure of the German planning system. The executive power is shared by the Federation, the Länder and the counties and municipalities. The German planning system can be described with the term counter-current principle (Gegenstromprinzip). It is an important feature of the spatial planning system (Fischer 1999). It is neither organised in a top-down nor a bottom-up manner, but the frameworks are developed on national and state (Länder) level under consideration of inputs of lower decision-making units. The final decisions are made at the lower levels, but higher tier authorities always check them. The task of the FTIP can be seen as the choice of projects within a defined budget for transport infrastructure. These projects are in conflict with economic, spatial and environmental goals and interests, which are represented by different stakeholders. Therefore the FTIP is a negotiation process and the final product is closely related to the organisation of the process and the consequences for the power of the stakeholders.The FTIP is embedded in this planning system and focuses on about 100 railway projects, 1500 to 2000 road projects and some inland-waterway projects. It has a time horizon of 10-15 years.
Contents |
1. Procedure of the FTIP - Steps and Tasks
The formal procedure of the FTIP can be divided in eight steps and can be seen in Figure 1. The figure is based on different publications of the Ministry of Transport and presents a formal overview. The FTIP is the result of a decision and planning process, which will be described in the forthcoming paragraphs. The linear description is to simplify the outline, but in fact there are a lot of parallel processes and feedback loops. 1. After the official agreement of the preparation of a new FTIP, the first step for the Ministry of Transport is to commission studies for traffic forecast. Before the selection of consultants, the ministry is also responsible for settling the main issues and the boundaries for the studies.2. For the FTIP 2002 the preparation of three scenarios are replacing the forecast. These scenarios are related to different policy developments and the most likely is chosen as the basis for the transport infrastructure demand. While the basic valuation tools of the FTIP were developed in 1980, the current FTIP process contains the comprehensive modernisation of instruments and methods for the project valuation. 3. In the third step (Examination of the infrastructure / project announcement) the Länder, the German Railway Company (Deutsche Bahn AG; former Deutsche Bundesbahn) and different interest groups are involved for the first time in the current FTIP process. The existing network is evaluated considering gaps, bottlenecks and net optimisation. Afterwards, the Länder submitted proposals for roads while the Railway Company is responsible for railway projects. 4. Then the proposed projects were evaluated by the following four procedures:
* Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) macroeconomic evaluation
Ecological-risk-analysis (ERA) Urban development criteria
* Additional criteria
Ecological-risk-analysis and urban development criteria is only made for large projects (longer than a 10 km relation). 5. Based on the benefit-cost-ratio a priority list with the main projects is developed in the next step. The results of other analyses could lead to a gradation of the proposed infrastructure project. 6. During the consultation phase, an agreement is reached between the Ministry of Transport and the different Länder as well as an agreement with the other federal ministries. Some associations are allowed to give statements about the projects, but there was no direct public involvement. 7. The cabinet decide on the FTIP and develop drafts of the Transport Infrastructure Extension Acts.
8. The FTIP draft has to be confirmed by the parliament.
|
Step |
Activity |
Result |
Stakeholders |
|
1 |
Forecast of traffic development
|
Capacity of the traffic network |
Ministry of Transport Consultants |
|
2 |
Modernisation of valuation tools |
Ministry of Transport Consultants | |
|
3 |
Examination of the traffic network/ Project Proposals
|
Proposal for road and rail projects |
Länder Railway CompanyDeputies Ministry of Transport |
|
4 |
Valuation of projects Macroeconomic evaluation (cost-benefit-analysis)Ecological-risk-analysis (ERA)Urban development criteria Additional criteria |
Benefit-cost-ratioERA-results etc. |
Ministry of Transport Consultants |
|
5 |
Priority rating considering financial planning |
FTIP draft |
Ministry of Transport |
|
6 |
Consultation
|
Cabinet draft |
Ministry of Transport
|
|
7 |
Decision of government (cabinet) |
FTIP Draft of Demand Plans |
Cabinet Executive branch |
|
8 |
Legislation Up to the announcement of the development acts |
Transport Infrastructure Extension Acts (FernStrAbG; SchWAbG) |
Parliament (Bundestag) Länder Parliament (Bundesrat) Legislative branch |
Source: adapted from Bundesministerium für Verkehr
Figure 1: Steps in Federal Traffic Infrastructure Planning
2. Environmental Impacts of the FTIP
Transport infrastructure facilities have immense environmental impacts. Beside the direct impacts like visual impacts on landscape and separation effects on ecosystems and human settlements, the use of transport infrastructure causes additional problems. There are harmful emissions from motor vehicles and trains like CO or NOx. But also noise and climate change gases like CO2 are an important problem. In Germany, 21 percent of total CO2-emissions are caused by transport.
Related to the FTIP the large projects in the east of Germany may change driving and living conditions of the people, while in main parts of the former West-Germany the transport infrastructure has been already established since the 70s. Based on these facts, it is to assume that the induced effects of transport infrastructure are higher in the eastern part than the western one of Germany.
Noise emissions are another environmental impact linked to transport infrastructure. Within this field, projects can also change the local situation dramatically. Direct effects through road construction measures have the same consequence, even if they are fixed for a restricted period of time.
3. SEA in the FTIP process
Different studies have proven (Wagner et al. 1995, Schaefer 2001), that an integration of the SEA in a FTIP process is generally possible. The following figure presents a developed option, how to integrate the different SEA steps in the FTIP process.
Figure 3 Proposed integration of SEA in the FTIP
Without getting into detail, some summarised comments will be given. It has to be stated that this flow chart is just an orientation for a real process, which is more likely incremental.
First of all, besides the presented FTIP process, it is necessary to define the beginning of the process earlier (before step 1) with a screening on the major tasks of the FTIP.
The next step, defining the objectives (e.g. minimising emission of greenhouse gases, minimising pollution of fresh and marine surfaces waters and groundwater, enhancing natural and built resources, avoidance of exposure to levels which endangers health), should take place by recognising the scoping.
The environmental report has to be integrated by defining the objectives of the FTIP. Furthermore, the results of the report should be considered in developing the forecasts/scenarios.
The Impact Assessment, in which especially the cumulative and synergetic effects get into account, and the following consultation and consideration has to be implemented into the existing valuation of the projects and, of course, in the FTIP draft. Following this procedure, a broad range of environmental effects could be taken into account before the plan gets into legislation.
A continuous monitoring should take place to consider the effects of the further development of the transport infrastructure and take new information into account.
Additionally, public participation has to be in place during the whole process in various forms (involvement of NGOs, interests groups, effected inhabitants) depending on the level of abstraction of the discussion.
4. Environmental relevant decision in the FTIP proces
Besides the presented option for integrating SEA in transport infrastructure planning, the following paragraphs try to widen the SEA concept by focussing on the decision-making-process. It will indicate that by identifying environmental relevant decisions in the decision-making-process, the evaluation of the process itself could have an added value for the SEA. The presented results are exemplary findings for a valuation of the decision-making process and should be recognise in the future development of the FTIP process.The following table 2 presents some selected environmental relevant decisions according to the FTIP process (figure 1). Starting the description with the target formulation (step 0) enlarges these steps of the FTIP description of the formal description by the Ministry of Transport (figure 1).
The identified environmental decisions are the result of an analysis of relevant documents as well as of expert interviews with main stakeholders.
Table 2: Environmental relevant decisions in the FTIP process
|
Steps of the FTIP |
Environmental relevant decisions |
|
Procedures and involvement of stakeholders Integration of environmental effects |
|
Choice of basis scenario |
|
Inputs to CBA / ERA |
|
Interdependencies between proposed rail and road projects |
|
Actualisation of data, viability, significance |
|
Relation of different valuation tools in the priority ranking |
|
Co-operation with the environmental authorities |
|
Consideration of valuation results |
|
Considering evaluation results Participation of the Committee of Environment |
The following paragraphs cover a choice of examples for environmental relevant decisions, which are summarised in the table above. The step number of the FTIP and the relevant decision are chosen as headings for the explanations.
(0) Procedures and involvement of stakeholders/ Integration of environmental effects
According to step 0, it is crucial to decide, how the process will look like and who are the main participants. For example, there is no regulation at the moment that the Ministry of Environment is not allowed to take part in setting the targets for the FTIP, but in fact the department is not involved yet.
(1) Choice of basis scenario
An important environmental decision in this step is the choice between the different scenarios, which form the basis for the definition of transport demand for the whole network as well as for single projects. Furthermore, the decision was not made, to establish links between infrastructure construction and general transport policy options. This is a decision that is highly relevant for the environment. Even this could be regulated by scoping, that environmental effects were recognised in the development of the scenarios, also the decision itself, which scenario is chosen is relevant.
(2) Inputs in the CBA / Inputs to ERA
The incorporation of environmental values by CBA in Germany and the ecological-risk-analysis is developed and carried out by scientific institutes. Within the CBA, environmental aspects of transport infrastructure like noise and separation effects of roads are 'hidden' in an analysis of the state of the economy carried out for each project. Therefore environmental values are not separately discussed in the decision-making process. Another important decision is the weighting of the cost factors for travel-time, noise reduction (e.g. in the FTIP 1992 the costs for noise protection windows were set as benefit from road construction in the outskirts as relief-effects for main roads in small towns) etc. The benefit-cost-ratio, which is the basis for the priority ranking, depends on these decisions.
The ecological-risk-analysis focuses on the impacts similar to the ones of project EIA. The decisions carried out within this instrument are much easier to understand than in the CBA because there is no need to weight different factors. Nevertheless the decision of which nature conservation areas are considered and the form of the final output are examples for important sub-decisions.
(5) Relation of different valuation tools in the priority ranking
The ERA is a tool that already in 1992 incorporated most of the environmental impacts. The relation and the relevance according to the other valuation tools of the FTIP are vague. The macroeconomic evaluation (CBA) is the central element of the priority ranking as well as the decision whether a project is financed or not. The findings of the ERA are presented in addition to the benefit-cost-ratio. If major environmental impacts are found, the relation to the benefit-cost-ratio is not defined and lead to in-transparent decisions. Thus, it is important to assess the arguments how the final decision is taken rather additionally to the question which instrument is used.
(6) Co-operation with the environmental authorities
The form of co-operation between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Environment or the Federal Environmental Agency (FEA) can be stated as an important environmental relevant decision. The decision whether the FEA has the chance to discuss alternative evaluation procedures in the beginning of the planning process (FTIP 2002) or has the right to comment the first draft of the FTIP (FTIP 1992) will be relevant for the final output. The participation itself is one part of the SEA, but it has to be assessed which kind of influence the participation could have at each step in the DMP.
(7/8) Considering evaluation results
The evaluation results will be considered by the Federal Parliament who finally decides upon the FTIP. The findings hidden in the CBA and the project tables of the ERA are not discussed in the final step. These examples provide a range of examples in the FTIP process, that besides using different instruments for environmental valuation, it is crucial to recognise the whole process. Following this argument, the SEA should start with an identification of environmental related decisions.
5. Criteria for Process Evaluation
The FTIP case study has shown that there would be an added value for a future SEA to assess the decision-making-process. There should be some general criteria for such an evaluation. The following enumeration provides an open list of criteria for valuation of a DMP.
Organisation Agreeing at the beginning of the plan or programme on the main targets
Developing a monitoring process at each step of the process
Make sure, that all effected institutions are integrated in the process as soon as possible
Designing a process where it is possible at every stage to revise it
Taking experience of different consultants and experts in the process
Negotiation Participant parties/stakeholders should have the same information basis
The output of negotiation processes should be transparent
Participation Involvement of the interested and effected institutions, governmental bodies and the public should be defined at the beginning of the process
All information should be available for the public
Consideration/integration of information Taking induced, synergetic, cumulative effects into account by evaluating the effects
Ensuring an appropriate environmental assessment of all strategic decisions
Methods Choosing the most state-of-the art methods and developing results, which could be revisable
Opening the database to the scientific community and the interested public
6. Summary: Integration of SEA in Transport Infrastructure Planning
The case study proves the opportunity to integrate SEA in a transport infrastructure programme by focussing on the decision-making process. Concentrating on the output of a process it is as important as to look at the whole decision-making process. Thus, there is still a need for the common measures like CBA, but it either crucial to focus on the question, if the necessary information enter the process at the right time.
The SEA instrument is flexible enough to get integrated on transport infrastructure planning in general. The case study shows one example of a possible integration, but it has to be clear, that, the flexibility is the advantage as well as the disadvantage of the instrument. That means, that even if there is a kind of framework, for every process there is still the need for a special design. Especially, if you would like to analyse the decision-making-process, too. There is still a need for developing and strengthening the existing instruments so that every case study and pilot will provide new knowledge and get further results. The EU-Directive provides a wide range of opportunities to develop SEA as a future important tool for a sustainable development.
