Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: KEY ISSUES EMERGING
FROM RECENT PRACTICE
Maria Roshrio Partidsirio
New University of Lisbon, Monte de Capbrica, Portugal
Introduction
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is emerging as a new form of
environmental assessment (EA). The term SEA represents a conventioned
way of identifying the formalized process of assessing, at the earliest possible
stage, the environmental impacts of decisions made at policy, planning, and
program levels. SEA looks at a range of possible alternatives in a way that
Address requestsfor reprints too:Maria Rosario Partidkrio, Assistant Professor, Department
of Sciences and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New University
of Lisbon, Quinta da Torre, 2825 Monte de Caparica, Portugal.
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1996;16:31-55
0 1996 Elsevier Science Inc.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0195-9255/1996/$15.00
SSDI 0195-9255(95)00106-9
32
is systematic and ensures full integration of relevant issues in the total environment including biophysical, economic, social, and political considerations.
The aims of SEA have long been acknowledged as necessary, but practice
is relatively recent and can be traced to the mid-1980s. Presently, SEA is
used as a fundamental approach in the process of improving EA performance
and as an invaluable tool in the integration of environmental concerns in the
decision-making process and in the moving trend toward sustainability goals.
Considerable work has been done in this area, somehow enclosing diverse
perspectives and approaches, yet not bringing consensus to an accepted concept of SEA (Bregha et al. 1990; Holtz 1991; Therivel et al. 1992; Wood and
Djeddour 1992; Partidario 1993; Sadler 1994; Goodland and Tillman 1995).
A research project was undertaken to analyze the key issues that should
be considered in the practical implementation of SEA systems. Research
findings demonstrated that not many countries are actually using SEA. But
despite few examples, evidence exists as to the kind of mechanisms in place
and the results experienced with initial practical applications, which form an
important resource of documented learning material from which many lessons
can be drawn. Findings on the rationale behind the adoption of SEA systems,
existing approaches, and barriers to its implementation provided the background for the identification of a number of key issues in SEA and the
development of recommendations for practical consideration.
This articled presents the main results of the project. It briefly addresses
the research methodology, the terminology and concept of SEA adopted in
the project, and a synopsis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing SEA
systems before addressing the most relevant policy, institutional, and procedural issues, and practical recommendations. These are hereby offered as
guidance based on recent practice.
Research Methodology
PRACTICE
33
34
??
EA of strategic actions - all government actions at a higher level of organization than theconstruction project including policies, plans, and programs
and nonbinding guidelines (European Union Commission 1994)
The consideration of environmental impacts of policies, plans, and programs applied to higher levels of decision-making with the object of
35
PRACTICE
Indicator of
Environmental
Integration
Integrated
decision-making
FIGURE 1. Contribution of SEA to achieve full integrated decision-making. a, environmental assessment (strategic); b, process of integration of environmental issues
in decision-making (policies, plans, programs); c, integrated decision-making; t, time.
attaining ecologically
wealth EPA 1994)
sustainable
development
(Australia,
Common-
36
??
??
Development steps are more clear and transparent in project EA, whereas
they are more implicit in planning.
Multidisciplinarity involved in a projects EA team is often more varied
then in a planning team, and public consultation has been more effective.
Projects EA shows impacts before decision is reached; it informs the
decision. To really influence the decisions, project EA should be more
integrated in the development process. The plan is often the decision
itself: it gradually develops toward the decision. It may specify and
explain the choices made and the changes foreseen, but it is not its main
aim.
??
FROM
RECENT
PRACTICE
37
Project EA uses the no-action alternative to show the changes and impacts
without the project, which often justifies the project per se. Plans do
not contain a no-action alternative and do not predict what the future
would be if the plan was not implemented.
38
TABLE 1.
Canada (federal)
USA (federal)
Netherlands
Britain
Denmark
Sweden
Norway, Finland
Germany, France
New Zealand
Australia (federal)
to SEA
Application
Procedure
Policies and
Programs
to Cabinet
Programs
Plans
Programs
Plans
Policies
Discretionary
No guide
PEIS
Project EIA
EIA
Project EIA
Other govt
proposals
Programs
Plans
Policies
Programs
Plans
E-TEST
Checklists
SD criteria
Checklists/Matrices
Consistency analysis
Economic approach
Bills and
other govt
proposals
Programs
Plans
Policies
Programs
Plans
Policies
Programs
Plans
Policies
Programs
Plans
Policies
Programs
Plans
Policies
SEA
Checklist
SD criteria
Planning
EIA
Experts
Checklists/Matrices
Planning
EIA
No guide
EIA
No guide
RMA
No guide
EIA
No guide
Guide
Methodology
Planning
EIA
applies to actions that take place earlier in the decision-making process, often
policy-makers and planning decision-makers are not able to disclose the
necessary information or to create open discussion opportunities required
by the flexibility and participatory principles of EA. However, a certain
degree of influence by interest groups through critical analysis and political
pressure is necessary to ensure collective responsibility in the development and
adoption of policies that aim to be environmentally sound and sustainable.
Questions of confidentiality and constitutionality may also arise, determining
39
PRACTICE
of SEA
severe constraints to an open and accountable assessment and decisionmaking processes. This raises quite complicated constraints to effective SEA,
sometimes even in more open political systems.
Implementation of SEA depends on effective political will. Each political
and organizational culture will have to develop the necessary administrative
and institutional mechanisms to carry out an SEA system and find the most
appropriate ways to ensure a certain degree of accountability of policy,
planning, and program proposals, including those that are considered politically sensitive. Greater difficulties, however, are expected where more closed
and rigid political systems do not adopt EA systems or allow public scrutinity
as natural components in the decision-making process. In these cases, there
may be no procedural or technical mechanisms that can replace political
accountability and effective and flexible institutional frameworks.
Key Issues in SEA
This section focuses on a number of relevant issues that result from a review
of the international experience with SEA (Partidario 1994a), a synopsis of
which was provided in the previous section. Practical, rather than conceptual,
issues are emphasized, considering the experience in other countries and the
various degrees of successes and difficulties that have been encountered.
For the purpose of this article, the proposed issues are organized in three
main categories:
1. Policy framework, hereby understood as the overall policy context
within which SEA is evolving, providing the rationale for the development of an SEA system, and defining its major goals, principles, and
objectives.
2. Institutional, referring to the organizational and regulatory contexts
required to develop and implement an SEA system.
40
MARIAROS~RIOPARTIDP;RIO
SEA REQUIRESOPENANDACCOUNTABLEPOLITICAL
??
Countries with open and flexible political and cultural structures are more
likely to have established conditions for the development of sound environmental policies and clearly identified environmental objectives. For example,
in New Zealand such conditions are believed to exist now with the new
devolved and flexible system created under the Resource Management Act
(Dixon and Fookes 1995). Problems of confidentiality and constitutionality
in policy assessment can arise, however, as in the cases of the United States
and Canada. The kind of mechanisms whereby the previous conditions for
effective SEA can be met, to the highest possible extent, will be a function
of countries specific political and economic systems.
SEA SHOUL.DBEUNDERTAKBNINTHECONTEXTOFNATIONALANDORINSTITUTIONALSUSTAINABILITYPOLICIESAND STRATEGIES. SEAis oftenreferredto
as
a tool that ensures policy-making takes account of sustainability principles
(Sadler 1994). SEA thus becomes a key element in the framework of an
environmental sustainability policy/strategy established at the federal or departmental/agency
level. Environmental sustainability policies will provide
the framework to measure the positive and negative impacts of the policy,
such that:
??
??
41
SEA:KEY ISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE
??
ACTION
PLANS
FOR
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
CAN
PROVIDE
SPECIFIC AND
RELATIONSHI~BETWEEN
IN DECISION-MAKING
AND
SEA
ESTABLISHMENT
ANDoTHER~OLICYINOF MECHANISMS
THAT
INTEGRATED
DECISION-MAKING.
42
MARIAROSzhRIOPARTIDARIO
FORANINSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK
DECISION-MAKING.
SEA: KEY
43
ISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE
??
??
ESTABLISHMENTOFINTERNALAND
EXTERNALORGANIZATIONALFRAMEWORKS
TI3ATWlLLENSUREACONTINUOUSFLOWANDINTERACTIONALONGTHEVARIOUS
characteristics
of
STAGES OF THE SEA PROCESS. One of the distinctive
SEA
as compared to project EA is the continuous nature of the process. According
to Holtz (1991, p. IO), the process of developing policy is neither predictable,
orderly, nor uniform, and it frequently is rushed. To be effective and responsive to the nature of policy-making, SEA must be an intrinsic element of the
policy-making process. Unlike project EA, which has been essentially reactive
to project initiatives, SEA must drive the creation of policies by informing,
rather than following, policy formulation.
Appropriate organizational structures, across and within departments/
agencies responsible for developing policies, must be established to allow the
pre-stages and follow-up to be addressed, such that analysis, integration,
and review of proposals are ensured. Steering committees, interdepartmental
committees, and stakeholder involvement are examples provided by existing
experience with SEA.
In Sweden, coordination is required among the Natural Resource Management Act, Planning and Building Act, and EIA procedures (Balfors 1994;
Lerman 1994). Requirements for the existing acts that rule the permittingapplication process are also to be coordinated, although emphasis is placed
on informal cooperation to reduce bureaucracy and costs. The participation
of county governmental boards in all procedures is the main coordination
mechanism.
An example of institutional internal organization and coordination is proposed by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Key
experts for different environmental areas are identified across various
branches, and they can provide expert assistance to desk officers with responsibility to undertake policy and program EA (CIDA 1993).
ASSIGNMENT
OFSPECIFIC
RESPONSIBILITIES
AND
ACCOUNTABILITYRELATIVELY
44
MARIAROSARIOPARTIDPiRIO
45
46
MARIAROSP;RIO
PARTIDARIO
fully recognized. Rather than using SEA only to assess future environmental
implications, SEA can help shape new proposals on the basis of knowledge
on the environmental impacts that resulted from previous policies.
THE FOCUSOF SEA SHOULDBE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL
ELEMENTSOF POLICY
PROPOSALS.The focus of SEA should be on process, rather than on product.
Rather than the production of an SEA report, the key issue must be on
an iterative and continuous process that assists the ongoing policy-making
process, informing decision-makers of potential environmental impacts, and
providing rapid and objective responses when required. The report may be
a public information document, which accounts for the degree of political
commitment to ensure integrated decision-making and the investment into
a sustainable development trend. It also consists of an informative element
in the learning with experience process, whereby environmental concerns
built into new policies derive from a process of acknowledging the mismanaging effects of previous policies on the environment.
SEA should focus on the policy, planning, or program proposal goals,
objectives, principles, and policies and examine the relationships with sustainable development goals, relevant environmental aspects, environmental policy, and other sectoral policies. In SEA, it is fundamental to identify the
problem(s), the need(s), and the strategy contained in policies, programs, or
plans as key elements to be assessed. Although a more detailed assessment
of policy, plan, or program activities may be necessary, this should only be
done to facilitate the identification of those relevant impacts that lead to the
actual impacts of the overall proposal (cf., Nottingham Structure Plan in
the United Kingdom).
Some EAs of policy/plans have been conducted that focus on theimplementation activities of the policy/plan, without even questioning the policy/plan
environmental effects as a policy and strategy approach (e.g., EARP applied
to park management plans in Canada) (Canada, Canadian Parks Service
1992). In such cases, the policy is not being assessed, but only the program
or in some cases the activities per se.
In policy EA, it is essential that policy options are assessed and compared
in terms of potential environmental impacts. Once the various policy options
are identified, the different actions to implement the policy must be identified
for each option to provide the basis for assessment.
To WHATKINDOFINSTRUMENTS
SHOULDSEA APPLY? Policies can be general
or specific, stated or implicit, incremental or radical, indepehdent or an
element of other policies (Bregha et al. 1990). The more specific, stated, and
independent a policy is, the more objective and easy it becomes for SEA.
However, implicit policies may represent greater risks as lead time from
formulation to implementation is too short to allow prudent consideration
SEA:KEYISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE
47
48
Further in this tiering system is the need to ensure the linkage of policy
formulation and policy implementation, through the subsequent steps in the
tiering decision-making process (toward programs and projects) as policy
implementation can be different from original intentions.
A key principle of EA is that it should provide
sufficient information that will assist sound environmental decision-making.
Given the complexity and continuous nature of policy-making and the difficulty in identifying the relevant issues to be considered in the assessment, a
flexible approach is required to enable SEA to be integrated in the formulation
of proposals. One means of doing this is by asking the right questions during
policy formulation, review, and implementation stages. This approach has
been suggested in different national contexts, such as in the Dutch Environmental test, Danish guide for SEA of government policy proposals, and
Canadian CIDA guide for policy and program EA. Such an approach may
help to ensure that policy options are not inconsistent with environmental
sustainability.
ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
THE SCOPE OF
SEA
TO BE ABLE
must
the necessary
scope in
comparing
the identification
equally
valid
options
Environmental
and assessment
at a strategic
assess-
of policy options.
level. Examples
if adequately
SEA:KEYISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE
49
conducted (e.g., Australian Resource Assessment Commission Timber Inquiry, Agriculture Canada EA of Amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex Reconfiguration PEIS).
The selection of policy options must be done on the basis of wide-ranging
and sustainability criteria:
1. those that may have potential negative effects on the environment;
2. those that are relevant to the achievement of sustainable development;
in terms of:
1. the potential positive and negative effects on the environment, including
the potential for cumulative impacts;
2. the relevance to achieve sustainability, including issues related to biodiversity and the environmental carrying capacity, social equity, and
economic efficiency.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTSHOULD
BEAFUNDAMENTALELEMENT
IN THEPROCESS
OF
DEVELOPGUIDANCETHAT'WILLSETSEAINMOTION.
Oneofthemaindifficulties
experiencedinmostcountriesinrelationtotheadoptionandoperationalizationof SEA is the lack of methodologies that specifically address SEA require-
50
MARIAROS~RIOPARTIDPiRIO
ity, environmental
. Matrices (compatibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
??
??
introduce manuals
exchange information
between ministries
Recommendations
??
whereby:
??
framework:
??
at the ministries
52
??
3. Develop the necessary regulatory framework that will ensure that SEA
principles, methods, and procedures are consistently applied in a clear
and effective way.
Procedural
??
use methods that help to facilitate the process and ensure flexibility
and adaptiveness;
53
??
that:
This research project was developed as a collaborative initiative involving the NATO Fellowship
Program and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The author acknowledges the
sponsors of this research project, as well as all the SEA professionals in various countries and
international organizations that have contributed so significantly by providing information on
recent literature and national documentation on countries efforts to implement SEA systems.
Further acknowledgments are due to Professor Christopher Wood, at Manchester University,
United Kingdom, for his useful comments on a previous draft of this article.
References
Commonwealth
Environment
Protection Agency. 1994. Review of Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment-Assessment
of Cumulative ImpactsandStrategicAssessment
in EnvironmentalImpact Assessment.Environmen-
Australia,
tal Protection
Agency,
Barton,
Australia.
Balfors, B. 1994. EIA and a General Plan in Sweden: A Case Study. Paper presented
to Nordic EIA Effectiveness Workshop,
Tuusula, Finland. (non-published)
F. 1990. Report on the Workshop on Strengthening the Environmental
Assessment ofpolicy. Report prepared fortheCanadianEnvironmenta1 Assessment
Bregha,
Research
Council,
Ottawa,
Canada.
CanadianParks
LGL Limited
Service, OntarioRegion.
Assessment
Research
Associates,
Ottawa,
Canada.
Federal Environmental
Assessment
Review Office (FEARO).
1993. The
Environmental Assessment Process for Policy and Program Proposals, Hull, Qu&
Canada,
bet, Canada.
Project de SociCtC. 1994. Towards a National SustainabIe DeveIopment
Strategy for Canada- Canadian Choices for Transitions to Sustainability, vol. 5,
Canada,
Ottawa,
Canada.
54
DC:
SEA:
KEY
ISSUES
FROM
RECENT
PRACTICE
55
tal Paragraph for National Government Policy Proposals. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Netherlands, General Environmental Policy Division, Directorate for General Policy
Affairs. 1992. NEPP Action Point A 141-Strategy and Progress. The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Partidario, M.R. 1993. Anticipation in environmental assessment: Recent trends at
the policy and planning levels. Impact Assessment 1l( 1):27 - 44.
Partidario, M.R. 1994a. Key Issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Final
report (unpublished), NATO/FEAR0
research project, Ottawa, Canada.
Partidario, M.R. 1994b. An Annotated Bibliography on Strategic Environmental
Assessment, Final report (unpublished), NATO/FEAR0 research project, Ottawa,
Canada.
Partidario, M.R. 1995. The contribution of strategic environmental assessment in
technology development. Paper offered to the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Knowledge, Technology Transfer and Forecasting, Budapest, Hungary,
October 12-14.
Partidario, M.R. 1996. SEAregulationsandguidelinesworldwide.
InSEA-Learning
from Practice, R. Therivel and M.R. Partidario (eds). London: Earthscan (in press).
Sadler, B. 1994. Environmental assessment and development policy-making. In Environmental Assessment and Development-An
ZAZA- World Bank Symposium, R.
Goodland and V. Edmundson (eds). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heany, D., and Pritchard, D. 1992. Strategic
Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan.
Therivel, R., and Partidario,
Earthscan (in press).