Coupling EIA and SEA of large urban infrastructures: the Liege-Guillemins case study

Transcription

1 Coupling EIA and SEA of large urban infrastructures: the Liege-Guillemins case study V. Cremasco 1, 2, C. Ruelle 1, J.Teller 1 1 LEMA (Laboratory of architectural and urban methodology), University of Liège, Belgium ; veronica.cremasco@ulg.ac.be; cruelle@lema.ulg.ac.be ; jacques.teller@ulg.ac.be 2 aspirant F.N.R.S. (Belgian national funds for scientific research), Belgium; Abstract The construction of a new "TGV" station in the city centre of Liège (Belgium) raises up interesting questions with regard to an impact assessment of a large urban infrastructure. The functional and architectural characteristics of the station have been deliberately designed so that the building becomes a significant pole of the city. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has then been carried out to analyse the effects of this project upon the neighbourhood district. The framework of an EIA forces to focus on the sole local impacts of the project. This approach appears to be too restrictive given the significance of the station for the city at large. The project actually deals with different strategic levels and contributes to larger social, environmental and economical objectives. This paper will briefly discuss the complex issues raised by such an Urban Master Project and especially review the assessment performed at the occasion of the planning permission. The possible benefits of performing a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for this type of urban infrastructure will also be considered. Keywords Environmental Assessment; urban infrastructure; station; sustainable development; methodology. 1 A large urban infrastructure landing in Liege city centre 1.1 Introduction to the new station project The fast speed railways network is progressively developing in Belgium. On the section linking Brussels to Cologne, it was decided to make a stop in Liège and enter the city centre at the Guillemins station. The old, narrow station - the only example of modern architecture in the neighbourhood - will therefore be replaced by a brand new ambitious one. The SNCB (Belgian railways company) is the developer of the station and rail tracks and is ready to finance a nonstandard equipment intended to become a major pole of the inner city. A call for tender was published in May 1996, in the Official Journal of European Commission, for selecting the architect of the project. According to the call, this architect would mainly be responsible for designing the volumes and aesthetic appearance of the future Liège- Guillemins station. The internationally famous architect Santiago Calatrava was selected to achieve this task. He then rapidly developed a fascinating stand-alone sketch for his work of art, which gained an immediate support by the SNCB and some of the local experts. It still deserves to be mentioned that this initial sketch was designed without any prior specification or reflection by the competent authorities. 1.2 "Reactive planning" When the decision came to locate the TGV station at the Guillemins, the Local Authority initiated a plan for the whole Guillemins district. This plan was presented as aimed at steering the station project but in practice, it was greatly influenced by successive decisions affecting the -1-

2 station project, as for instance the unilateral decision of SNCB to shift the future station 150 meters from its existing position, or the morphology of the station proposed by Calatrava. This plan hence appears as a mere consequence of decisions taken about the TGV station project rather than as a form of pro-active thinking about the place of the station project within the development of the city. The station project would still have amply justified such a pro-active, strategic approach, especially given the overall size of the station and the context in which it is inserted. Model for the new Guillemins station in Liège (Be) by Santiago Calatrava Pictures of the building site. The vault will be 40m at its highest point, the total infrastructure is about 160m large and 200m long 1.3 The necessary adaptation of the environment This building will take place in an underprivileged neighbourhood: important derelict land -due to unfortunate development projects!-, brothels developed along the railways, lot of houses cut into small flats for students, etc. Despite its dereliction, the urban fabric is still characterised by a remarkable homogeneity and character, due to the fact that it mainly developed in a very short time period, at the end of the XIXth century. Even though it is not acknowledged by any form of legal protection nor designation, the area should thus be considered as a genuine heritage resource. Furthermore, as a new point on the international railway network, the Guillemins station has very large ambitions and its influence has also to be seen at various other scales. Such an infrastructure will require numerous changes from a deep reorganisation of the neighbourhood to the adaptation of the all city centre and urban agglomeration. All this amply justifies performing assessments of the effects on the environment during the preparation of the project. The present article will review the Environmental Assessment performed in this case. It will then discuss the possible benefits of performing a Strategic Environmental Assessment for this type of large urban infrastructures. Our analysis is based on qualitative interviews of the different stakeholders involved in the project and in the local plan prepared by local authorities. The survey group hence included the developer of the station, the architect of the place, the author of the EIA and various administration officials. In order to address the strategic challenges raised by such a project and the rationale of coupling EIA with SEA, we also interviewed local political decision-makers, neighbourhood committees and pressure groups (associations of retailers or pro-cycle groups for instance). Finally some direct interviews with local residents and train users have also been realised so as to convey a broader scope and avoid a bias towards the views of constituted committees. 2 Some contradictions between the EIA performed and the initial spirit of the directive Regarding the procedure followed in this Guillemins station case, we could identify some aspects that seem to be in contradiction with the spirit of the Environmental Impact Assessment directive (CEC, 1985). 2.1 Non-legally obligatory? At that time, according to the Wallonian legislation, it was not legally mandatory to perform an Environmental Assessment of the Guillemins TGV station. When SNCB submitted the request for development consent, the competent authority still decided to require an EIA. This already raises the question of whether this kind of big infrastructure should not systematically be subject to an Environmental Assessment. Actually, the implementation of the EU Directive in Wallonian legislation is still partial. It doesn t mention some of the Annex III criteria, related to -2-

3 the project's location, to be used when deciding whether an EIA is necessary or not (SUIT, 2001): (e) areas classified or protected under Member States legislation, (g) densely populated area, (h) landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. It has also to be noted that in the annex III list of criteria, appear characteristics of the potential impact: the extent of the impact (geographical area and size of the affected population; ; the magnitude and complexity of the impact ; the probability of the impact ; the duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact. 2.2 The relevant stage to perform it? The project was finalised and approved before the strategic plan aimed at steering the project. This procedure doesn t respect the tiered and integrated hierarchy of decision levels promoted by the EIA and SEA directives. One of the consequences of this approach was that the strategic decisions around the TGV station project, basically taken by the developer, were recurrently questioned by the public, who considers that they are the most damaging for the Guillemins district. The EIA was performed on a project for which a request for development consent had been introduced. This somehow prevented the developer of the project from fulfilling one of the requirements of the EIA directive, which is the consideration of alternatives. A project is far too complete and definitive at this stage, and many decisions are already irreversible because of the financial, technical and negotiation efforts already invested in the setting up of the dossier. It is impossible to truly question the project by considering alternatives at this stage. In addition, comparing a sketched alternative with a finalised project is not rigorous. By definition, comparisons are only possible between alternatives equally developed. The EIA directive unfortunately doesn t specify when, during the project development process, the EIA must be undertaken. It just states that it has to be performed before consent is given. Still the Directive mentions the need to take effects on the environment into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and decision-making processes (CEC, 1985). The assessment of the Guillemins station did not really comply with this point. 2.3 What about the pillar principles of EU Environmental Policy? As the EIA was performed when the main project options were not anymore questionable, the environment of the station has been considered as a mere context to be adapted to the project rather than the opposite. Listed monuments were the only few elements that were considered as resources to be preserved. The location of the station and its size were finally used to recommend the creation of a big triangular place in front of it - more appropriate to the station - requiring the expropriation and demolition of about 50 houses. The creation of this open space was mainly taken in charge by the public authorities in place of the developer. It does not comply with the precautionary principle, and the principle that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that polluters should pay (art. 130r(2) of the Treaty). New local plan for the Guillemins district, approved in What about public participation? Public participation was not as effective as required in the EU Directive. Even though many meetings with neighbourhood committees were organised, the public concerned was very confused with the different consultation procedures. Quite normally, they were not aware of the proper procedure of public participation and often mistake informal consultations for formal ones. Furthermore, it has been reported, during personal interviews that the choice offered to the public - accepting the station like it was proposed or renouncing to have a TGV station in Liège - was perceived as a dilemma. It did not allow a fair and open participation to the debate (SUIT, 2002). Moreover, neighbourhood committees and retailers' associations were the only ones regularly informed of the evolution of the project and local plans. Although usual in such -3-

4 development cases, this procedure lets apart a large part of the concerned local population, which is not really active in these groups such as short-term residents, students, or users of the station. Obviously a genuine participation of the public, as advocated by the Aarhus convention (UNECE, 1998), would have required a much more ambitious approach, given the complexity of the case. 3 Shouldn t this type of infrastructure be submitted to a strategic environmental impact? This building will have more strategic impacts than the sole due to the construction of such a large monument. The 3 key-domains of sustainability are concerned at different scales regarding the problem analysed. The following paragraph gives an idea of the possible strategic questions that should have been considered. They have been structured in domains but one could see this separation is artificial as the interconnections are numerous. 3.1 Social: Social questions should be raised up at different levels, with different scope. Regarding, for example, expropriations, the owners of the houses included in the station building area have been directly compensated by the developer, when the expropriations necessary to adjust the neighbourhood are mainly managed by the Local Authority and still uncertain. Even more, if the owners are satisfied with the financial issue, what about the various consequences for tenants who are an important part of the concerned population, already fragile, and yet not considered. Other more, if the new area is not designed for the purposes of previous inhabitants, they should be offered equivalent opportunities elsewhere. The acceptance of this "future symbol" of the city is another subject of concern. Some people already speak about a new XXIth century cathedral, but it is difficult to predict whether such an international standard will be effectively adopted by citizens. The impact of the project on local employment should be another point to think about as this kind of argument is usually used to justify the necessity to adapt the urban fabric to the new station. Still in absence of any evaluation, this point stands in the way of acceptance. 3.2 Environmental: The destruction of the surroundings of the old station as well as the re-building of the district will generate some environmental effects that should have been regarded in a wider sustainable way. For instance, the treatment and recycling of materials should have been considered, studies concerning raw materials should have been provided, etc. On another part, traffic density around the station will probably increase once it will be operating. Furthermore the local plan should also involve a reorganisation of a much larger part of the city. The cascading effects of such a reorganisation may be hard to predict, but accompanying measures should be considered by the local plan to avoid most damaging effects, like for instance, the further decline of some important axes. Another environmental aspect that has not been investigated even if it should fit in the EIA framework, is the nocturnal illumination of this enormous glass vault. Yet it should be of interest as floodlighting is now acknowledged to have a potential effect on natural ecosystems and as the station is actually situated at the bottom of the Cointe green hill. 3.3 Economic: Regarding the economic point of view, the consumption of such a huge transparent building is also a subject of concern, as the heating and air conditioning of the building may be impressive. Consumption but also maintenance costs should have been considered as they may outreach the company's financial capabilities in the future years. As already suggested, the economic future of the station is another central issue of the debate, given that one of the main rationale of the project is to insufflate a new dynamism to the -4-

5 declining local economy. Here again the lack of assessment and prediction impedes a real debate about a project which adverse effects are much easier to predict than its benefits. It thus seems to be very useful to enlarge the debate. Therefore, isn t an SEA more adapted to address such complex problem? 4 SEA versus EIA The SEA directive (2001/42/EC) addresses all strategic levels of decisions above the project, from the most strategic programmes to the most operational plans, the project level being addressed by the EIA directive. It recommends a tiered approach where assessments will be carried out at different levels of a hierarchy of plans and programmes. This approach is likely to improve the environmental quality of decisions taken at each level, and to increase their social acceptance, before going to the next step of reflection. Furthermore, according to an interpretative guidance (CEC, 2003) developed by a group of experts from Member States and the Commission, to be used as a reference document, programmes developed by utility companies should be subject to SEA, may they be public or privatised ones. The SEA directive stresses on the fact that Environmental Assessment should be used as a design tool instead of an ex post rapid control: Environmental Assessment is an important tool for integrating environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment in the Member States, because it ensures that such effects of implementing plans and programmes are taken into account during their preparation and before their adoption. It also clearly promotes sustainable development and explicitly requires to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake appropriate remedial action. This requirement supports an adaptive environmental management, and may be used to avoid rapid obsolescence of some plans and programmes by making them evolve, following the actual effects appearing in the environment. These constitute significant steps forward compared to the EIA directive and the way it may currently be applied. 5 Conclusions For this kind of urban infrastructure updating the equipment of our cities, making them evolving and changing face, we have to consider the impacts they are likely to produce on the dense urban environment -natural, human and built- in a more extensive way. The SEA procedure seems necessary and more appropriate than the sole EIA to address the range and complexity of effects. Before the architectural project itself, they raise more fundamental and strategic questions to be addressed on a transparent and objective basis. Even if such projects often appear as opportunities rather than the result of a tiered integrated decision-making process -as promoted by the SEA directive- the SEA procedure could provide the public authorities a useful framework to steer such a project. It would actually give necessary delays to manage a reflection. Scientific assessments would feed the negotiation. Public participation would be reinforced likely to improve the quality of decisions and their social acceptance. After all, actual project's effects would be monitored in order to provide feedback to decision-makers. Of course a balance has to be found between the weight of such study and the importance of the subjects questioned. Considering every field according to a standard format of procedure risks to be long and difficult as well as useless. It's why the screening and scoping stages are of primary importance and must enable a more deep, extensive and appropriate study of each selected subject. -5-

6 At last, this process has to be exploratory and evolutionary helping the definition of the problem itself all along the procedure. References UNECE, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Aarhus, Denmark, 25 June 1998 ( SUIT, Task 1.1a - Review of present European environmental policies involving the cultural heritage, A. Dupagne, J. Teller, C. Ruelle, December 2000, SUIT project, Program Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Key Action 4 : The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage, Theme : Foster Integration of Cultural Heritage in the Urban Setting. SUIT, Task 4.2 Internal report on the application of EIA to cultural heritage & Guillemins extended case study analysis, C. Ruelle, J. Teller, E. Vanderheyden, Y. Rogister, C. Zwetkoff, A. Bond and L. Langstaff, November 2002, SUIT project, Program Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Key Action 4 : The City of Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage, Theme : Foster Integration of Cultural Heritage in the Urban Setting. CEC, Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC CEC, Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. CEC, Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, Working group composed of European Commission and Member States experts, last version of 23 th September