Saarland's "Environment" regional development plan coordinates the supra-locally relevant land requirements. As a result of this coordination role, the plan defines priority areas for the protection of open countryside and natural resources, as well as for the spatial distribution of all the land uses and functions. The provisions on the spatial distribution of traffic and ad hoc infrastructure are also an integral part of the "Environment" regional development plan also . The provisions are defined in the form of binding goals and can be anchored both in writing and in graphic form in the regional development plan. The "Environment" regional development plan provides for balanced spatial development, planning for sustainable development of the environment whilst also factoring in the economic aspects.
The environmental powers of the state authorities and the local authorities respectively are determined, in this article, on the basis of a choice of the main treaties and international declarations. These texts are the result of bilateral or multilateral negotiations and constitute a compromise between the different positions of the States, the only subjects in international law. In this respect, States are more or less inclined to allow the local level to participate in the implementation of the international environmental instruments that they sign. The term "local" can be used to refer to all the relevant territorial levels situated below State level.
As for the notion of "national/state authority", it can be used to refer to central government or decentralised bodies. Finally, the term "local authority", a generic term defined by its opposition to the authorities of the sovereign State, is inspired by the practice of the Council of Europe's European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation and refers at once to territorial authorities of the French type, regional entities with legislative powers, federated entities and "local authorities" of the type found in English-speaking countries. Of course we also find that the traditional position of international law has survived, that is to say that state authorities have a monopoly on implementing the treaty as they see fit.
