Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Research Handbooks on Impact Assessment series) 1789909929, 9781789909920

Citation preview

HANDBOOK ON STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

RESEARCH HANDBOOKS ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT Series Editor: Frank Vanclay, University of Groningen, the Netherlands The objective of this series of Research Handbooks on Impact Assessment is to provide a critical assessment of the state-of-the-art in the research and thinking in the various fields of impact assessment, including environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, social impact assessment, health impact assessment, biodiversity assessment, cumulative impact assessment, and so on. The series will also consider the use of impact assessment across a variety of sectors, including agriculture, energy, forestry, mining and transport. The aim is to produce prestigious high quality works of lasting significance, offering a comprehensive overview of the research fields in question. With oversight from the Series Editor, Professor Frank Vanclay, a noted specialist in the field of impact assessment, the Research Handbooks comprise carefully commissioned chapters from leading academics and/ or reflexive practitioners selected by editors who are recognized leaders in their field. Taking a genuinely international and often transdisciplinary approach, the books in the series address current and sometimes controversial issues. Through clear analysis and lucid writing, these Research Handbooks are designed to shed light on contemporary issues and contribute to current debates. Offering unrivalled analysis and discussion, each Research Handbook will be an invaluable source of reference for an international audience of scholars, researchers and practitioners involved with the study and utilization of impact assessment. Titles in the series include: Handbook of Sustainability Assessment Edited by Angus Morrison-Saunders, Jenny Pope and Alan Bond Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment Edited by Claire A. Dunlop and Claudio M. Radaelli Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment Edited by Davide Geneletti Handbook on Human Rights Impact Assessment Edited by Nora Götzmann Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment Edited by Thomas B. Fischer and Ainhoa González

Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment Edited by

Thomas B. Fischer Environmental Assessment and Management Research Centre, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK and Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North West University, South Africa

Ainhoa González School of Geography, University College Dublin and Earth Institute, Ireland

RESEARCH HANDBOOKS ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Thomas B. Fischer and Ainhoa González 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2020952718 This book is available electronically in the Political Science and Public Policy subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781789909937

02

ISBN 978 1 78990 992 0 (cased) ISBN 978 1 78990 993 7 (eBook)

To Stephanie, Annelie, Moritz and Nicholas Traam vo viela schiena Denga Gemeinsam für Wahrheit und Zukunft

To Kieran, Irlah and Oihan Nere altxorrak … … izarretaraino eta buelta

Contents

List of contributorsx Foreword by Rob Verheemxix Prefacexxi Acknowledgementsxxiii PART I 1

Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment2 Thomas B. Fischer and Ainhoa González

PART II 2

INTRODUCTION

APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany Anke Rehhausen, Marie Hanusch and Thomas B. Fischer

3 Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment: UK practice as an example Samuel J. Hayes and Thomas B. Fischer

12

26

4

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment 41 Maria R. Partidário

5

Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action Naja Marot, Thomas B. Fischer, Olivier Sykes, Mojca Golobič, Tara Muthoora and Ainhoa González

6

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment Ainhoa González and Davide Geneletti

58

80

PART III ISSUES OF EFFECTIVENESS 7

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness Riki Thérivel and Ainhoa González

8

Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions? Reflections on its substantive effectiveness Thomas B. Fischer and Francois P. Retief

9

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries: examples from Asia David Annandale, Thomas B. Fischer, Marcelo Montaño, Caroline Purcell, Jonathan Coles and Thiri Aung vii

100

114

126

viii  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment PART IV PRACTICE SECTION 1 SECTORAL APPLICATIONS 10

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans Ainhoa González

142

11

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning Charlotta Faith-Ell and Thomas B. Fischer

164

12

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector Gesa Geißler, Marie Dahmen and Johann Köppel

182

13

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector Stephen Eric Mustow

203

SECTION 2 INTEGRATION THROUGH STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14

Integration through strategic environmental assessment: the case of health in English strategic planning Thomas B. Fischer, Tara Muthoora and Nicola Sworowski

15

Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment Paul Scott

235

16

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment Cian O’Mahony

248

17

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an integrating concept in a world of silos Roel Slootweg

220

266

SECTION 3 COUNTRY-SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 18

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia Tanya Burdett and Carolyn Cameron

284

19

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada Bram F. Noble

305

20

Towards advancing strategic environmental assessment practice: learning from experiences of eight European countries Sara Khoshkar, Kedar Uttam, Berit Balfors, Christina Hörnberg and Thomas B. Fischer

21

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand Richard Morgan and Nick Taylor

319

332

Contents  ix 22

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa: ‘The Road Not Taken’ Francois P. Retief, Carli Steenkamp and Reece C. Alberts

23

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species? 363 Marcelo Montaño, Ghislain Mwamba Tshibangu and Anne Caroline Malvestio

24

Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise Rodrigo Jiliberto H

374

25

Strategic environmental assessment in India: trends and prospects Urmila Jha-Thakur and Asha Rajvanshi

388

26

Addressing the spectrum of strategic environmental assessment potential: evolving practice in Thailand and its effectiveness 402 Chaunjit Chanchitpricha, Kanokporn Swangjang and Angus Morrison-Saunders

PART V 27

349

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions: towards a theory of strategic environmental assessment? Thomas B. Fischer and Ainhoa González

425

Index438

Contributors

Reece C. Alberts (PhD, M.Env. Man., Llm, Llb, Bcom) is a lecturer and researcher within the Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management at the North West University (NWU), South Africa. His research focuses on environmental law and policy implementation instruments. His publications deal with topics such as impact assessment, waste management, water resource management, climate change and biodiversity conservation. David Annandale (BSc(hons), MA. PhD) is an international environmental and social safeguards consultant, working with multi-lateral development agencies such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, FAO, IFAD, UN Women, Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNOPS, and UNICEF. He specialises in the design of environmental and social management frameworks, and undertakes EIA and SEA work in developing countries in Africa and Asia. For 13 years he was an academic at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, teaching EIA and environmental policy to undergraduate and postgraduate students. He has published over 25 refereed journal articles, and is based in Edinburgh. Thiri Aung (PhD) is a researcher at the Asia Center, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University. Her current project explores the impacts of natural resource extraction on ethnic armed conflicts, the environment and livelihoods in conflict-affected areas in Myanmar. Prior to joining Harvard, Thiri was a Post-doctoral Researcher at the School of Environment and Energy, Peking University, China. Her project explored the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI) with a particular focus on natural resource extraction and infrastructure development in the countries along the initiatives. She has published extensively on the EIA, LCIA, environmental economics, waste management, land use, land cover changes and environmental rights. Berit Balfors (PhD) is a professor in Environmental Impact Analysis at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. She is also the head of the Environmental Management and Assessment research group. Berit has been working within the field of environmental assessment for over 30 years. Berit’s research is directed towards the application of environmental assessment in planning and decision-making in relation to different fields, for example transport, land use and water management. Tanya Burdett has over 25 years’ experience in environmental assessment, planning and community engagement. Tanya has led on national level strategic environmental assessment in the UK in the transport, urban development and wastewater sectors, and has extensive program and project-level experience on various infrastructure programs, development approvals and strategic planning assignments throughout the UK and Asia-Pacific region. Tanya is a Registered Planner with the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), Environmental Impact Assessment Quality Mark Panel member for the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), and Licensed Trainer with the International Association for Public Participation. x

Contributors  xi Carolyn Cameron has over 40 years’ experience in environmental and strategic planning, working with the mining industry, universities, state and national governments in Australia. More recently Carolyn was a Senior Executive with the national government Department of Environment, leading teams to undertake strategic environmental assessments and regional sustainability planning across the country. Since 2015, she has been a senior consultant on complex environmental management projects, applying her skills in policy analysis, interpretation, stakeholder engagement and strategy development with state governments, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the National Food Waste Strategy. Chaunjit Chanchitpricha (PhD) is Assistant Professor in the School of Environmental Health, Institute of Public Health, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. To date, her expertise in research mostly focuses on developing framework for investigating the effectiveness of impact assessment (IA) processes (EIA, EHIA, HIA, SEA) as applied in decision-making towards sustainable development. She is also fascinated by the fields of sustainability assessment (SA), engagement of stakeholders in IA public participation, and the effectiveness of policy, programme, and planning. She also teaches students in environmental health programmes (for undergraduate level), and environmental pollution and safety programmes (for postgraduate level). Jonathan Coles (BA Hons) is a Masters student at the University of Liverpool studying environmental assessment and management. Formerly a geography student at Lancaster University, his past projects include an investigation into the socio-ecological resilience of informal settlements in Lagos and work with WSP regarding the proportionality of EIA scoping in England. His current research interests are broadly focused on the role of mitigation strategies proposed by EIA in planning. He is currently investigating uncertainty surrounding environmental mitigation strategies associated with housing developments in Shropshire, UK. Marie Dahmen (MSc Env. Planning) is a research assistant at the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency working in the field of strategic environmental assessments for offshore wind energy and maritime spatial planning. Since 2011, she has been involved in several research projects on the development of wind energy. The assessment of alternatives in SEAs in the energy sector was the focus of her master’s thesis. Charlotta Faith-Ell (PhD, MSc) is Associate Professor in Environmental Science at Mid-Sweden University. She is also Director of Research at WSP Civils in Sweden. Furthermore, Charlotta is co-owner of the Estonian Environment Institute (EKKI). She has been working within the field of environmental assessment for over 25 years. Her focus in both research and practice is on SEA and EIA in spatial planning with a strong emphasis on transport planning. Among other positions, she co-led the development and implementation of the Swedish planning system for transport and infrastructure. Also, she has developed the Swedish system for Gender Impact Assessment (GIA) in transport planning. Thomas B. Fischer (PhD, Dipl-Geogr, FIEMA, FHEA), has 30 years of international practical, research and training, as well as teaching experience in Impact Assessment, including SEA, EIA, Sustainability Assessment, Health in Impact Assessments and others. He is Professor and Head of the Environmental Assessment and Management Research Centre at the University of Liverpool (UK) as well as Director of the WHO collaborating Centre on Health in Impact Assessments. He is also an Extraordinary Professor at North-West University, South Africa and an Honorary Staff Member at Berlin Institute of Technology, Germany. Thomas has written and edited several books, and has published over 100 refereed journal articles and numerous book chapters, as well as other documents, including SEA guidance.

xii  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Gesa Geißler (PhD) is senior researcher and lecturer at the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group at the Berlin Institute of Technology (Technische Universität Berlin) and visiting fellow at the Environmental Assessment and Management Research Centre at the University of Liverpool. Gesa holds a PhD in environmental assessment in the context of renewable energy development in Germany and the USA. She is interested in the effectiveness of impact assessment, environmental mitigation, and planning tools in the context of current trends such as digitalization, energy system transformation and climate change. Davide Geneletti (PhD) is Associate Professor of Spatial Planning at the University of Trento. He has specialised in impact assessment of projects, plans and policies; ecosystem services and nature-based solutions; and multicriteria analysis. He was formerly Research Fellow at Harvard University’s Sustainability Science Program and Visiting Scholar at Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment. He has consulted for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-HABITAT, and the European Commission. He has published over 150 journal articles. He is deputy Editor-in-Chief of the open-access journal One Ecosystem. Mojca Golobič (PhD in landscape planning) has worked for 13 years as a researcher at the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. Since 2003 she has been affiliated with the University of Ljubljana, where she took a full-time lecturing position in 2010 and the role of head of the Department for Landscape Architecture in 2012. She was Fulbright visiting lecturer at Harvard Graduate School of Design (2003/04) and visiting lecturer at several universities in USA and Europe. Her research work focuses on methodological issues of environmental and land-use planning, strategic impact assessments and the relation between landscape and people. She has participated in various international and domestically funded projects in which she also took on the lead role several times. Ainhoa González (PhD, BScAg, MScERM, HDipEnvEng) has over 20 years of international experience as an environmental planner, and as a researcher and educator in SEA, EIA, Appropriate Assessment, environmental management and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). She is currently Associate Professor and Head of Teaching and Learning in the School of Geography, University College Dublin. She is the programme director of the MSc in Geospatial Data Analysis. She is a board member of the International Association for Impact Assessment UK–Ireland branch, of the Spanish Association for Impact Assessment, and of the Earth Institute. Ainhoa has written over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. She has also published several SEA, AA and GIS guidance manuals for the Irish Environmental Protection Agency. Rodrigo Jiliberto H is an economist (Hochschule für Ökonomie Bruno Leuchner Germany) and holds an MSc in Economic Development, FLACSO Ecuador. He is a senior International Consultant and currently professor of environmental public policy at the Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences of the University of Chile. He has 30 years of professional experience in strategic environmental assessment and analysis, environmental and sustainability policy formulation, and environmental economics. He has worked on the formulation of environmental and sustainable development policies, plans and programs in Spain, Europe and Latin America (Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Panama, Uruguay, Brazil and Salvador). He has written many papers related to his field of expertise in international refereed journals.

Contributors  xiii Marie Hanusch, (PhD, Dipl.-Ing.) co-owner of Bosch & Partner consultants, Germany, is a landscape planner and holds a PhD on SEA and monitoring. She has 20 years of practical, research and teaching experience in environmental assessment. Her focus is on SEA, EIA and Appropriate Assessment in spatial planning, transport, water management and renewable energies, and recently on developing methods for impact assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. Among other responsibilities, she co-leads a research study on the evaluation of SEA in Germany. Marie is Vice Chairperson of the German EIA Association and Chairperson of the SEA task force by the German EIA Association. She is also a lecturer in Environmental Assessment at the Leibniz University of Hanover. Samuel J. Hayes (PhD, FHEA) has over 10 years’ experience in environmental assessment and research. Through his work he has written about Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal, Health Impact Assessment, as well as other aspects of the environment, including flood risk and green infrastructure. He is Research Fellow in Urban Ecology at the University of Salford, Manchester. His current research spans environmental assessment and environmental planning, with interests in how we relate to, value, utilise and plan green spaces. Christina Hörnberg holds a PhD in law from Umeå University. She is the owner of the Environmental Law and Development Centre Sweden AB. She has a special expertise in the area of EIA and environmental law, e.g. EIA in road and railway building and pollution. Christina has several years of experience in environmental law matters, such as environmental permits in general, applications for wind power plans on land and offshore within Swedish EEZ, gas pipelines, nature reserve areas, Nature 2000 areas, and the handling of contaminations in soil and waters. Urmila Jha-Thakur (PhD, MBA, BA Geog Hons, FHEA), has 18 years of experience with environmental assessment (EA) through research and consultancy. Her research interest is primarily on planning and management of environmental sustainability and in exploring ways for making policies, plans, programmes and project developments more environmentally sustainable. She has worked on both EIA and SEA, with a focus on e.g. health, climate change, education, green infrastructure and learning. Urmila also looks into environmental sustainability within the business and urban context. She takes a special interest in developing and emerging economies. Urmila has been awarded thrice by IAIA for her work on EA and has been involved in training the expert committee members of the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change in India. Sara Khoshkar holds an MSc in Environmental Engineering/Sustainable Infrastructure and a PhD with specialization in environmental management and assessment from KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Her key research interests include EIA, SEA, ecosystem services and spatial planning. Since 2013, she has been involved in research projects, including SPEAK (Sustainable Planning Environmental Assessment Knowledge) and ISSUE (Integrating Sustainability Strategies in Urban Environments). She has over seven years of teaching experience in EIA and SEA courses at KTH.

xiv  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Johann Köppel (PhD) is a full professor at the Berlin Institute of Technology (Technische Universität Berlin) and head of the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group. His research is focused on the evaluation and development of environmental assessment and planning tools. Over the course of the last 20 years, the sustainable development of renewable energy sources has also been a particular research focus. Johann Köppel is a member of the German EIA Association Advisory Board. Cian O’Mahony (MSc) works in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Unit of the Irish Environmental Protection Agency. He has over 11 years of experience in reviewing and assessing plans and programmes falling under the remit of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) and is a member of the Irish National SEA Forum. Cian has contributed significantly to many of the SEA-related guidance notes and SEA resources published on the EPA’s website. Anne Caroline Malvestio (BEng; PhD) is Professor at the Federal University of Uberlândia (Brazil), where she teaches environmental management, Environmental Impact Assessment, environmental licensing and mitigation. Past publications have addressed Strategic Environmental Assessment in Brazil, focusing especially on SEA effectiveness and SEA applied to energy and transport sectors. Naja Marot (PhD, degree in Geography) has 10 years of experience in policy analysis and spatial planning research. At the Department of Landscape Architecture (University of Ljubljana) she teaches Tourism and Recreation, and Regional Planning. Her research focuses on (territorial) governance, policy analysis and impact assessments, regional and urban planning, territorial cohesion, degraded urban areas and post-mining regions, methods for regional planning and public participation. Her international experience includes guest research at the HCU Hamburg University (Germany), University of Michigan (USA), Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (Germany) and the University of Seville (Spain). Marcelo Montaño (BEng; PhD in Environmental Policy Instruments) is Professor at the Sao Carlos School of Engineering/University of Sao Paulo (Brazil) and Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Liverpool (2014–15). He has 22 years’ experience of teaching and training, research and practice of Impact Assessment (notably EIA and SEA) and Environmental Assessment and Management. He is currently coordinator of the Research Cluster in Environmental Policy of the Sao Carlos. He is also former President of the Brazilian Association for Impact Assessment (2012–14). Richard Morgan (PhD) was appointed Professor Emeritus on his retirement from the University of Otago in New Zealand in June 2019, where he had taught biogeography, soils, and environmental management, and developed a research specialism in impact assessment. He continues his long-standing interest in impact assessment theory and practice, through research, writing, and training activities. Past publications have addressed most forms of impact assessment, including strategic environmental assessment, as well as issues associated with institutionalization of impact assessment and conceptualizing best practice. A former President of IAIA, Richard is the current chair of the New Zealand Association for Impact Assessment (NZAIA). Angus Morrison-Saunders (PhD) is Professor in Environmental Management at Edith Cowan University, Australia; Extraordinary Professor in Environmental Sciences and Management at North West University, South Africa; and Fellow of the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, UK. He specialises in environmental impact assessment and its contribution to sustainable development. His teaching and research revolve around the

Contributors  xv translation of policies, legislation and administrative practices into environmental and/or sustainability behaviours and outcomes with a particular focus upon the role of impact assessment follow-up. Sustainable mining and tourism are also research interests. He is a long-term member of the International Association for Impact Assessment. Stephen Eric Mustow (PhD, FCIWEM, MCIEEM, CEnv), has 30 years of experience as an environmental consultant and researcher specialising in the water environment and environmental assessment, including SEA, Sustainability Appraisal, EIA, ESIA and Water Framework Directive Assessment. He is a Director of Golder Associates where he heads the Environmental Management team, which undertakes work in the UK and internationally in areas including impact assessment, environmental planning and environmental due diligence. He is also an Honorary Research Fellow at Liverpool University’s Department of Geography and Planning. Steve has written several refereed journal articles, covering topics including water impact assessment, water quality monitoring and aquatic ecology, as well as contributing to numerous other documents, such as SEA and EIA reports. Tara Muthoora (PhD, GradIEMA) is a research associate for the Environmental Assessment and Management Research Centre at the University of Liverpool. Her PhD is in Social and Environmental Impact Assessment following ten years as an Urban Regeneration practitioner for the public and NGO sectors. Recent research projects include Territorial Impact Assessment in the cross boundary area of Ireland and Northern Ireland, Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisals and the consideration of health in English strategic planning and Health Impact Assessment in English Town Planning. Bram F. Noble (PhD) is Professor in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada. He specializes in environmental assessment with a focus on cumulative effects and strategic assessment. He has served as an expert advisor on environmental assessment to numerous national and international panels and agencies, including the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Auditor General Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development. He is engaged in the practice of impact assessment and has worked as a consultant on a number of project and regional impact assessments from hydroelectric development to species reintroduction. Maria R. Partidário (PhD on SEA in 1992) has almost 40 years of international experience as an author, trainer and consultant in various fields of environmental planning, assessment and sustainability strategies. She has been a coordinator, process and methodology consultant in SEA in 80+ initiatives in 30+ countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. Maria is Associate Professor of the University of Lisbon, Portugal, and is also affiliated with the University of Aalborg, Denmark. Maria is the author of the methodology for strategic thinking for sustainability in SEA, available also as guidance in Portuguese, English and Spanish. Maria is also former President of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) and has received the IAIA2015 Lifetime Achievement Award for significant contribution to SEA theory, education, and practice, with notable international influence. Caroline Purcell (MSc, BSc, IEMA-Student) is a research assistant for the Environmental Assessment and Management Research Centre, University of Liverpool, UK. She has 16 years of practical experience with environmental assessment (EA) in consultancy, mainly with the offshore energy sector. She is currently completing an MSc, with a focus on assessing the quality of environmental assessment (EA) of the UK’s offshore wind, and the lessons that can be learned from the decommissioning of the oil and gas sector.

xvi  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Asha Rajvanshi (PhD) has over three decades of professional standing as a teacher, trainer, EIA practitioner and the reviewer of EIAs on behalf of the federal Government of India. She has played the lead role in developing and encouraging mainstreaming tools for integrating biodiversity in impact assessment and SEA in India and the region. She has created several knowledge products and learning platforms to promote EIA and SEA; published in refereed journal articles; and authored books, book chapters and guidance manuals including the SEA guidance manual. Asha has provided professional support in EIA and SEA initiatives led by UNEP, the World Bank, IUCN, IAIA, CBD, GIZ, and ADB. Asha is a recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award from IAIA. Anke Rehhausen (PhD) is an environmental planner at IPU GmbH, Germany, which is a consultancy for environmental and spatial planning. Her work is focused on environmental assessment including strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, impact mitigation and appropriate assessment. For several years, she worked at the Environmental Assessment and Planning Research Group at the Berlin Institute of Technology (Technische Universität Berlin). She holds a PhD in evaluation of strategic environmental assessment in Germany. Furthermore, she is a Board Member of the German EIA Association and Vice Chairperson of the SEA task force by the German EIA Association. Francois P. Retief (PhD, MEnvMan., MTRP) is a professor in environmental management within the Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management at the North West University (NWU), South Africa. He completed his PhD at the University of Manchester and served as the Director for the School for Geo and Spatial Sciences (NWU) as well as co-editor of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA). His main research interest is in the performance of environmental assessment as a policy instrument. He has contributed numerous publications in the field and has been awarded the ‘Outstanding Service to IAIA Award’ as well as the ‘IAIA Individual Award’ for his sustained contribution to the theory and practice of impact assessment at an international level. Paul Scott (CEcol, CEnv, MCIEEM) has over 20 years’ experience in ecological and environmental assessment including SEA, EIA and Appropriate (Habitats Directive) Assessment research, capacity-building and practical application in the UK and Ireland. A graduate of University of Liverpool and the University of Manchester, Paul was a research associate in the EIA Centre, University of Manchester before practising as a consultant ecologist in Ireland where he developed SEA and AA methodologies and guidance and managed an ecological consultancy for 15 years. He is currently Environmental Planning Manager in the EU and International Planning Regulation Unit in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in Ireland. He is on the network of European Union Member States EIA/SEA experts, Advisory Forum of the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management and has also presented at international workshops on AA and SEA. Roel Slootweg, co-owner of SevS Consultants in The Netherlands, is an ecologist with a PhD in environmental sciences. He supports governments, NGOs and companies in translating concepts of resilience and sustainability into day-to-day practice. His experience is particularly strong in biodiversity and ecosystem services, and water and wetland management. Scientific evidence, public participation and transparency are constant qualities in his work. Roel is lead author of the CBD Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and has published an academic text-

Contributors  xvii book and various papers on the subject. For this work he has received the lifetime achievement award of the International Association for Impact Assessment. Carli Steenkamp (MEnvMan., BArt et Scien), has 13 years of practical, research and teaching experience in environmental management. She is a lecturer at the Department of Geography and Environmental Management at the North-West University (NWU), South Africa, where she teaches impact assessment. She is currently completing her PhD studies, which focus on evaluating multiple dimensions of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) effectiveness. Her main research interest is in the performance of Impact Assessment. Kanokporn Swangjang is Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Sciences, Silpakorn University, Thailand. She started her career as an environmentalist in the Environmental Consultant Company in 1989 and has instructed in the field of Environmental Assessment at Silpakorn University since 1992. Between 1997 and 2000, she carried out her PhD research at the EIA Unit, Aberystwyth University, UK, under the supervision of Prof. Peter Wathern. Her research deals with the integration of environmental assessment in various aspects, such as urban planning, human settlement, carbon sequestration, ecosystem services, health and ecotourism. Nicola Sworowski is a Principal Consultant and a member of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) that sits within the Local Government Association. PAS supports Councils across England to help them deliver against national policy. Prior to PAS, Nicola worked in local government for around 16 years across three local planning authorities. She most recently managed a Local Authority Planning Policy Team and achieved the successful adoption of a two-part Local Plan, including internal resourcing of the Sustainability Appraisal. She also worked at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and on Local Plan interventions and on Judicial Review into Neighbourhood Planning. Finally, Nicola has written ministerial statements on strategic planning. Olivier Sykes (PhD, MCD) is an associate professor in European spatial planning at the University of Liverpool. He has researched, published, and taught extensively across the fields of European spatial planning, international planning studies, and comparative urban policy and regeneration. He is currently the director of research for the planning discipline at Liverpool and has held visiting fellowships and professorships at a number of other institutions. Olivier is the Editor in Chief of Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning and Policy and Practice Editor of Town Planning Review. He has worked on a range of research projects for the EU, national, regional, and local governments, and professional bodies. Nick Taylor has an academic background in applied sociology and environmental sciences, and has broad experience applying social research and impact assessment to projects, programmes, policy and plans in New Zealand and internationally. He was a founding director of Taylor Baines & Associates and is now an independent consultant, working on a number of strategic assessments including land and water plans, and regional economic development strategies. Nick authored the text Social Impact Assessment: Theory Process and Techniques and has led numerous courses based on this book. He is a senior adjunct of the University of Lincoln, where he teaches a postgraduate course in EIA and he is a past President of the IAIA.

xviii  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Riki Thérivel (PhD) is director of Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants and a visiting professor at Oxford Brookes University and University College Dublin. Riki has almost 30 years of experience of carrying out strategic environmental assessment (SEA), writing SEA guidance and books/articles about SEA, and teaching SEA internationally. She is particularly interested in how to improve SEA effectiveness. Ghislain Mwamba Tshibangu (PhD) is impact assessment officer at the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency. He has more than five years of experience in the analysis of scientific issues as well as in the writing and revision of scientific documents. Ghislain has contributed to several Strategic Environment Assessments in Canada by interpreting laws and regulations and providing recommendations to decision-makers based on impact assessment principles and practices. He has devoted most of his research to SEA in developing countries. Kedar Uttam is presently a postdoc at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. His key research interests include EIA, SEA, sustainable procurement and knowledge co-production. He holds a PhD from KTH with specialization in environmental management and assessment. His publications cover topics such as EIA and green procurement in the context of the construction sector. Since 2019, he has been involved in research focused on sustainability strategies in urban environments and knowledge co-production. He has over nine years of teaching experience in EIA and SEA courses at KTH. Kedar has worked at grassroots level with communities, environmentalists and NGOs in India, and was a Regional Associate at the Centre for Environment Education, India for the Global Environment Facility UNDP Small Grants Programme.

Foreword

Rob Verheem In 1987, the Brundtland Commission stated the importance of being able to consider the ecological dimensions of policy at the same time as economic and other dimensions, on the same agendas and in the same institutions. They described this ability as one of the chief institutional challenges of the 1990s. Only if we could manage to achieve this would we be able to choose policy paths that are sustainable. Clearly, by 2020 this challenge has not become less urgent. As discussed in the concluding chapter of this new SEA Handbook, we live in post-modern, or even post-factual, times where facts are only relative and emotions are as important as scientific evidence. Associated with this, we often still do not automatically base our decisions on everything that is important and easily neglect long-term environmental and social issues. From the late 1980s, SEA has been one of the responses to the Brundtland challenge, and probably one of the key responses with regard to tools based on legislation. It explains why, 30 years later, SEA is mandatory in all developed countries, many developing and transition countries and voluntarily used in even more countries. All in all, SEA is either required or mentioned in legislation in up to 100 countries worldwide, and counting. Over the last three decades, SEA has developed considerably in both width and depth, as evidenced clearly in this handbook. Originally seen mostly as a procedure helping us to be logical, rational and well informed, it is now commonly accepted that SEA should focus as much on creating transparency, dialogue and empowerment of vulnerable groups. SEA is about science and engineering, but as much about governance and politics. Not easy, clearly, but we are learning. For SEA to evolve further, its effectiveness is essential. It is costing time and money, so it should deliver. How to best do this will vary considerably from one context to another. While, for example, in some countries that lack clear decision-making processes, SEA can fill that gap, in countries with well-established planning processes SEA can act more as a ‘big stick’ that is held in reserve when needed. And while in Europe the focus of SEA is very much on environment and climate, in Africa, for example, it always includes social issues. Therefore, SEA should look different from one context to the other. Rather than ‘a procedure’ or ‘a specific approach’, SEA is considered a ‘toolkit’ or ‘a family of tools’. This fits well with the concept of ‘selection logic’ the authors of this book suggest as basis the of an SEA theory: a concept that would allow SEA practitioners to select the best methods, processes and strategies for a given application. ‘Selection logic’ as described in the book starts with establishing the scope and content of SEA. However, we need to start even earlier in order to make SEA effective. In the Netherlands Commission of Environmental Assessment we have learned that thinking about SEA starts before scoping. An effective SEA will only be possible if all key stakeholders believe it makes sense to do one, are willing to invest in it, work together, and share information as well as power where necessary. In other words, there is a ‘road’ towards SEA, and we also need methods and strategies for travelling that road.

xix

xx  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Finally, we have to be modest. The world is a complex place, shared by people with many views, values and beliefs. SEA can never be the whole puzzle. But it can be an essential corner piece, making the rest of the puzzle easier to complete. For this, SEA is one of the best toolkits around and SEA practitioners should never be modest about that! Rob Verheem Director International, Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, Visiting Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool

Preface

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice and conceptual thinking has come a long way since I completed my PhD on SEA in Spatial and Transport Planning in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany over 20 years ago. Over 95% of all papers in refereed journals have been published since then (see Chapter 1 of this book) and there is good reason to believe that in terms of practical experiences the equivalent number is even higher. The last decade alone has produced over half of all SEA publications and SEA is now a legal requirement in over 60 countries and literally all nations worldwide have had some experiences with its application. Whilst there is a limited number of dedicated SEA books available (fewer than 15), most of them are dated and the last book on international SEA refers back to experiences and practices from a decade ago, as discussed at the International Association for Impact Assessment’s (IAIA’s) SEA symposium in Prague in 2011. Considering that early publications focused mainly on pilot studies and theoretical aspects, not reflecting the extensive practical experiences now available, there is a dearth of material for both practitioners and researchers. It is therefore high time for a state-of-the-art Handbook on SEA by an authoritative authorship, providing an up-to-date overview of practice and conceptual thinking of this important decision support instrument. For many years, those involved in SEA were told by politicians, policymakers and administrators that it was too early to introduce comprehensive SEA requirements, in particular for strategies and policies, as existing knowledge was insufficient and pilot studies were all that was required for the time being. As this Handbook on SEA proves, by 2021, statements like these are clearly outdated. Considering the value that SEA can add to strategy formation, as well as to policy, plan and programme making and in view of the numerous serious global environmental and social challenges, we hope that this book can lead to a true SEA change in the way decisions are made, helping to produce sustainable outcomes. –Thomas B. Fischer I was introduced to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) theory and practice over two decades ago, by chance and fortune, and I immediately became fascinated by the breadth of issues it covers and tackles and, more so, by its potential to make more environmentally sound decisions. Many years of SEA practice and research experience, as well as an SEA-related PhD, have enabled me to confirm the opportunity it presents to enhance the environmental awareness of all involved, make more sustainable choices, and lessen the effects resulting from the inevitable imprint we are leaving on this precious world. SEA (and Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA) brings the environment to the forefront – where it belongs. It is the only socio-scientific tool we have to consider the environment as a whole, and to advocate its true and irreplaceable value when making economic, social and other developmental decisions. SEA is now routinely applied across planning hierarchies and sectors, and is increasingly embraced by those drafting and making decisions, as captured in this Handbook on SEA. The many experiences narrated throughout the 27 chapters are a statement to the contribution of SEA to evidence-based planning and decision-making, and to ensuring that the environment xxi

xxii  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment is protected on the ground. Broadly speaking, this book illustrates the willingness to make SEA better – be it by fostering SEA knowledge exchange across jurisdictions, developing and implementing regulatory frameworks, advancing analytical methods and participatory approaches, or addressing existing practical shortcomings and mounting legal challenges. I hope that you, the reader, find the range of practical case studies and contemporary thinking in this book enriching and beneficial to your own research and/or practice. Perhaps you may already realise that SEA provides the space to reflect on the consequences of our decisions; when done well, it can make a meaningful difference to our thinking and place sustainable resource use and environmental protection at the centre of our actions. –Ainhoa González

Acknowledgements

The editors are grateful to the 46 authors contributing to this Handbook. They put a considerable amount of effort and time into this endeavour and it is because of them that this book has become a high-quality state-of-the-art product. We are also grateful to the numerous people from practice and research that have inspired us over the years. There are many champions of impact assessment globally that have helped advance SEA practice and such advances would not have been possible without them.

PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge those who inspired me academically early on, in particular Dr Norman Lee (who sadly passed away in 2004), as well as personally, in particular Prof. Alfred Hecht. I would also like to thank those colleagues who are keeping me sane in an increasingly management-led and -dominated academic environment. –Thomas B. Fischer On a personal note, I would like to acknowledge the work that Dr John Fry has done in training local authority representatives and practitioners, as well as undergraduate and postgraduate students, on impact assessment in Ireland and beyond. I have been witness to his dedication and enthusiasm in building capacity and fostering a global impact assessment community, and I’m thankful to him for supporting me in my journey. I would also like to highlight the efforts of Tadhg O’Mahony, a true SEA champion, and the person behind many practical impact assessment initiatives, guidance and research in Ireland. He has significantly influenced the advancement of SEA implementation and good practice at a national level. He puts his heart and soul in ensuring that the environment is placed at the centre of any debate, and in influencing plan- and decision-making towards sustainability. –Ainhoa González

xxiii

PART I INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment Thomas B. Fischer and Ainhoa González

INTRODUCTION Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes, first emerged in the late 1980s (Fischer 1999).1 The associated term is said to have been coined during discussions in the then Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Centre at the University of Manchester.2 However, the need for the assessment of environmental impacts above the project level was discussed and stressed much earlier; for example, by O’Riordan and Sewell (1981). The United States (US) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from 1970, the first piece of environmental assessment legislation globally, did not actually distinguish between projects on the one hand and policies, plans and programmes on the other, but simply referred to ‘actions’ instead. However, in US practice, initially NEPA-based assessments were used mainly for projects. Programmatic environmental impact statements (PEIS) became the term used in the USA for environmental assessments above the project level later, and initially PEISs were applied only infrequently (Sigal & Webb 1989). Reference to the first PEIS on Scopus (the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature) is from 1980, referring to offshore natural gas development in Lake Erie (Marks et al. 1980). SEA became firmly rooted in the vocabulary of those involved in plan- and programme-making in 2004 when European Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (published in 2001) had to be transposed in the then 25 European Union (EU) member states. Whilst the Directive does not use the term ‘SEA’, it is routinely called ‘SEA Directive’ (including by the European Commission itself). Importantly, policies are not covered by the SEA Directive. SEA has become widely applied globally and there are now over 60 countries with some formal SEA requirements. Besides the 27 EU member states to which the SEA Directive applies (eight of which are discussed in Chapter 20 by Koshkar et al., 2021) and several others are covered in Chapters 2–7 and 10–17), these also include another 11 countries that signed the Protocol on SEA to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention, 2003; fully ratified by 9 non-EU countries3). Other countries with requirements for SEA-type assessments above the project level include Australia (see

1 The term itself was used earlier, i.e. in a 1974 paper on environmental modelling (see House 1974). However, this had a different meaning from today’s understanding. 2 The University of Manchester’s EIA Centre was in existence from the mid-1980s to the early 2000s. 3 See https://​treaties​.un​.org/​Pages/​ViewDetails​.aspx​?src​=​TREATY​&​mtdsg​_no​=​XXVII​-4​-b​&​ chapter=27&lang=en.

2

Introduction  3 Chapter 18 by Burdett and Cameron, 2021), Bhutan4 (covered in Chapter 9 by Annandale et al., 2021), Brazil (Chapter 23 by Montaño et al., 2021), Cambodia, Canada (Chapter 19 by Noble, 2021), Chile (Chapter 24 by Jiliberto, 2021), China (Chapter 9 by Annandale et al., 2021), Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand (Chapter 21 by Morgan and Taylor, 2021), Pakistan (for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, see also Chapter 9), Thailand (Chapter 26 by Chanchitpricha et al., 2021), Ukraine, the United States of America (mentioned in Chapter 12 by Geißler et al., 2021) and Vietnam (covered in Chapter 9). There are also countries with emerging guidelines, including e.g. South Africa (see Chapter 22 by Retief et al., 2021), Lao and Indonesia (for both, see Chapter 9). Furthermore, a number of central and south American countries have also been said to have introduced some formal requirements, including Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru and Uruguay (Tiffer-Sotomayor et al. 2015). However, the extent of associated SEA practice has remained unclear. In addition, there is some substantial voluntary application and practice of SEA in other developing countries, frequently driven by requirements of development banks and organizations (including, for example, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank). In this context, over 150 separate SEA initiatives in 2012 were tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Co-operation Directorate (OECD-DAC) Environment SEA Task Team, which regularly surveys SEA activities in developing countries (Dalal-Clayton 2013).

EVOLVING UNDERSTANDING OF SEA Initially, when SEA emerged, it was perceived as the application of a project EIA process, applying an approach which focuses on impacts and effects of draft proposals and associated methods to strategic initiatives. However, it quickly became apparent that the higher the level of the strategic action, the less applicable EIA-based approaches tended to be. For example, a conceptual policy which aims at developing a broad development vision for a certain area will need methods and techniques that are likely to be more discursive and qualitative, rather than quantitative. Quantitative approaches are more frequently used under EIA procedures (see Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021; see also Chapter 27 by Fischer and González, 2021). SEA subsequently became increasingly approached as a “framework” rather than just a process (as discussed by e.g. Fischer 1999, Gosling 1999 and Jansson 2000), with other vital elements being of crucial importance for an effective application, including the comprehensive coverage of tasks, alternatives and questions typically addressed at different tiers (i.e. at policy, plan and programme levels), as well as other contextual and institutional aspects (e.g. capacity, transparency, participatory arrangements; see Chapters 7 and 8 on SEA effectiveness by Thérivel and González, 2021, and Fischer and Retief, 2021). As a consequence, the validity of a particular SEA approach can be regarded as being dependent on the characteristics of the specific situation of application. Where SEA is more routinely applied, e.g. in statutory land-use planning, a structured process as used in EIA can be appropriate. In policy situations, where vested interests are not too strong and power gradients not too steep, round 4 Whilst Bhutan introduced SEA legislation in 2002, subsequently, this was not implemented (OECD 2012).

4  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment table approaches, involving multiple stakeholders might be a suitable approach (Fischer et al. 2010; González et al. 2019). In more recent times, SEA has also been presented as the vehicle to drive sustainable development and attain sustainable development goals (Fischer 2020; González et al. 2020; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2019; Partidário 2015). Over the past decade, the development of SEA practice internationally has been particularly influenced by the European SEA Directive (EC 2001) and the UNECE (Kiev) protocol on SEA to the Espoo Convention (UNECE 2003). The Directive has not only made SEA a routine application for numerous spatial and sectoral plans and programmes in the 27 EU member states, it has also heavily influenced the development of SEA in other countries and international institutions, as well as development banks. It is likely that several thousands of SEAs have been conducted in EU member states alone since 2004 (EC 2009; Fischer 2007). The Directive’s requirements revolve around an assessment process which looks similar to a typical EIA process, with procedural stages including screening (is SEA necessary?), scoping (what should it cover, including environmental aspects, types of impacts and alternatives?), analysis and evaluation of potential significant effects, the production of an SEA report, consultation and public participation, taking a decision in the light of the evidence produced, making recommendations to mitigate identified potential adverse effects, as well as monitoring and follow-up. In different SEA systems throughout the world, these stages are covered to varying extents and quality. This, together with numerous other aspects of SEA, is elaborated on in this book.

EXISTING SEA RESEARCH AND LITERATURE In addition to the rapidly growing application of SEA, related research activities and outputs have also increased substantially over the past few decades. The first comprehensive review of SEA research and related publication was conducted by Fischer and Onyango (2012). Looking at the three main journals for SEA publications (Environmental Impact Assessment Review (EIAR), Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA) and Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM)), based on a Scopus search (SEA in the title/ keywords/abstract) they found that 250 papers dealing with SEA had been published over 19 years between 1993 and 2011. Doing the same search eight years later in 2020, 465 papers are identified that were published between 1993 and 2019 (Figure 1.1). Another 13 papers had been published in 2020 by June. This means the number of papers since 2011 has nearly doubled. With regard to books dealing with SEA, 21 are listed on Scopus with SEA in the title, abstract and/or keywords (with a total of 71 SEA chapters). Of these, nine are dedicated books on SEA (some of the early SEA books are not listed on Scopus, though, e.g. Fischer 2002; Therivel et al. 1992; Therivel & Partidário 1996). The last major SEA book was published in 2016 (Sadler & Dusik 2016). However, contributions in this date back to the 2011 SEA symposium of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in Prague, which means there has been a decade now without any up-to-date SEA book available. SEA research has focused on many different sectors and countries/regions of application. Most widely reported has been practice in spatial and land-use planning (see Chapter 10 by González, 2021), followed by transport (see Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021) and energy (see Chapter 12 by Geißler et al., 2021). Whilst practices in other sectors have also

Introduction  5

Figure 1.1

Number of SEA papers published in EIAR, IAPA and JEAPM

been reported on (e.g. waste and minerals extraction), this has been more sporadic (see e.g. Fischer et al. 2011 and Porto Silva Cavalcanti and La Rovère 2011). We include water in Chapter 13 (by Mustow, 2021) as an example. With regard to particular countries/regions, most publications have been on those where SEA is formally required, in particular the EU (see Chapter 20 by Koshkar et al., 2021, on eight EU member states), Australia (see Chapter 18 by Burdett and Cameron, 2021), Canada (see Chapter 19 by Noble, 2021) and New Zealand (see Chapter 21 by Morgan and Taylor, 2021). Chile is a country with formal requirements which is rarely reported on (see Chapter 24 by Jiliberto, 2021). On the other hand, whilst South Africa and Brazil currently do not have formal requirements, they have been more visible in the professional literature (see Chapter 22 by Retief et al., 2021 on South Africa, and Chapter 23 by Montaño et al., 2021 on Brazil). However, countries without any formal SEA requirements tend to be represented less frequently. This includes e.g. India (see Chapter 25 by Jha-Thakur and Rajvanshi, 2021) and Thailand (see Chapter 26 by Chanchitpritcha et al., 2021). Finally, integration in and through SEA has received a considerable amount of attention. Aspects for integration covered in this book include protected areas (see Chapter 15 by Scott, 2021), climate change (see Chapter 16 by O’Mahony, 2021), ecosystem services (see Chapter 17 by Slootweg, 2021) and health (see Chapter 14 by Fischer et al., 2021).

ABOUT THIS BOOK The aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the theory and practice of SEA. In this context, different conceptual approaches and applications of SEA are highlighted and discussed. A key objective is to help researchers and practitioners locate a particular SEA application within the overall ‘jigsaw’ comprising SEA, thus allowing development of an understanding of the specific purpose, scope, benefits and limitation of a particular approach.

6  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The starting point for the editors when engaging with the book idea was that there is no one-size-fits all approach to SEA and that what is emerging is an overall ‘SEA system’, consisting of – at least – the following approaches: 1. SEA supports the development of an overall environmentally sustainable vision for e.g. a global initiative, a continent, a country, a region, municipality or local community: this has also been referred to as the ‘strategic approach’ to SEA. 2. SEA supports the drafting of policy (which has been referred to as e.g. ‘regulatory impact assessment’; other policy-type SEA approaches include e.g. territorial impact assessment). 3. SEA is EIA process-based, which usually supports the preparation of plans and programmes, particularly at the local level. 4. SEA supports the creation of consensus of future action in situations where there is openness towards outcomes and acting strategies (a possible application may be the round-table approach). 5. SEA is understood not as a one-off process but as a system, which in order to be effective, needs to systematically cover policies, plans and programmes. 6. SEA is defined by specific techniques, e.g. geographic information system (GIS)-driven, used, for example, when identifying suitable locations, or matrix-driven when pursuing an objectives-led approach. What is of particular importance is that these different approaches are not mutually exclusive, but may be applied in combination. They do fulfil certain purposes, though, and knowing the specific context within which SEA is supposed to be applied can help the user to pick an approach which is suited to a particular application. One of the purposes of the book, therefore, is to reflect on the possibility of developing an SEA theory, to which we will come back in Chapter 27 (Fischer and González, 2021). All the approaches listed above are presented and discussed throughout the book. For example, with regard to approach 1, Chapter 4 by Partidário (2021) focuses in its entirety on what may be involved in using SEA to think strategically about the impacts of development initiatives and sustainability. Furthermore, several other chapters cover parts of what is important when making SEA a tool for sustainable development (e.g. Chapter 10 on land-use planning by González (2021), Chapter 11 on transport SEA by Faith-Ell and Fischer (2021) and Chapter 14 on different types of integration by Fischer et al. (2021). With regard to approach 2, Chapter 5 by Marot et al. (2021) is dedicated to territorial impact assessment (TIA), providing insights on the practical application of this policy SEA-type tool, which is used in the EU. Furthermore, Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer (2021) on objectives-led SEA also partly focuses on this approach. Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al. (2021) focuses on EIA-based SEA, and therefore addresses approach 3. This particular approach remains the most widely applied form of SEA, particularly in EU member states. This is also evident in Chapter 9 by Annandale et al. (2021) on SEA guidelines. Furthermore, various other chapters cover relevant aspects. Approach 4 is in parts connected with approach 1, and Chapter 4 (Partidário, 2021) is therefore again of relevance, as is Chapter 2 (Rehhausen et al., 2021). Furthermore, Chapters 14–17 are of particular relevance with regard to consensus building. This includes the consideration of key aspects, such as ‘types of integration’ (Chapter 14 by Fischer et al., 2021); ‘appropriate assessment’ and SEA (Chapter 15 by Scott, 2021); ‘climate change and SEA’ (Chapter 16 by O’Mahony, 2021); and ‘ecosystem services and SEA’ (Chapter 17 by Slootweg, 2021).

Introduction  7 Chapter 11 on transport planning (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021) is related to what is covered in approach 5. It is also covered in Chapter 14 on different types of integration (Fischer et al., 2021). Generally speaking, various aspects of a systems approach are covered in all chapters of this book. Finally, approach 6 is reflected in Chapter 6 (González and Geneletti, 2021) on GIS-based SEA. Furthermore, an objectives-led approach is described in Chapter 3 (Hayes and Fischer, 2021) and related examples are also presented and discussed in Chapter 10 (González, 2021). A number of other chapters cover aspects of specific techniques used in different situational applications. This book consists of a total of 27 chapters, presented in five main parts. Part I comprises this introductory chapter. Part II consists of five chapters, representing different approaches to SEA. In the three chapters in Part III, various issues of SEA effectiveness are addressed and discussed. In the 17 subsequent chapters of Part IV, SEA practices with regard to sectoral applications, integration aspects and country/region-specific applications of SEA are portrayed. Finally, in Part V, aspects of a possible SEA theory are introduced.

REFERENCES Annandale, D., Montaño, M., Fischer, T.B., Purcell, C., Coles, J. and Aung, T. 2021. Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries: examples from Asia, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 9). Burdett, T. and Cameron, C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 18). Chanchitpricha, C., Swangjang, K. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2021. Addressing the spectrum of strategic environmental assessment potential: evolving practice in Thailand and its effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 26). Dalal-Clayton, B. 2013. The Role of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Promoting a Green Economy, IIED, London. EC [European Commission]. 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union, L197/30, 21.7.2001. EC [European Commission]. 2009. Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC). Available at https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​CELEX:​52009DC0469. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fischer, T. B. 1999. Benefits from SEA application: a comparative review of North West England, Noord-Holland and Brandenburg-Berlin, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19: 143–73. Fischer, T. B. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land-use Planning, Earthscan, London. Fischer, T. B. 2007. Zur internationalen Bedeutung der Umweltprüfung [On the international importance of environmental assessment], UVP Report 21(4): 248–55. Fischer, T. B. 2020. Editorial – embedding the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in IAPA’s remit, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(4): 269–71.

8  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Conclusions: towards a theory of strategic environmental assessment?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 27). Fischer, T. B. and Onyango, V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Fischer, T. B., Dalkmann, H., Lowry, M. and Tennøy, A. 2010. The dimensions and context of transport decision making, in Robert Joumard and Henrik Gudmundsson (eds), Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport, pp. 79–102, Les collections de l’Inrets, Paris. http://​hal​.archives​-ouvertes​ .fr/​docs/​00/​49/​28/​23/​PDF/​Indicators​_EST​_May​_2010​.pdf. Fischer, T.B., Muthoora, T. and Sworowski, N. 2021. Integration through strategic environmental assessment: the case of health in English strategic planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 14). Fischer, T. B., Potter, K., Donaldson, S. and Scott, T. 2011. Municipal waste management strategies, strategic environmental assessment and the consideration of climate change in England, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(4): 541–65. González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land use plans, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 10). González, A., Bullock, C., Gaughran, A. and Watkin-Bourne, K. 2019. Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 233–43. González, A., Gazzola, P. and Onyango, V. 2020. The mutualism of strategic environmental assessment and sustainable development goals, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82: 1–9. González, A. and Geneletti, D. 2021. GIS-based strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 6). Gosling, J. A. 1999. SEA and the planning process: four models and a report?, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Conference Proceedings, 19th Annual Meeting, Glasgow 1999, CD-Rom, IAIA, Fargo, ND. Hayes, S.J. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 3). House, P. W. 1974. Diogenes revisited: the search for a valid model, Simulation, 23(4): 117–25. Jansson, A. H. H. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment for transport in four Nordic countries, in H. Bjarnadóttir (ed.), Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries, pp. 39–46, Nordregio, Stockholm. Jha-Thakur, U. and Rajvanshi, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in India: trends and prospects, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 25). Jiliberto, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 24). Koshkar, S., Balfors, B. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Towards advancing strategic environmental assessment practice: learning from experiences of eight European countries, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 20). Marks, A. K., Horvatin, P.J., Leuchner, P.G. and Zar, H. 1980. Draft programmatic environmental impact statement: U.S. Lake Erie natural gas resource development in offshore waters of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY. Marot, N., Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Golobič, M., Muthoora, T. and González, A. 2021. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action, in: Fischer, T.B.

Introduction  9 and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 5). Montaño, M., Tshibangu, G.M and Malvestio, A.C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 23). Morgan, R. and Taylor, N. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 21). Morrison-Saunders, A., Sanchez, L. E., Retief, F., Sinclair, J., Doelle, M., Jones, M., Wessels, J. A. and Pope, J. 2019. Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN sustainable development goals, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 113–17. Mustow, S. E. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 13). Noble, B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Canada, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 19). OECD. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment in development practice: a review of recent experience. Available at http://​www​.oecd​.org/​dac/​environment​-development/​strategic​-environmental​ -assessment​-in​-development​-practice​-9789264166745​-en​.htm. O’Mahony, C. 2021. Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessments, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 16). O’Riordan, T. and Sewell, W. R. D. 1981. Project Appraisal and Policy Review, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Partidário, M. R. 2015. A strategic advocacy role in strategic environmental assessment for sustainability, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17(1): 1550015. Partidário, M. 2020. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in SEA, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Porto Silva Cavalcanti, P. M. and La Rovère, E. L. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment of mining activities: a methodology for quantification of cumulative impacts on the air quality, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 61(4): 377–89. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Retief, F., Steenkamp, C. and Alberts, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa: ‘The Road Not Taken’, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 22). Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. 2016. European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, Taylor and Francis, London. Scott, P. 2021. Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 15). Sigal, L. L. and Webb, J. W. 1989. The programmatic environmental impact statement: its purpose and use, The Environmental Professional 11: 14–24. Slootweg, R. 2021. Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an integrating concept in a world of silos, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 17). Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Thérivel, R. and Partidário, M. R. 1996. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London. Thérivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D. and Pritchard, D. 1992. Strategic Environmental Assessment, Earthscan, London.

10  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Tiffer-Sotomayor, R., Sánchez-Triana, E., Acerbi, M., Gomes Lima, A. L., Navarro, R., Enriquez, S., Siegmann, K. and Clemente Fern, P. 2015. Legal framework of environmental impact assessment in Latin America, poster presented at IAIA 2015, available at https://​conferences​.iaia​.org/​2015/​Final​ -Papers/​Tiffer​,​%20R​%20et​%20al​.​%202015​-Poster​-​%20LAC​-​%20EIA​%20Legal​%20Framework​ -final​-l​.pdf. UNECE [United Nations Economic Commission for Europe]. 2003. Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Available at https://​www​.unece​.org/​fileadmin/​ DAM/​env/​eia/​documents/​legaltexts/​protocolenglish​.pdf.

PART II APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

2. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany Anke Rehhausen, Marie Hanusch and Thomas B. Fischer

INTRODUCTION Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) encompasses numerous methodological approaches (see e.g. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Goodland, 1997). At a basic level, these include approaches connected with different tiers (policies, plans and programmes) and sectors (e.g. transport, energy, waste). Furthermore, SEA is often described with regard to two main types, namely: (1) a project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) type, which is an impacts-focused administrative procedure (‘EIA-like’ category); and (2) a more flexible goals-setting policy-based SEA type (‘policy assessment-like’ category) (Riehl and Winkler-Kühlken, 1995; Fischer, 2007). In a similar, but somewhat more sophisticated way, Noble and Nwanekezie (2016) distinguished between four types: (1) compliance-based SEA; (2) EIA-like SEA; (3) strategic-futures SEA; and (4) strategic-transition SEA. While compliance-based SEA and EIA-like SEAs are described as being “rooted in the traditional paradigms of EIA and project appraisal” (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2016, p. 4), i.e. falling into the ‘EIA-like’ category, the strategic-based SEA approaches are “rooted in more recent strategic thinking about the role of environmental assessment beyond the scope of traditional impact assessment” (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2016, p. 5), therefore falling into the ‘policy assessment-like’ category. Whilst the latter is described in this book in e.g. Chapters 4 (Partidário, 2021) and 24 (Jiliberto, 2021), the former is the subject of this chapter and is also elaborated on in various other chapters (e.g. Chapters 6 and 11 by González and Geneletti, 2021 and Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). For an effective application of SEA, it is of key importance that the two types – EIA-like SEA and policy assessment-like SEA – complement each other. In the absence of either, it is likely that gaps will ensue with regard to the consideration of e.g. particular issues, tasks and alternatives (Fischer, 2006). This is discussed for e.g. transport planning in Chapter 11 (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021) and is further elaborated on in Chapter 27 (‘Conclusions’, Fischer and González, 2021). In addition to these two main types, other ways in which SEAs differ can be distinguished, in particular with regard to the specific situation of application. This is reflected in e.g. Chapter 5 (Marot et al., 2021), which elaborates on territorial impact assessment (TIA) for European policies and directives as well as in Chapter 6 (González and Geneletti, 2021), which elaborates on geographic information system (GIS)-based SEA. A multi-project EIA-like assessment approach is common for plans and programmes that consist of potential developments, measures and/or other listed designations (subsequently referred to as ‘projects’). Within the multi-project approach, as a first step, potential environmental impacts are usually identified, described and evaluated for each individual project. Secondly, impacts of all potential projects are jointly considered as the overall or cumulative 12

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  13 environmental impact of the plan or programme. Frequently, this is attempted simply by summing up impacts of each project, thus potentially ignoring any indirect or synergistic effects. Assessment methods for the evaluation of individual projects usually focus on specific locations, i.e. they are spatial. This is reflected in most SEA guidelines in Germany (Balla et al., 2010; Hanusch et al., 2015). Here, for individual development proposals (‘räumlich konkret verortete Planfestlegungen’) included in, for example, regional or local spatial plans, quantitative assessment of potentially affected sites by means of GIS is recommended. Furthermore, worksheets are provided for the documentation of environmental impacts on particular locations (so called ‘area letters’ (Gebietsbriefe); see Fischer et al., 2009). These are based on a brief description of potential impacts and suggestions for how to mitigate them (Figure 2.1). A similar approach has been described for SEA of local land-use plans in Austria (Aschemann, 1999; Fischer, 2007).

Figure 2.1

Development proposals and worksheet in a land use plan

With regard to the joint consideration of individual impacts of the plan or programme overall (i.e. cumulative impacts), as explained above, impacts of individual projects are frequently either simply summed up or listed in tables (Hübler et al., 1995). More advanced approaches would be based on, for example, analysing the impacts of an entire plan by means of specific criteria and/or specific benchmarks (as described below in the case studies and in Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021). Some plans/programmes consider projects that would subsequently become subject to EIA. These plans and programmes are found, in particular, in land-use (see Chapter 10 by González, 2021), transport (Fischer, 2006) and energy (IAEA, 2018) sectors. In this context, particular schemes may be ranked according to perceived benefits and costs. These can include environmental parameters, as described in Chapters 10 for land-use (González, 2021), 11 for transport (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021) and 12 for energy (Geißler et al., 2021). For these plans, conscious tiering between SEA and EIA should be a priority. Other plans (e.g. masterplans) may also consider projects that will not subsequently be subject to EIA. Here, the SEA is of importance, as it is the only time that the environmental impacts of those projects are considered. SEAs following EU SEA Directive requirements have been observed to frequently represent an EIA-like SEA approach (Verheem and Dusik, 2011). Procedural stages are the same

14  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment as in EIA, namely screening, scoping, drafting of an environmental report and consultation/participation, proposing mitigation measures, making a decision and monitoring/follow-up.1 Whilst the SEA Directive has been criticised for its EIA-like rationale (see e.g. Nielsson and Dalkmann, 2001), there have also been suggestions that due to its focus on plans and programmes only, the approach taken is suitable, reflecting the perspectives taken by the underlying plans and programmes (Fischer, 2003). In this context, it is argued that the real issue is not a ‘wrong’ approach to plan and programme assessment, but rather the omission of policies. In this vein, Retief et al. (2008) suggested that it is important to acknowledge that different approaches apply to different contexts, and Noble and Nwanekezie (2016, p. 7) concluded that “there is no one approach to SEA that is best for all decision contexts; rather, each approach to SEA is necessary and valuable – each serves a different function, and each has its relative strengths and limitations.” This is also an important message from Chapter 27 (‘Conclusions’) in this book (Fischer and González, 2021). Keeping this in mind, this chapter will subsequently introduce the EIA-like multi-project approach to SEA, focusing on current practice in Germany.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN GERMANY The focus of the EU SEA Directive is on plans and programmes that “are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions”, and that “are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by Parliament or Government” (Art. 2 EU SEA Directive). In 1990, the German EIA Act was enacted, transposing the EU EIA Directive (85/337/EWG) into national law. Fifteen years later, in 2005, the EU SEA Directive was transposed through the same Act. Furthermore, SEA was included into the Federal Building Code and the Spatial Planning Act in 2004. In line with the Directive, policies were not included. According to the EIA Act, SEA screening combines a checklist and case-by-case approaches. Plans and programmes may become subject to SEA, based on the following four considerations (Balla et al., 2010; Geißler et al., 2019; Geißler and Rehhausen, 2014): 1. Compulsory application of SEA due to statutory plans and programmes being listed in Annex 5 of the EIA Act; 2. Compulsory application of SEA due to a required ‘Appropriate Assessment’2 in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive (see also Chapter 15 by Scott, 2021); 3. Conditional application of SEA due to plans and programmes listed in Annex 5 of the EIA Act, setting the framework for projects subject to EIA; and 4. SEA based on case-by-case decisions.

This does not mean the SEA Directive cannot trigger the application of other types of SEA, e.g. policy-level SEA (see Fischer and Phylip-Jones, 2007) or objectives-led approaches (see Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021). This issue is strengthened by the current European case law in the Case C‑24/19 of 25 June 2020: the European Court of Justice ruled that the SEA Directive does not only cover mandatory plans and programmes. Legal acts with a political or indicative objective could also be plans or programmes, otherwise there would be a risk that the environmental assessment obligation could be circumvented by not making plans and programmes compulsory. It is also irrelevant for the classification that a legal act has a certain level of abstraction. 2 Impact assessments related to sites of the NATURA 2000 network. 1

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  15 In addition to the Federal level, some Länder (states) have additional state EIA Acts in place that list additional plans and programmes for which SEA is required (Balla, 2009; Geißler et al., 2019). For instance, landscape plans (that are statutory environmental development plans, see Hanusch and Fischer, 2011), forestry plans, plans for coal mining and state and local transport plans are subject to SEA in some states (Balla, 2009). Subsequently, three EIA-like multi-project SEAs are introduced and discussed. These include the SEA for the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan, the SEA for the Federal Transmission Grid Plan, and the SEA for the Elbe Flood Risk Management Plan. All three are compulsory SEAs according to the EIA Act. Geißler and Rehhausen (2014) showed that most plans and programmes in Germany can be considered programmes when using the definition provided by Arts et al. (2011) and Fischer (2002). This includes the three SEAs described below. SEA for the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan The German Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (FTIP) provides a framework for Federal project-based infrastructure investment planning. Within the planning process of the FTIP, existing transport infrastructure networks are analysed and suggestions (from local or state authorities) are considered for new or extended federal highways, federal railways and waterways. Each potential project is then subjected to a complex macroeconomic assessment. The core element of the assessment is a cost–benefit analysis (Fischer, 2006). Furthermore, potential individual projects are assessed in terms of environmental and spatial and urban impacts, using maps and associated impact matrices. SEA requirements are met, based on the assessment of potential individual projects, as well as through cost–benefit analyses that include environmental parameters (e.g. amount of harmful emissions). In this context, it is important that only proposals with a positive cost– benefit ratio will have a chance of being funded through the federal budget later. The FTIP is supposed to be revisited every 10 to 15 years. Previous FTIP revisions, such as the one from 2003, already included ‘environmental risk assessments’ for individual projects. However, the FTIP 2030, which was issued in 2016, was the first FTIP to be subjected to formal SEA according to SEA Directive requirements. All potential projects end up being categorised into ‘first’ and ‘second priority’. ‘First priority’ projects are then transferred into federal plans for highways, railway lines and waterways. These have to be adopted by Federal Parliament as amendments to the associated three ‘federal demand acts’. The need for ‘first priority’ projects cannot be challenged legally at subsequent planning levels. These projects are subsequently planned and financed from the federal budget. There are five-year reviews on whether projects remain economically and technically viable. These reviews are not subject to SEA. As mentioned above and also according to the European Commission’s SEA transport manual (European Commission DG TREN, 2005; following Fischer, 2002; 2006), the FTIP SEA approach can be classified as an EIA-like ‘programme-SEA’. Even though the FTIP is situated at the highest administrative (i.e. federal) level and is dealing with three modes of transport, overarching transport development goals are not discussed. Whilst in theory this should happen at a higher policy level, this is currently missing. As a consequence, federal

16  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment transport planning has faced some serious criticism (see e.g. Bongardt and Hanusch, 2008; Fischer, 2006; Rehhausen and Stemmer, 2017). The FTIP itself states “that a distinction is made between the overarching objectives of transport policy resulting from transport and environmental policy programs and the derived objectives or solution strategies that the FTIP can pursue in practice. The latter are the basis for the prioritisation strategy of the FTIP 2030. The plan focuses primarily on those transport policy objectives that can be directly influenced by the further development of transport infrastructure” (Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur, 2016, p. 5). Whilst the missing policy gap is therefore acknowledged, and the underlying research study on the FTIP SEA clearly recommended the inclusion of policy-level assessments (Balla et al., 2012), nothing is currently done to address this shortcoming. As is shown in Figure 2.2, the SEA for the FTIP consists of three main steps; (1) an environmental (‘plausibility’) appraisal of proposed individual projects, (2) an environmental module for the assessment of individual projects (including elements of the cost–benefit analysis) and (3) an environmental module for the overall plan appraisal (mainly adding up effects of individual projects). This is called the ‘overall plan effect’. Alternatives can be assessed for intermodal transport solutions or for different transport modes separately (Balla and Günnewig, 2017).

Figure 2.2

Main SEA assessment steps within the German FTIP

Source: Adapted from Balla and Günnewig (2017).

A total of more than 2,100 project proposals were covered in the FTIP 2030, including about 1,700 federal highways, 400 federal railways and 50 federal waterways. Potential projects are assessed with regard to avoiding certain environmental impacts that are spatial (e.g. crossing of Natura 2000 areas and flood plains) and in terms of ‘cost-plausibility’ (as a result

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  17 of cost–benefit analysis). The latter includes costs for environmental mitigation measures, such as noise protection or the costs and impacts of transiting through water protection areas. The environmental plausibility check results in recommendations on which projects need to go through further assessment. Assessments of each project proposal conclude with a project worksheet with details on all environmental impacts, monetised and non-monetised. Environmental effects of the overall plan are established. By merging the concerns of the individual projects for the overall plan level, cumulative effects of the FTIP are established. Moreover, it is possible to check the conformity of future FTIPs with environmental objectives, for example from the Federal Government’s environmental programmes, e.g. in terms of land use or CO2 reduction (Balla and Günnewig, 2017). SEA for the Federal Plan for the Electricity Transmission Grid Demand Federal-level planning of the national electricity transmission grid includes three planning stages; a Scenario Framework, Grid Development Plans and the Federal Plan for Transmission Grid Demand (DENA, 2013; Rehhausen et al., 2018; Weingarten and Hanusch, 2012). Based on a lead scenario described in the Scenario Framework, the Grid Development Plans “comprise proposals for transmission lines to be reinforced or newly build” (Rehhausen et al., 2018, p. 47). These transmission line proposals are confirmed by the Federal Network Agency. The confirmed list of transmission line projects – the draft Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand – is then passed on to the Federal Government which needs to ratify the Grid Demand Plan as the ‘Act on the Federal Requirements Plan’. The need for specific transmission line projects is thus determined. In accordance with the EIA Act 2019, only the Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand is subject to a mandatory SEA. However, in practice “SEA is carried out for the Grid Development Plans” (Rehhausen et al., 2018, p. 47). The Grid-demand SEA follows a multi-project approach. Initially, on the basis of specific environmental criteria the environmental impacts are established for each single transmission line proposal, and then summed up and analysed, using some basic statistical analysis (Federal Network Agency, 2019a). The environmental criteria for analysis are developed from environmental objectives. Furthermore, a ‘hot spot’ analysis of spatial accumulation of transmission line projects is conducted. Alternatives are also examined for each transmission line proposal. Frequently, these are macro-siting alternatives, but system alternatives have also been considered (e.g. reinforcements vs. new build, underground cables vs. overhead lines). The environmental report (Federal Network Agency, 2019b) contains project worksheets for each transmission line proposal that look similar to what is introduced in Figure 2.1. The worksheets sum up the results of the analysis of alternatives and the environmental assessment for each transmission line proposal and are used as a basis for subsequent corridor planning and assessment. After initially neglecting SEA monitoring for the Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand, the Federal Network Agency (2019a) recently introduced an SEA monitoring concept. This is built upon project-level monitoring which has now become mandatory due to the recent amendment of the EU EIA Directive (2014/52/EU). Underlying assumptions of the SEA are verified in subsequent corridor and project approval processes. Monitoring results might lead to some modifications of the SEA methodology for the Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand, and results will be published every four years. The first report on the monitoring results is expected in 2023 (Federal Network Agency, 2019a). The monitoring

18  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment reports will hopefully be able to foster a better understanding of causes and environmental effects, and will also support better connections to be made between SEAs and EIAs. SEA for the Elbe Flood Risk Management Plan Flood Risk Management Plans highlight flood hazards and risks in specific areas and set out measures to handle flood risk (see also Chapter 13 by Mustow, 2021). The aim of the plans is to manage adverse potential impacts of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity (LAWA, 2019). The underlying EU Directives, that is, the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive, are based on six-year planning periods – so-called planning cycles. By the end of 2015, the Flood Risk Management Plans of the first cycle had been prepared on the basis of formerly existing flood hazard and risk maps. In the second cycle, the plans are to be reviewed and updated by 22 December 2021. Flood risk management plans as well as water management plans are prepared for river basin districts, of which there are ten in Germany. The Elbe is the second largest river basin district and covers ten federal Länder with a catchment area of 96,269 km2 (Umweltbundesamt, 2016). In cooperation with the German government, the associated ten states founded the ‘River Basin Community Elbe’ with the aim of coordinating the implementation of both the Water Framework and Floods Directives. This also includes the coordination of the associated SEA and the preparation of the environmental report for the Elbe Flood Risk Management Plan. Both the Flood Risk Management Plan and the SEA are carried out jointly across federal states’ boundaries. All development measures – i.e. ‘projects’ in the sense of the multi-project approach – that have the potential to significantly impact flood risk and that are included in the Flood Risk Management Plan are considered in the SEA. There is a nationwide catalogue of measures (i.e. ‘projects’), covering the Water Framework Directive, the Floods Directive, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (LAWA, 2013; 2015). This catalogue of measures is presented as a table, indicating measures, types of pressures, and environmental goals. The catalogue includes 29 measures for managing and handling flood risk. The SEA consists of two main steps. Firstly, an analysis of the environmental impacts of each of the 29 measures (i.e. ‘projects’) is undertaken. An appraisal is carried out for whether any measure can potentially lead to significant environmental impacts. For each measure a ‘worksheet’ (similar to Figure 2.1) is prepared, documenting the likely environmental effect of the measure with regard to a number of environmental objectives. The core of the ‘worksheet’ is a cause-and-effect matrix presenting potentially significant impacts (Figure 2.3). There is, however, an important difference to the other case studies. There is no information on the detailed location of the measures provided in the Flood Risk Management Plan. Rather, there is an allocation to designated area units of river basin districts. Secondly, an assessment is undertaken for each of three main spatial aggregation levels of the river basin: (1) planning unit, (2) coordination area, and (3) total area (Hanusch et al., 2015). Owing to the large spatial area covered by the plan, a great quantity of data is available that needs to be analysed systematically. Based on the fundamental environmental analysis of the measures (i.e. ‘projects’) the environmental impacts are assessed by summing up the environmental impacts according to the allocation of measures in the designated area units of the river basin districts. Finally, the overall, cumulative environmental impact of the plan is identified. An ordinal four-step evaluation scheme is used, ranging from potentially very

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  19

Figure 2.3

Cause and effect matrix of SEA for the Elbe Flood Risk Management Plan

Source: Hanusch et al. (2016).

positive impacts to potentially very negative impacts. The assessment relies on both expert judgement and mathematical methods and concludes with a plausibility check. Therefore, it is robust and highly transparent. The way the Flood Risk Management Plan is designed limits any assessment of alternatives, as the plan contains ‘ideal-typical’ measures to achieve flood risk management goals. Due to the degree of abstraction of the plan and the rather vague description of the measures in the standardised catalogue, there is no point of reference for the further consideration of alternatives at this planning level. However, the environmental report of the Flood Risk Management Plan highlights the need for an assessment of alternatives at subsequent levels, especially for technical flood management measures with intensive land take (Hanusch et al., 2016).

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF THE MULTI-PROJECT APPROACH TO SEA In a tiered planning system (of policies, plans, programmes and projects), the multi-project approach is both beneficial and challenging. Whilst multi-project SEA has the ability to allow for easy tiering with project EIA, connecting it with policies is challenging, in particular when no SEA is applied at that level. Two of the analysed case studies (transport and transmission grid) are part of a planning system in which a conscious attempt is made to connect plans with projects. However, in the third case (flood management), this is different. Subsequent implementation of flood management measures is undertaken in different approval procedures that do not necessarily require EIA. For instance, the creation of retention basins comes without a requirement to conduct EIA. Furthermore, a number of flood management measures are classified as maintenance measures and thus are not subject to mandatory EIA. SEA therefore fulfils a particular important role, as environmental impacts are not addressed anywhere else.

20  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Connections between SEA and EIA are particularly strong when monitoring requirements are formulated in SEA. Furthermore, due to the assessment method applied, aggregated environmental impacts of all projects are equal to the overall environmental impact of the plan or programme. This means project level monitoring can also be used to monitor the plan’s or programme’s environmental effects. Whilst SEA-level monitoring may not lend itself to support project (EIA) monitoring, in particular due to scale issues, this is not a problem when using project monitoring data to feed into SEA monitoring. This is practised for the Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand. In this context, what is of importance is that the monitoring concept for the plan or programme needs to set standards for project-level monitoring (e.g. criteria, methods and duration). These standards are necessary to produce comparable environmental monitoring results for each project. The comparability of monitoring results is necessary when the conclusions for the plan or programme are supposed to be drawn. A challenge for tiering can be lengthy planning consent procedures of projects. This means plans or programmes may be revised before projects are actually implemented and learning from past experience is therefore not possible. For instance, the Elbe Flood Risk Management Plan was approved in 2015. The planning procedure and its implementation for e.g. an inner-city flood alleviation channel which is subject to EIA will normally be between 15 and 20 years (preparation, approval procedure, detailed design and construction). Only after the implementation of the project will it be possible to reliably judge actual environmental effects. This is the same for many projects of the FTIP. For example, some projects of the FTIP 2003 are still under construction. Whilst the Federal Plan for the Transmission Grid Demand is revised every two years, project implementation takes much longer. This is further complicated by rapidly changing context conditions. For instance, political preferences for projects can change when new governments are elected. As a consequence, plans and projects may be out of sync. Amongst other things (e.g. potentially creating confusion), this means that cause–effect relationships are difficult to identify, especially across planning levels and over long time periods. This is exacerbated in the absence of monitoring results (Hanusch, 2009). A benefit of the multi-project approach is that the underlying logic of this approach within tiered planning systems is easy to understand. It follows the simple assumption that project-level impacts can be summed up. This can be easily communicated to decision-makers and the public. However, from a scientific point of view it is questionable whether simply summing up project-level impacts is sufficient, in particular as potential indirect and synergistic effects are not considered. Therefore, next to adding up impacts of project proposals, a more in-depth analysis of impacts of expected ‘hot spots’ is recommended (see González, 2017 and Chapter 6 by González and Geneletti, 2021) and an objective-led evaluation of the overall impacts should be attempted (Scholles et al., 2017). The case studies include some of these more in-depth analyses. The multi-project approach represents a pragmatic view of SEA. If projects are identified in the plan or programme, identifying and describing the projects’ environmental impacts is straightforward and the approach comes with some clear instructions to SEA practitioners. Furthermore, it is possible to generate SEA results in a transparent manner. Often, spatial information is available for each project, allowing for some spatial assessment of environmental impacts and the assessment of site alternatives. However, different data quality standards in different Länder can make comparable project level assessments within federal SEAs tricky (Rehhausen et al., 2018).

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  21 Alternatives assessment is still a challenge within the multi-project approach. Strategic thinking as introduced by Partidário (2012; see also Chapters 3 and 4 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021 and Partidário, 2021) is not reflected in multi-project SEA and wider policy alternatives are not within the remit of this approach since the plan or programme subject to a multi-project SEA usually does not include strategic objectives (as the examples presented in this chapter show). The three case studies show that multi-project SEAs usually focus on site alternatives only. Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) found a sizeable consensus in the academic literature that the way in which SEA has evolved is positive – from a largely EIA-based position with responsive mechanisms to more proactive processes of developing sustainable solutions as an integral part of strategic planning activities. Therefore, the introduction for policy assessment-like SEA is necessary to address more strategic alternatives (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Geißler, 2013; Rehhausen, 2019). However, this needs to happen in an interlinked manner with other tiers, including multi-project SEA, as otherwise there will be a gap between policy and project levels which will be difficult to bridge. This, we believe, would render policy assessment-like SEA ineffective.

CONCLUSIONS In Germany, multi-project SEA is the most common type of SEA applied (Geißler and Rehhausen, 2014). Three multi-project SEAs were introduced in this chapter; two infrastructure SEAs (transport and energy; where the focus is on potential projects) and one flood risk management plan SEA (where the focus is on potential flood risk alleviation measures). Multi-project SEA allows for clear connections to be made between SEA and subsequent project EIAs that can focus on the significant environmental impacts identified in SEA in further detail. If projects are assessed in SEA that will not be subject to subsequent EIA, then SEA will be the only level at which associated environmental impacts will be considered. A multi-project SEA approach is easy to understand and ensuing messages are easy to communicate to decision-makers and the public. However, the assessment of alternatives is often limited to siting alternatives rather than demand or system alternatives (Fischer, 2006; Geißler 2013; Köppel et al., 2018; Rehhausen, 2019; Rehhausen et al., 2018). These need to be assessed at higher tiers. The case studies introduced in this chapter show how to make cumulative effects transparent and consider the effects of the overall plan. However, the consideration of cumulative effects is often limited to adding up impacts of project proposals, while more complex synergistic effects are not considered (Geißler, 2013; Rehhausen and Stemmer, 2017). Multi-project SEA is a suitable approach for plans and programmes that are based on suggestions for potential projects. However, strategic considerations with regard to, for example, housing needs, overall energy or transport demands, are not considered. This is why policy assessment-like SEA is needed to address higher tier issues and impacts. EIA-like multi-project SEAs in Germany facilitate “informed decision-making as the responsible agencies use the environmental report, the interaction with consultancies, and the participation processes as a source of information” (Rehhausen, 2019, p. 9). Furthermore, and crucially, they fulfil a key role in connecting policy with projects.

22  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

REFERENCES Arts, J., Tomlinson, P. and Voogd, H., 2011. Planning in tiers? Tiering as a way of linking SEA and EIA, in B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. B. Fischer, M. R. Partidário and R. Verheem (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, pp. 415–33. London. Aschemann, R., 1999. Endbericht zum Pilotprojekt Strategische Umweltprüfung (SUP) des Flächenwidmungsplanes 3.0 (FWP) der Stadtgemeinde Weiz, Arbeitsgruppe Wissenschaftsladen Graz/Büro Arch. DI Hoffmann, Graz. Balla, S., 2009. Übersicht zur SUP-Gesetzgebung der Länder, UVP-report 23 (4): 185–8. Balla, S. and Günnewig, D., 2017. Von der Projektbewertung zum Umweltbericht – Erfahrung zur Strategischen Umweltprüfung für den Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030, UVP-report 31 (4): 290–99. Balla, S., Günnewig, D. and Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategische Umweltprüfung für den Bundesverkehrswegeplan, Internationales Verkehrswesen 64: 2–6. Balla, S., Peters, H.-J. and Wulfert, K., 2010. Leitfaden zur Strategischen Umweltprüfung. https://​www​ .bmu​.de/​fileadmin/​Daten​_BMU/​Download​_PDF/​Umweltpruefungen/​sup​_leitfaden​_lang​_bf​.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2019. Bongardt, D. and Hanusch, M., 2008. Integration einer Strategischen Umweltprüfung in den BVWP 20XX, in U. Becker, R. Gerike and T. Belter (eds), Perspektiven der deutschen Verkehrsplanung, pp. 32–41. UBA-Texte 45/08, Berlin. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und Digitale Infrastruktur, 2016. Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030. https://​www​.bmvi​.de/​SharedDocs/​DE/​Publikationen/​G/​bundesverkehrswegeplan​-2030​-gesamtplan​ .pdf​?​_​_blob​=​publicationFile. Accessed 15 May 2020. Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B., 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment – A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. Earthscan, London. DENA, 2013. Planung und Genehmigung von Ausbaumaßnahmen im Übertragungsnetz. http://​www​ .effiziente​-energiesysteme​.de/​themen/​stromnetze/​netzausbau​.html. Accessed 18 November 2015. EIA Act, 1990: Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie des Rates vom 27. Juni 1985 über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung bei bestimmten öffentlichen und privaten Projekten (85/337/EWG) vom 12. Februar 1990 (BGBl. I S. 205). EIA Act, 2019. Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 24. Februar 2010 (BGBl. I S. 94). Zuletzt geändert durch Artikel 22 des Gesetzes vom 13. Mai 2019 (BGBl. I S. 706). EU EIA Directive, 2014. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Union L124–1. European Commission DG TREN, 2005. The SEA Manual: A Sourcebook on Strategic Environmental Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans and Programmes. https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​ archives/​eia/​sea​-studies​-and​-reports/​pdf/​beacon​_manuel​_en​.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Federal Network Agency, 2019a. Bedarfsermittlung 2019–2030. Entwurf des Umweltberichtes – Teil 1 Strategische Umweltprüfung auf Grundlage des 2. Entwurfs des NEP Strom. https://​data​.netzausbau​ .de/​2030–2019/​UB/​Umweltbericht​_E​_Teil​_I​_final​.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2019. Federal Network Agency, 2019b. Bedarfsermittlung 2019–2030. Entwurf des Umweltberichtes – Teil II Steckbriefe. https://​data​.netzausbau​.de/​2030–2019/​UB/​Umweltbericht​_E​_Teil​_II​_final​.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2019. Fischer, T. B., 2002. Towards a more systematic approach to policy, plan and programme environmental assessment – some evidence from Europe, in S. Marsden and S. Dovers (eds), SEA in Australasia, pp. 99–113, Sydney Place Federation Press, Sydney. Fischer, T. B., 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(2): 155–70.

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  23 Fischer, T. B., 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24 (3): 183–97. Fischer, T. B., 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach, Earthscan, London. Fischer, T. B., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U., Kidd, S. and Peel, D., 2009. Learning through EC Directive-based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick region in Germany, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (6): 421–8. Fischer, T.B. and González, A., 2021. Conclusions: towards a theory of strategic environmental assessment?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 27). Fischer, T. B. and Phylip-Jones, J., 2007. SEA of the Fife Supplementary Planning Guidance for Renewable Energies, in SEA – materials for China’s ‘International Conference on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)’, SEPA. http://​content​.undp​.org/​go/​cms​-service/​download/​asset/​ ?asset​_id​=​2083586. Accessed 15 July 2020. Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1), 15–24. Geißler, G., 2013. Strategic environmental assessments for renewable energy development – comparing the United States and Germany, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15 (2): 1340003. Geißler, G., Dahmen, M. and Köppel, J., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 12). Geißler, G. and Rehhausen, A., 2014. Wie strategisch ist die Strategische Umweltprüfung (SUP)? Zur SUP-Anwendung in Deutschland und den USA, UVP-report 28 (3–4): 119–27. Geißler, G., Rehhausen, A., Fischer, T. B. and Hanusch, M., 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Germany? – meta-review of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37 (3–4): 219–32. González, A., 2017. Mapping environmental sensitivity: a systematic online approach to support environmental assessment and planning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66: 86–98. González, A., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land use plans, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 10). González, A. and Geneletti, D., 2021. GIS-based strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 6). Hanusch, M., 2009. SUP-Monitoring in der Regionalplanung, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin. Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T. B., 2011. SEA and landscape planning, in B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. B. Fischer, M. Partidário and R. Verheem (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, pp. 257–73, Earthscan, London. Hanusch, M., Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Geneletti, D., Hrabar, M., Jurkeviciute, A. and Gardner, R., 2016. Sector-specific SEAs: are we getting it right? In B. Sadler and J. Dusik (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment, pp. 202–25, Earthscan, London. Hanusch, M., Wild, G., Furche, K., Hähre, S. and Meyer, C., 2015. Strategische Umweltprüfung zum “Hochwasserrisikomanagementplan gem. § 75 WHG bzw. Artikel 7 der Richtlinie 2007/60/ EG über die Bewertung und das Management von Hochwasserrisiken für den deutschen Teil der Flussgebietseinheit Elbe” im Auftrag der Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe. https://​www​.fgg​-elbe​.de/​ files/​Downloads/​HWRM​_RL/​anh/​hwrmp/​Ergebnisse​-2015/​Umweltbericht​_HWRM​_und​_Anhaenge​ .pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. Hayes, S.J. and Fischer, T.B., 2021. Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 3).

24  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Hübler, K.-H., Riehl, C. and Winkler-Kühlken, B., 1995. UVP in der Bauleitplanung – Praxisprobleme und Lösungsvorschläge, Band 1: Leitfaden zur UVP in der Bauleitplanung mit dem Schwerpunkt auf der Ebene der Flächennutzungsplanung, Reihe Berichte des Umweltbundesamtes 6/95, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin. IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Power Programmes – Guidelines, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, https://​ www​ .iaea​.org/​publications/​12251/​strategic​-environmental​-assessment​-for​-nuclear​-power​-programmes​ -guidelines. Jiliberto, R., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 24). Köppel, J., Geißler, G., Rehhausen, A., Wende, W., Albrecht, J., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Scholles, F., Putschky, M., Hoppenstedt, A. and Stemmer, B., 2018. Strategische Umweltprüfung und (neuartige) Pläne und Programme auf Bundesebene – Methoden, Verfahren und Rechtsgrundlagen. UBA-Texte 81/2018. https://​www​.umweltbundesamt​.de/​sites/​default/​files/​medien/​1410/​publikationen/​ 2018–10–18​_texte​_81–2018​_sup​-bundesplanung​.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2019. LAWA [Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser], 2013. Empfehlungen zur Aufstellung von Hochwasserrisikomanagementplänen. https://​www​.lawa​.de/​documents/​empfehlungen​_zur​ _aufstellung​_von​_hwrmpl​_mit​_anlagen​_1552299352​.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. LAWA [Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser], 2015. LAWA-BLANO Maßnahmenkatalog (WRRL,HWRMRL, MSRL). http://​www​.wasserblick​.net/​servlet/​is/​142651/​. Accessed 15 May 2020. LAWA [Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser], 2019. Empfehlungen zur Aufstellung, Überprüfung und Aktualisierung von Hochwasserrisikomanagement-plänen. https://​www​.lawa​.de/​documents/​lawa​ -empfehlung​-hwrmp​_1588147036​.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. Mustow, S.E., 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 13). Nielsson, M. N. and Dalkmann, H., 2001. Decision making and strategic environmental assessment, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 3 (3): 305–28. Noble, B. F. and Nwanekezie, K., 2016. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: principles, approaches and research directions, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. Partidário, M.R., 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide: Methodological Guidance for Strategic Thinking in SEA. http://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​eia/​pdf/​2012​%20SEA​ _Guidance​_Portugal​.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2017. Partidário, M.R., 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Rehhausen, A., 2019. The art of underperforming SEA – symptomatic narratives from Germany, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78: 106280. Rehhausen, A., Köppel, J., Scholles, F., Stemmer, B., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Geißler, G. and Wende, W., 2018. Quality of federal level strategic environmental assessment – a case study analysis for transport, transmission grid and maritime spatial planning in Germany, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 77: 1–36. Rehhausen, A. and Stemmer, B., 2017. Strategische Umweltprüfung auf Bundesebene: Aktuelle Berücksichtigung von kumulativen Wirkungen beim Infrastrukturausbau, UVP-report 31 (2): 118–26. Retief, F., Jones, C. and Jay, S., 2008. The emperor’s new clothes – reflections on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28: 504–14. Riehl, C. and Winkler-Kühlken, B., 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment in Area Master Planning: Practical Problems and Suggested Solutions, Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik GmbH, Berlin. Scholles, F., Baumüller, J., Bohl, J., Dahme, K. M., Fahnenbruch, B., Hanusch, M., Hartlik, J., Koch, M., Köppel, J., Peters, W., Rehhausen, A., Weiland, U. and Wende, W., 2017. Umweltprüfung im

Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment  25 Klima- und Gesetzeswandel. Einführung und Überblick über den 13. UVP-Kongress 2016, UVP-report, 31 (2): 67–88. Scott, P., 2021. Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 15). Umweltbundesamt, 2016. Nationaler Teil der internationalen Flussgebietsgemeinschaft Elbe. https://​ www​.umweltbundesamt​.de/​sites/​default/​files/​medien/​1968/​dokumente/​steckbrief​_flussgebietseinheit​ _elbe​.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2020. Verheem, R. and Dusik, J., 2011. A hitchhiker’s guide to SEA: are we in the same planet? Opening plenary. Prague, 21–3 September: IAIA Special Conference on SEA. Weingarten, E. and Hanusch, M., 2012. Einführung in das Schwerpunktthema Netzausbau – Verfahren und Ebenen, UVP-report 26 (3–4): 134–7.

3. Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment: UK practice as an example Samuel J. Hayes and Thomas B. Fischer

INTRODUCTION ‘Objectives-led’ is a particular approach to conducting impact assessments and the authors have written already on this in relation to Sustainable Appraisal (Hayes and Fischer, 2015). This chapter seeks to expand on the discussion of objectives-led impact assessment to consider three ways in which objectives can relate to SEA. We begin by exploring the objectives for SEA, making connections to work on the purposes of SEA and what we seek to achieve by completing it. We then consider perhaps the most classic objectives–SEA relationship – the objectives of SEA. These are the specific objectives set to drive an SEA process itself. We then move on to examine objectives in SEA. In this section we consider the objectives of policies, plans or programmes which SEA does, and does not, manage to scrutinise. First, though, we set out what we mean by SEA, its development in the UK, and also what we mean by ‘objectives-led’ SEA. The general development of SEA is covered in much greater detail than we can afford here in previous texts (see, for example, Fischer, 2007; Jones et al., 2005; Thérivel, 2010; see also Chapter 1 of this book by Fischer and González, 2021). However, we will outline some basic information on the form of SEA on which we base our discussion. Our understanding of SEA includes assessments that are conducted at a strategic level (usually referred to as policies, plans and programmes, and sometimes also include mega-projects) and/or are strategic in nature. We draw primarily on UK experiences and so derive our understanding of SEA from the various sectors and nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) within which SEA is practised. The developmental story of SEA typically frames it as having its roots in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which had been established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States in 1969 and EU Directive 85/337/EEC (the EIA Directive) in 1985. In this context, of particular importance is the ambiguous language of NEPA which potentially included assessment of policies, plans and programmes, by referring to ‘major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment’ (United States of America Government, 1969, Sec.102, 2(C)), leaving the door open from the outset to some form of strategic assessment (Bina, 2007; Fischer and Seaton, 2002; Smythe, 1997). Beyond the US’s policy-making, we can include several other influences on the development of SEA, including principle 17 of the Rio Declaration which calls for EIA of ‘proposed activities’ (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), Agenda 21 and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Protocol on SEA (Jones et al., 2005; Sadler and Verheem, 1996).

26

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  27 Although early legislation (like NEPA) did not clearly distinguish between project and strategic impact assessment, crucial to much of the analysis of SEA is a specific understanding of the way it developed, in the EU at least, through and in response to EIA (Bina, 2007). For the UK, therefore, the development of SEA is very closely related to the development and legislation in the EU through the EIA Directive (originally 85/337/EEC, followed by three amendments and a codification through 2011/92/EU with a follow-up amendment in 2014 through 2014/52/EU) and Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive). Development of SEA within the EU can be described as the result of desires to overcome perceived shortcomings in established EIA practice (for example the foreclosure of options and alternatives at the project stage and better consideration of complex, cumulative or synergistic impacts), to introduce more strategic thinking, to represent the environment and to promote sustainable development (Hayes et al., 2017; Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006; Partidário, 2000). While there is considerable overlap between these drivers; important to our discussion is how they acted to shape the objectives for, of and in SEA enshrined in the SEA Directive (and extended in the UNECE SEA Protocol, in particular with explicit requirements for screening, the consideration of health and trans-boundary consultations) and the resulting SEA legislation and systems produced. Of particular importance in the EU context is that the SEA Directive covers only plans and programmes, leaving the most strategic tiers (policies and legislation) out (even though the necessity to assess the latter is mentioned in the SEA protocol, adding ‘where appropriate’). Taking a system’s approach to SEA in which coverage of all decision-making tiers is thought to be essential for being able to develop effective SEA means that the seeds for failure were planted when it was first released (Fischer, 2006). The objectives-led approach to impact assessment can take several forms. Generally speaking, the use of objectives aligns with calls for impact assessment to be more proactive. In this vein, therefore, objectives-led assessment is looking to understand how a policy, plan or programme contributes to pre-determined objectives (Hayes and Fischer, 2015; James, 2001; Pope et al., 2004). The reasons for objectives to feature so strongly in the UK approach are connected with the preferences of the UK Government, as expressed through, for example, associated guidelines. It is also important to note that the UK’s experience with SEA is not uniform, as each of the devolved administrations (the UK Government for England, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government) is responsible for legislating on the various EU Directives related to impact assessment. Moreover, although the EIA and SEA Directives have been hugely influential on the practice of SEA in the UK, practice in the UK pre-dates these European milestones and so is mixed with its own ‘pre-directive’ history and practice development. Jackson and Illsley (2007) described the variation in practice across the UK and the distinction in practice types. In this context, the objectives-led approach – predicting the potential for a policy, plan or programme to move towards one’s objectives – can be contrasted with the baseline-led approach – predicting the impacts of the policy, plan or programme on the baseline situation. The same authors further noted that the SEA Directive can be understood as generally EIA based and baseline-led, and this is reflected in the title of the SEA Directive, ‘… assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment’ (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001a, L.197/30). Policy-makers in the UK, and particularly England, have favoured an objectives-led approach which can be based on the country’s sustainable development objectives. Furthermore, this approach was in line with existing practice when EU Directive-based SEA was introduced

28  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment (Jackson and Illsley, 2007). The UK had been developing a process of Environmental Appraisal for planning documents throughout the early 1990s and had considerably reviewed the success of the approach, eventually publishing A Good Practice Guide to Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance in 2000 and introducing Sustainability Appraisal (Department for Communities and Local Government et al., 2010; Hayes, 2013; Jackson and Illsley, 2007; Thérivel, 1998; Thérivel and Fischer, 2012; Wood, 2003). The introduction of Sustainability Appraisal just before the SEA Directive had to be transposed brought the objectives-led approach to the UK and coincided with UK devolution. As a consequence, the practice of SEA has varied between the four nations of the UK from the outset. Practice in England and Wales has remained more closely aligned as a result of the way devolution unfolded, although Welsh practice has increasingly been in the hands of the Welsh Government, bringing the potential for further divergence. Practice in Northern Ireland also reflects its unique devolution arrangements. Scotland, in particular, has demonstrated a desire to utilise SEA for novel purposes and, as such, demonstrates greater divergence (Esson et al., 2004). In this context, Scotland has expressed the desire to be a world leader in SEA (Fischer et al., 2018). The following sections unpick and expand our discussion of objectives for, of and in SEA. The development of SEA and SEA objectives are part of multiple interrelated debates around contested topics such as environmental protection and sustainable development, but also more technical discussions around tiering of decision-making and strategic thinking. These debates influence the objectives for SEA. Shaping our understanding of the purpose of SEA and subsequently why practitioners are engaged in conducting SEA. Such debates and concepts also carry influence through to the objectives of SEA, informing how objectives are scoped in or out, how they are phrased and how they are used. Finally, that influence also continues to the objectives which are in SEA. This point of discussion is distinct from the objectives of SEA in that here we turn to consider the objectives being subjected, or not, to SEA – i.e. the objectives of policies, plans and programmes themselves. This final consideration aims to discuss the reach of SEA and its relationship with the policies, plans and programmes it is able to scrutinise. Finally, we present some overarching conclusions.

OBJECTIVES FOR SEA We start this section by reflecting on the objectives held for SEA. Ultimately, this is about the purpose or mission set for SEA and, as noted, in this context it is important to look to the EU’s SEA Directive which has been particularly influential in the UK (as in most other EU member states; see Fischer, 2006 and Chapter 20 by Koshkar et al., 2021). The European Commission, in drafting the SEA Directive, defined the objectives for SEA in Article 1 as follows; The objective of this Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001a, L.197/32)

This statement establishes two main objectives for SEA, one substantive and one procedural. The first revolves around the protection of the environment and the second around the inte-

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  29 gration of the environmental considerations into plan and programme preparation with a view to the promotion of sustainable development. In transposing the Directive into UK legislation and regulation, as well as into guidance, the UK’s objectives for SEA have been codified further. Box 3.1 provides a selection of statements that express objectives for SEA drawn from across the UK. These statements provide the springboard for a discussion of three important aspects of the objectives for SEA. We start by reflecting on the central role of the definition of sustainable development, given the position of the concept as one of the primary objectives for SEA. We then consider the ‘strategic-ness’ of assessment as an objective. Finally, we consider the complex and multifaceted nature of objectives for SEA. Rather than a simple, solitary objective, SEA is tasked with multiple objectives, some potentially conflicting or at the very least complicating its application. The alignment to a particular definition of sustainable development or sustainability and the impact this has on SEA practice is crucial to understand the objectives held for SEA (Eales and Sheate, 2011). Occupying such a dominant space in the fundamental objectives for the process means that the definition of sustainable development any system or application of SEA is aligned with is incredibly influential (Hacking and Guthrie, 2008; Owens and Cowell, 2002). Definitions of sustainable development reveal a great many attempts to express the concept, and even where some consensus does exist, for example around the Brundtland definition, this conceals considerable variation in associated interpretations. Definitions can express a range of views aligned from ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ sustainability, incorporating variation on the necessary protection of natural capital, substitution between capital stocks and the acceptability of trade-offs (Des Jardins, 2001; Gutés, 1996; Jabareen, 2008; Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006; Nilsen, 2010; Owens and Cowell, 2002). One of the implications of setting sustainable development as part of the objectives for SEA is that SEA must confront the complexity of the concept; engaging with possible ambivalence, uncertainty, contested knowledge and conflict (Fischer et al., 2010; Newig et al., 2007). Scotland offers a good example of a system which has had strong political support for SEA and a commitment to utilising SEA to progress the achievement of high-level objectives (Scottish Government, 2011). McLauchlan and João (2011), however, highlighted the potential for contradiction in the list of high-level policy objectives set for SEA. Indeed, they evaluated Scotland’s commitment to promoting environmental justice through SEA, concluding that the goal remained utopian as SEAs in Scotland were neither focused specifically on environmental justice nor had a way of measuring it indisputably. Moreover, their analysis of Scottish guidance at the time of their study (2004/07) found that the Scottish guidance in comparison to broader UK guidance was in fact focused away from certain aspects of environmental justice such as health inequalities. They also noted that while the professional literature suggests that forms of geographic information system (GIS) or distributional analysis should be used to evaluate environmental justice, SEA practice in Scotland typically did not follow such techniques. Instead, they found practice utilised SEA objectives, attempting to cluster complex elements of environmental impact into a relatively short list of objectives to be used as a structure for assessment of likely progress.

30  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

BOX 3.1 OBJECTIVES, AIMS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SEA COLLECTED FROM A SELECTION OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FROM ACROSS THE UK The joint UK guidance document A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Article 1 of the Directive states that its objective is “to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”. These aims are consistent with a range of Government policies on the environment and sustainable development. (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister et al., 2005, p. 9)

The UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government webpage Guidance: Strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal: Its [Sustainability Appraisal incorporating SEA] role is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives. … Sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment are tools used at the plan-making stage to assess the likely effects of the plan when judged against reasonable alternatives. (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, 2019)

The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs webpage Strategic environmental assessment: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a system of including environmental considerations into certain plans and programmes at an early stage of the programme or plan development. (Department of Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs, 2016)

The Scottish guidance document Strategic environmental assessment guidance: SEA can provide a valuable opportunity to identify and address the environmental implications of public plans. SEA processes can help plan-makers to consider how to deliver a plan differently, in order to achieve better environmental outcomes, while still delivering important plan objectives. (Scottish Government, 2013, p. 4)

The Scottish Government webpage POLICY: Environmental assessment: SEA helps to better protect the environment, aims to ensure that any development is sustainable, and increases opportunities for public participation in decision-making. (Scottish Government, 2019a)

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  31 The Welsh Government webpage GUIDANCE: Strategic environmental assessment: The aim of SEA is to:

• provide a high level of protection to the environment • promote sustainable development • integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of a plan or programme. (Welsh Government, 2019) In addition to the complexities involved in attempting to align SEA to a particular definition of contested concepts such as sustainable development or environmental justice, we also consider the strategic nature of SEA. In some respects, we can understand the strategic elements as a result of desires to move impact assessment up the decision-making hierarchy in a tiered system, and a desire to overcome failings of EIA at the project level (Fischer, 2007; Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006; Partidário, 2000). While these ideas provide some of the logic for the development of SEA as part of the EU SEA Directive, being strategic should be more than a description of the scale or tier of policy-, plan- or programme-making. The strategic objective of SEA should refer to the ability of SEA to be involved in the early stages of policy, plan or programme development in order to influence its strategic direction (Bina, 2007; Noble, 2000). Noble and Nwanekezie (2016) concluded that a continuum from less to more strategic can help to capture more recent thinking of SEA, but also argue that SEA needs to be more strategic in order to more meaningfully assess and influence policies, plans and programmes and the governance arenas which shape them. Partidário (2021) offers a fuller interpretation and discussion of strategic SEA in Chapter 4 of this book and we return to this point in the section ‘Objectives in SEA’. Finally, it is important to consider the objectives that exist and have contributed to the logic for SEA, including an earlier consideration of the environment, strategic thinking, overcoming failings of EIA, good governance and consideration of complex impacts such as cumulative, long-range or synergistic (Fischer, 2007; Hayes et al., 2017; Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006; Partidário, 2000; Wood, 2003). Eales and Sheate (2011) argued that SEA, particularly as established through the EU SEA Directive, follows a dual purpose; (1) being an advocate for the environment and (2) attempting to integrate environmental with social and economic considerations to achieve decisions which better reflect sustainable development. The existence of multiple objectives for SEA can impact on the position SEA occupies in policy-, plan- and programme-making. Objectives include, for example: information provider, advocate or representative of the environment, and integrator of environmental considerations into decision-making and knowledge broker (Cashmore et al., 2007; Fischer, 2007; Scrase and Sheate, 2002). These various objectives place SEA in different positions or require different modes of acting: from employing rational or technocratic models of information provision to positions requiring less neutrality, such as to act as advocate for the environment. Debate has recognised the problems of assuming or adopting a position of rationality or neutrality in an inherently complex, contested and uncertain field tied to sustainable development (Fischer, 2003; Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Weston, 2004). Lobos and Partidário (2014) noted that the field has arguably shifted from conceptions of rational SEA to more deliberative and collaborative conceptions – taking better account of the way in which SEA is able to influence decision makers (Hayes, 2019).

32  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Although there have been shifts in SEA thinking, practice must still grapple with multiple objectives, the potential conflict and tension between them and the positions they require. In particular, it is important to consider how pragmatic objectives, such as achieving regulatory compliance, sit alongside more (strategic) deliberative and collaborative approaches. This means there are potentially contradictory incentives for practice (Hayes et al., 2017). In summary, it is important to recognise the complexity of objectives for SEA. In this context, the influence of definitions of sustainable development, the complexity of being strategic as well as the potential for conflict and tension between simultaneously held objectives are of particular importance.

OBJECTIVES OF SEA Subsequently, we will discuss the objectives of SEA. These are the objectives used as the driving force of an objectives-led SEA methodology. Furthermore, we will elaborate on how they function. First, we consider guidance relevant to SEA application from different parts of the UK. The legislative landscape which transposes the EU SEA Directive in the UK is relatively complex. As noted above, the matter is devolved to the four nations of the UK. This is further complicated by the (Town and Country Planning related) practice of Sustainability Appraisal incorporating SEA commonly applied in England and Wales. However, this text is not aiming to provide an overview of the intricacies of UK legislation; suffice it to say that multiple jurisdictions create a complex landscape. Box 3.2 presents a selection of extracts highlighting the manner in which objectives are presented to practitioners in the UK through SEA guidance. We see objectives here presented as the means by which policies, plans and programmes are tested. These are specific objectives drawn up for the SEA as part of the process of scoping for potentially significant impacts, rather than, for example, existing national environmental objectives. National objectives may well feature, but the list of SEA objectives used is typically bespoke to the particular policy,1 plan or programme which is assessed.

BOX 3.2 EXTRACTS FROM GUIDANCE DRAWN FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE UK ON THE USE OF SEA OBJECTIVES The joint UK guidance document A practical guide to the strategic environmental assessment directive: Developing SEA objectives: To provide a means by which the environmental performance of the plan or programme and alternatives can be assessed. … Testing the plan or programme objectives against the SEA objectives: To identify potential synergies or inconsistencies between the objectives of the plan or programme and the SEA objectives and help in developing alternatives. (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister et al., 2005, p. 24)

1 Scotland is the only nation in the EU to include requirements to assess policy, following the SEA Directive. This will be discussed further below.

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  33 The UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government webpage Guidance: Strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal: It [the scoping stage] should set out the context, objectives and approach of the assessment; and identify relevant environmental, economic and social issues and objectives. (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, 2019)

The Scottish guidance document Strategic environmental assessment guidance: STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES The review of relevant environmental objectives can be used to construct a framework of objectives against which a plan can be assessed. This can identify whether a plan supports wider environmental objectives or whether there are any environmental gaps. Alternatively, objectives could focus on the most relevant local environmental issues, derived from engagement. (Scottish Government, 2013, p. 26)

From Box 3.2 we see that the practice of drawing up a specific set of SEA objectives with which to test and evaluate an emerging and developing policy, plan or programme is commonplace in UK practice. This places SEA objectives, used to structure the assessment itself, in a central position and influential on practice and the results of SEA. Regulations and guidance produced in each nation of the UK provide direction on the sorts of topics which should be covered and codified as objectives. Each SEA process should involve its own scoping exercise to identify the most important issues to be included. Given the influential position of SEA objectives in the objectives-led approach to impact assessment, research has identified that vague and poorly worded objectives can reduce the potency of the assessment (Gibson et al., 2005; Newig et al., 2007; Pope et al., 2004). Moreover, different types of objectives have been found to vary in their clarity. For example, Morrison-Saunders and Fischer (2006) found that economic objectives were often worded with sufficient clarity, while environmental objectives offered much more scope for interpretation. This is particularly difficult for systems such as that employed in England and Wales where Sustainability Appraisal is used to incorporate SEA as the breadth of objectives is typically wider to cover overt social and economic aspects as well as environmental issues. Ultimately, while evidence has been found that SEA does have an effect on the policies, plans and programmes assessed (see e.g. Phylip-Jones and Fischer, 2015; Thérivel and Fischer, 2012) there is debate about the strength of this influence (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). Furthermore, various authors have established that in the UK SEA often leads to marginal changes only (Hayes, 2013), revolving around, for example, particular wording of development policies (Kidd et al., 2011). Next to debates that highlight the strength, or weakness, of objectives set within SEA as a means of evaluating policies, plans and programmes, questions have also been raised about the scope of SEA. This is particularly relevant in Scotland where SEA has more specifically focused on the environment in all situations of application. McLauchlan and João (2011) and Jackson and Illsley (2007) noted this, drawing attention to the conditions which led to this focus. As Scotland drew together its position and developed its legislation on SEA, political will coalesced around using SEA as a way of promoting environmental justice and tackling environmental issues. This placed an emphasis on interpreting the SEA Directive and its

34  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment proposed topics from an environmental perspective to the exclusion of social and economic considerations (McLauchlan and João, 2011). Considerable debate has been had on the appropriate breadth of objectives, contrasting systems such as SEA with Sustainability Appraisal/ Assessment (Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006; Smith and Sheate, 2001; Tajima and Fischer, 2013). The use of objectives as the building blocks of SEA clearly places them in a central position. As we have noted, this raises issues to do with their strengths or weaknesses, the clarity of their expression and their breadth. Clearly when attempting to articulate objectives around contested concepts and topics such as sustainability, sustainable development and environmental issues, this is bound to be fraught with complexity. Practice, therefore, needs to engage robustly and openly with issues of concept definition, wording, clarity and breadth. The development, construction and use of objectives is consequently not a simple process and should be considered as part of the wider political discussions which shape sustainability and environmental debates.

OBJECTIVES IN SEA We now turn our attention to the objectives in SEA. Here we are thinking about the objectives of policies, plans and programmes themselves to consider how these objectives are subjected, or not, to analysis as part of SEA. The first point of this discussion focuses on the potential for conflict between SEA objectives and the objectives of a policy, plan or programme. Eales and Sheate (2011) outlined an excellent example of this, drawing on the second Scottish National Planning Framework and its SEA. This case exemplifies a conflict which the practice of SEA is aiming to resolve in many ways. The National Planning Framework objective ‘sustainable economic growth’, largely delivered through a series of national transport and energy development projects, was found to conflict with SEA objectives. Eales and Sheate’s (2011) analysis highlighted that the National Planning Framework and its SEA struggled to reconcile sustainable economic growth with SEA objectives on tackling climate change and biodiversity. They argued that this failing stems from a lack of truly strategic thinking as the process was back to front, with a list of projects driving the National Planning Framework rather than the converse. This, unfortunately, is not an exceptional case, as this phenomenon has been observed on many other occasions (see Fischer, 2006). In this scenario, perhaps it is not surprising that SEA was not especially effective. However, and in line with the concept of a tiered approach to SEA (see Marshall and Fischer, 2006), this maintains the possibility that had the process been more strategic, perhaps thinking more spatially and nationally before going on to identify projects, then the conflict could have been overcome. As well as difficulties associated with dealing with conflicts between SEA objectives and policy, plan and programme objectives, it is important to acknowledge that for practice in much of the EU and most of the UK (Scotland being the exception), policies are excluded from SEA. The SEA Directive specifically only includes ‘certain plans and programmes’ (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001b) and this is largely reflected in UK practice. As we have noted, part of the logic for the expansion of impact assessment to the strategic tier stemmed from identified failings at the EIA project level, including the foreclosure of options and alternatives (Eales and Sheate, 2011; Fischer, 2007). This is related to long-held

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  35 evidence that EIA should be conducted early in any process to be most effective (Feldmann et al., 2001; Sheate et al., 2003). In this regard, the SEA Directive partially responded to such criticism by implementing impact assessment earlier in an assumed tiered decision-making process. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitation created by the exclusion of the policy tier – as this leaves the policy-making tier, which will feed into lower tiers, unscrutinised by SEA. The ramifications of this are discussed further later in this section. This limitation was acknowledged by the UNECE SEA Protocol to the Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context. As a consequence, the consideration of policies and legislation was included. Despite the limitation identified, Scotland in particular provides an example of an SEA system which has arguably been expanded to include the policy tier. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 broadened the reach of SEA to include what can be considered policies by including all plans, programmes and strategies with a ‘public character’ within the legislation (Scottish Government, 2005). The Act requires ‘pre-screening’ of effectively all public sector policies, plans or programmes for their potential environmental impacts and for those determined to have significant impacts to be subject to SEA (Jackson and Illsley, 2006). In a review of Scottish practice, the pre-screening procedures were not found to be used inappropriately to screen out qualifying plans, programmes or strategies (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2011). Moreover, the expansion has been generally positively experienced in Scotland, perhaps related to the political commitment and institutional support provided by the SEA Gateway and SEA Forum (Hayes et al., 2017). As an example of the policy tier being subject to SEA in Scotland, revisions to the Planning system itself through the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 have been subject to SEA, as well as many other areas of policy being pre-screened with reports made available through the SEA Gateway (Scottish Government, 2019b). For example, Fischer and Phylip-Jones (2007) described the application of SEA to a particular policy case, the development of the Fife Supplementary Planning Guidance for Renewable Energies. As well as considering the inclusion or exclusion of the policy tier from SEA scrutiny, it is also important to consider how this trickles down and has implications for lower tier plans and programmes. One such implication is codified by the regulations for SEA in England, which formalise the subjugation of SEA alternatives to plan or programme objectives – beginning what we argue is a process of formally excluding SEA from the examination of the fundamental objectives of plans and programmes: (2) The report shall identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of— (a) implementing the plan or programme; and (b) reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme. (UK Government, 2004, p. 7)

The requirement for reasonable alternatives in SEA to take account of the objectives of the plan or programme, while carrying a clear practical logic in a tiered system, does result in the objectives of a plan or programme often going unscrutinised by SEA. A recent example is housing targets, based on population growth projections that no one appears to be questioning. Moreover, because, for example, plan and programme objectives are often set in train by higher tier policies, which in England are unlikely to have been subject to SEA, these aspects of plans and programmes are effectively outside of the SEA process. This potentially undermines the ability of SEA to truly assess and promote sustainable development, as SEA is not

36  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment allowed to consider whether the objectives of a plan or programme are likely to lead to significant environmental impacts. SEA’s development from EIA, particularly in the EU where the SEA Directive takes a similar approach as the EIA Directive, also has implications for the objectives which are considered within and outwith the reach of SEA. As Eales and Sheate (2011) argued, as SEA history is rooted in EIA, it is targeted at reducing adverse impacts and enhancing benefits, rather than questioning the fundamental logic or objectives of a plan or programme. In addition to policy, plan and programme objectives being formally outside of SEA scrutiny, there is also evidence that certain topics, alternatives or options are placed out of the scope of SEA through political unacceptability (Hayes, 2019). Indeed, Fischer (2005) similarly concluded that understanding how SEA can have an impact on policies, plans and programmes, requires an understanding not just of procedure, or what the objectives are, but also of the context in which they operate. A constrained space for discussion of certain ideas has been noted in relation to the planning system in general (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012; Bidstrup and Hansen, 2014; Owens and Cowell, 2002), and we see evidence that SEA is also subject to this constraint, rather than necessarily being a tool to encourage novel or difficult discussions (Fischer, 2007). When combined with an incomplete application of SEA to all tiers of decision-making and with the tiered structure itself, which can create long-term commitments from one tier to the next, it is argued that certain aspects of policies, plans and programmes could be described as effectively ‘off the table’ (Hayes, 2019). With this in mind, and considering, for example, the climate emergency declarations of the UK Government and local authorities around the UK (Cowburn, 2019), the question arises whether SEA should challenge more strongly some of the objectives driving policies, plans and programmes. As the example drawn from Eales and Sheate (2011) highlights, challenging and squaring environmental and economic objectives requires tools such as SEA, and policy-, plan- and programme-making itself, to take a more strategic outlook. If some policies, plans and programmes, objectives or topics are excluded from SEA then, we would argue, the tool is diminished in its capacity to contribute to high-level objectives and grand challenges.

CONCLUSIONS Through this chapter we have considered the objectives for, of and in SEA with a view to developing a better understanding about the various ways objectives feature in SEA practice. Considering objectives for SEA, we reviewed the literature and discussed ideas which show some of the grand objectives SEA has been tasked with, such as sustainable development and environmental justice. We have noted the considerable influence that definitions of such contested concepts inevitably play when a system of SEA is aligned to them. Moreover, we see the difficulty of aligning an SEA system to complex and contested concepts such as sustainable development. However, what we do see is a need for strategic considerations to be part of SEA practice. In thinking about the objectives of SEA, we noted research that shows environmental objectives can often be poorly worded and vague, and less able to stand against more strongly worded economic objectives. We’ve also highlighted the variation and difficulty in establishing the appropriate breadth of objectives for a system aiming at sustainable development. Much of this is reflective of the position SEA objectives occupy; far from being simple pro-

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  37 cedural elements of the process, they are tied to wider sustainability, and environmental and political debates. In our final view on SEA objectives we have considered policy, plan and programme objectives in SEA. The potential for conflict between SEA objectives and policy, plan and programme objectives has been identified, along with the difficulty of reconciling such conflicts and the role for strategic thinking in overcoming them. Crucially for this discussion, we have also focused on objectives excluded from SEA. The exclusion of the policy tier in many instances, we argue, undermines the ability of SEA to holistically consider all relevant impacts of decision-making. Scotland provides an interesting example of bringing that tier within the remit of SEA. We have also noted how other factors, such as legislative requirements and political unacceptability, serve to effectively take certain topics, options or alternatives off the table or out of SEA scrutiny. Complex issues of practicality need to be weighed against a desire to truly scrutinise the objectives of policies, plans and programmes. Objectives and SEA clearly relate in multiple ways, but this exploration, we hope, has highlighted not only some of the details of how objectives feature for, of and in SEA, but also how issues of practice are situated within wider debates of politics, sustainable development, policy-, plan- and programme-making, and decision-making.

REFERENCES Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. 2012. Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37: 89–103. Bidstrup, M. and Hansen, A. M. 2014. The paradox of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 47: 29–35. Bina, O. 2007. A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 585–606. Cashmore, M., Bond, A. and Cobb, D. 2007. The contribution of environmental assessment to sustainable development: toward a richer empirical understanding. Environmental Management 40: 516–30. Cowburn, A. 2019. MPs make history by passing Commons motion to declare ‘environment and climate change emergency’. The Independent, 01/05/19. Available at https://​www​.independent​.co​.uk/​news/​ uk/​politics/​climate​-change​-environment​-emergency​-commons​-motion​-mps​-vote​-latest​-a8895456​ .html [accessed 10/10/19]. Department for Communities and Local Government, Smith, S., Richardson, J. and Mcnab, A. 2010. Towards a more efficient and effective use of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal in spatial planning: Final Report, London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Department of Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs. 2016. Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at https://​www​.daera​-ni​.gov​.uk/​topics/​land​-and​-landscapes/​strategic​-environmental​ -assessment [accessed 10/10/19]. Des Jardins, J.R. 2001. Environmental ethics: an introduction to environmental philosophy, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Eales, R.P. and Sheate, W.R. 2011. Effectiveness of policy level environment and sustainability assessment: challenges and lessons from recent practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13: 39–65. Esson, G., Reekie, B. and Jackson, T. 2004. ‘Objective-led’ SEA in a Scottish local authority. European Environment 14: 153–64. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2001a. Directive 2001/42 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

38  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2001b. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Communities. Feldmann, L., Vanderhaegen, M. and Pirotte, C. 2001. The EU’s SEA Directive: status and links to integration and sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21: 203–22. Fischer, T.B. 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23: 155–70. Fischer, T.B. 2005. Having an impact? context elements for effective SEA application in transport policy, plan and programme making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 7: 407–32. Fischer, T.B. 2006. SEA in spatial/land use planning in the 25 EU member states – a July 2006 update, UVP report 20(3): 127–31. Fischer, T.B. 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach, London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B., Dalkmann, H., Lowry, M. and Tennøy, A. 2010. The dimensions and context of transport decision making, in: Joumard, R. and Gudmundsson, H. (eds), Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Methods, Paris: Les collections de l’Inrets: 79–102, http://​hal​.archives​-ouvertes​.fr/​docs/​00/​49/​28/​23/​PDF/​Indicators​_EST​_May​_2010​ .pdf [accessed 16/10/19]. Fischer, T.B., Glasson, J., Jha-Thakur, U., Thérivel, R., Howeard, R. and Fothergill, J. 2018. Implications of Brexit for environmental assessment in the UK – results from a one-day workshop at the University of Liverpool. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36(4): 371–7. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Phylip-Jones, J. 2007. SEA of the Fife supplementary planning guidance for renewable energies, in: Au, E.W.K., Lam, K.C., Zhu, T. and Partidário, M. (eds), International Experience on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Beijing: State Environmental Protection Administration: 141–149, http://​content​.undp​.org/​go/​cms​-service/​download/​asset/​?asset​_id​=​2083586 [accessed 16/10/19]. Fischer, T.B. and Seaton, K. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment – effective planning instrument or lost concept? Planning Practice and Research 17(1): 31–44. Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30: 15–24. Gibson, R., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J. and Whitelaw, G. 2005. Sustainability Assessment Criteria, Processes and Applications, London: Earthscan. Gutés, M. 1996. The concept of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics 17: 147–56. Hacking, T. and Guthrie, P. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 73–89. Hayes, S.J. 2013. Strategic assessment in England and Scotland: analysing the contribution to sustainability. PhD, University of Manchester. Hayes, S.J. 2019. It’s good to talk: dialogue between strategic environmental assessment and plan-making. Town Planning Review 90: 57–79. Hayes, S.J., Barker, A. and Jones, C.E. 2017. Re-examining the rationale for strategic assessment: an evaluation of purpose in two systems. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 19(4): 3–28. Hayes, S.J. and Fischer, T.B. 2015. Setting and measuring objectives in sustainability assessment, in Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J. and Bond, A. (eds), International Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar (chapter 12). Jabareen, Y. 2008. A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10: 179–92. Jackson, T. and Illsley, B. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment as a tool of environmental governance: Scotland’s extension of the European Union SEA Directive. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49: 361–83.

Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment  39 Jackson, T. and Illsley, B. 2007. An analysis of the theoretical rationale for using strategic environmental assessment to deliver environmental justice in the light of the Scottish Environmental Assessment Act. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 607–23. James, E. 2001. Assessing the sustainability of minerals development in Devon, UK: evolution of appraisal methods. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19: 153–60. Jones, C., Barker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. and Wood, C. 2005. SEA: an overview, in: Jones, C., Barker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. and Wood, C. (eds), Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: An International Evaluation, London: Earthscan (chapter 2). Kidd, S., Fischer, T.B. and Jha-Thakur, U. 2011. Developing the learning potential of strategic environmental assessment in spatial planning, in: Rogerson, R., Sadler, S., Green, A. and Wong, C. (eds), Sustainable Communities, Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire Press (chapter 4). Kørnøv, L. and Thissen, W. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18: 191–200. Koshkar, S., Uttam, C., Balfors, B., Hörnberg, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Towards advancing strategic environmental assessment practice: learning from experiences of eight European countries, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 20). Lobos, V. and Partidário, M. 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 34–46. Marshall, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and tiered SEA in the UK – the case of ScottishPower. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(2): 279–99. Mclauchlan, A. and João, E. 2011. The utopian goal of attempting to deliver environmental justice using SEA. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13: 129–58. Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. 2019. Guidance: Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal. London: Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. Morisson-Saunders, A. and Fischer, T.B. 2006. What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8: 19–39. Newig, J., Voß, J.-P. and Monstadt, J. 2007. Editorial: governance for sustainable development in the face of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power: an introduction. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9: 185–92. Nilsen, H.R. 2010. The joint discourse ‘reflexive sustainable development’ – from weak towards strong sustainable development. Ecological Economics 69: 495–501. Noble, B.F. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: what is it? & what makes it strategic? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2: 203–24. Noble, B.F. and Nwanekezie, K. 2016. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Department of the Environment Northern Ireland. 2005. A practical guide to the strategic environmental assessment directive: practical guidance on applying European directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment”, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Owens, S. and Cowell, R. 2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process, London: Routledge. Partidário, M.R. 2000. Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20: 647–63. Partidário, M.R. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and Gonzalez, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Phylip-Jones, J. and Fischer, T.B. 2015 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 202–12. Pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 595–616.

40  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Sadler, B. and Verheem, R. 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions, The Hague: Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2011. The Scottish Strategic Environmental Assessment Review. Stirling: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Scottish Government. 2005. Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act, London: The Stationery Office. Scottish Government. 2011. About Strategic Environmental Assessment in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at http://​www​.scotland​.gov​.uk/​Topics/​Environment/​environmental​ -assessment/​sea/​about [accessed 19/06/19]. Scottish Government. 2013. Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance, Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Scottish Government. 2019a. Policy: Environmental Assessment, Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at https://​www​.gov​.scot/​policies/​environmental​-assessment/​strategic​-environmental​ -assessment​-sea/​ [accessed 10/10/19]. Scottish Government. 2019b. SEA Database, Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Available at https://​ www2​.gov​.scot/​seag/​publicsearch​.aspx [accessed 09/10/19]. Scrase, J. and Sheate, W. 2002. Integration and integrated approaches to assessment: what do they mean for the environment? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 4: 275–94. Sheate, W.R., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J. and Steen, U. 2003. Integrating the environment into strategic decision-making: conceptualizing policy SEA. European Environment 13: 1–18. Smith, S. and Sheate, W.R. 2001. Sustainability appraisal of English regional plans: incorporating the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19: 263–76. Smythe, R. 1997. The historical roots of NEPA, in Clark, R. and Canter, L.W. (eds), Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future, Boca Raton, FL: St Lucie Press (chapter 1). Tajima, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2013. Should different impact assessment instruments be integrated? Evidence from English spatial planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 41: 29–37. Thérivel, R. 1998. Strategic environmental assessment of development plans in Great Britain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18: 39–57. Thérivel, R. 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, London: Earthscan. Thérivel, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2012. Sustainability appraisal in England, UVP Report 26(1): 16–21. UK Government. 2004. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1633, London: The Stationery Office. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. United States of America Government. 1969. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, United States of America. Welsh Government. 2019. Guidance: Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cardiff: Welsh Government. Available at https://​gov​.wales/​strategic​-environmental​-assessment [accessed 04/10/19]. Weston, J. 2004. EIA in a risk society. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47: 313–25. Wood, C. 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

4. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment Maria R. Partidário

INTRODUCTION Knowledge, experience and cultural backgrounds, as well as policy and planning practices, or more generally, governance and decision contexts, unavoidably influence and shape the concepts and the applications of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Academics and professionals of SEA have come to accept that there is not only one form of doing and thinking in SEA, as this book well illustrates. Generally, all types of SEA share a common notion of a systematic and participatory process that aims to ensure the earlier integration of environmental aspects in decision-making processes, with a fundamental role in promoting sustainable development. But how this environmental integration happens, and how sustainable development is promoted, can vary and bring enormous differences to the practice, and to expected results with the application of SEA. As previously argued, and further developed in subsequent sections, different types of SEA can be distinguished by its origin and evolution but also by the outputs and outcomes that are expected with its application. The concept of SEA as an instrument led by the assessment of effects is largely the most common understanding of SEA, also known as traditional or conventional SEA (Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012). Expected outcomes include informed decisions on the negative and positive environmental effects that those decisions imply, particularly in relation to the conditions for subsequent development projects. Adequate mitigation measures and a monitoring plan are essential elements in an environmental report, the main output of an effect-based SEA. Often clearance of environmental legal compliance is a key driver for its application. It is visible in most legal frameworks around the world and dominates worldwide applications of SEA, within a spectrum of variations which various chapters in this book appropriately address. This chapter is about a concept of SEA that is not effects-based and is driven by strategic thinking for sustainability. Imagined a few decades ago (Partidário, 1996, 1999) it has evolved inspired by military and business strategic thinking schools of thought, drawing on complexity and systems theories, as well as on sustainability transitions theory. The Strategic Thinking for Sustainability (ST4S) model was formulated to enable its application in SEA and sustainability assessment (or appraisal) as formal processes, but also in other strategic approaches in policy and planning for sustainability. This chapter is about SEA with an ST4S approach, whose primary rationale is to enhance the strategicness in SEA, a term suggested in Hacking and Guthrie (2008). With ST4S, SEA is built into the conceptualization or design of strategies not to provide environmental information but instead to act as a strategic instrument intended to help stretch views beyond borders, engage perspectives into the long term and stimulate the strategic actions that can move development in the direction of societal priorities for sustainability. Expected outcomes include environmental- and sustainably-driven strategic 41

42  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment options that feed into processes of formation and formulation of initiatives that are the object of strategic decisions. The objective of this chapter is to present the concept and application of the ST4S model in SEA, exposing its principles and the methodological grounds to pursue a SEA that aims to think strategically about the impacts of development initiatives. The following section elaborates on the rationale behind the conceptualization of the ST4S model; it then presents its main objectives, assumptions and benefits before it addresses the main differences to conventional SEA, and then describes how it works illustrated with examples of its application, before conclusions are drawn.

WHY STRATEGIC THINKING FOR SUSTAINABILITY (ST4S) IN SEA? Perhaps triggered by the growing attention given to complexity theories (Boulton et al., 2015; Holland, 2014; Homer-Dixon, 2011; Johnson, 2011), there is increased recognition in various disciplinary fields that society, and development processes in general, are confronted with surmounting environmental and social global problems that require innovative approaches and forms to deal with them. As de Haan and Rotmans (2018) argue, unsustainable path dependencies in decision and development practices require a change in how dynamic interactions between social, environmental, institutional, political and economic goals, and underlying values, are being addressed. The technocratic rationality that influenced standard practices in planning, in project development, and in management in the last century is being questioned for its inadequacy as a standalone practice to deal, on its own, with the complex nature and scale of real problems. Almost two decades ago, Rotmans et al. (2001) argued that persistent problems cannot be solved by current policies and practices and traditional approaches alone, and that sub-optimal solutions can generate even more persistent and complex problems in the long term. Complexity is acknowledged in the Impact Assessment (IA) literature, clear in the words of Noble (2019, p. 1): “IA is under pressure to respond to increasingly complex environmental challenges”. But so is the need for changing practices in IA because of complexity. Bond et al. (2015) highlighted that existing environmental assessment practice is poor at dealing with complexity and uncertainty and that significant innovation in IA is not sparking. Likewise, Retief et al. (2016) recognized that the future is less predictable than what is conventionally assumed in IA practice, and that linear thinking is insufficient to address increased complexity and uncertainty. As Retief et al. said (see also Chapter 8 in this book by Fischer and Retief, 2021), “Using the past to predict the future will become increasingly problematic and challenging especially within a technical rational and/or linear thinking paradigm typically reflected in EA practice to date” (2016, p. 56). These and other IA scholars seem to recognize that conventional IA practice is not sufficient to deal with current global challenges and with the complexity associated with multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor planning and development (Partidário, 2020). An important axiom in complexity theory is that complexity requires strategic and systemic thinking (Homer-Dixon, 2011). If current and future IA is about complexity, as apparently suggested by scholars, then we need systemic changes and disruptive innovations to shift the IA regime into a more collaborative, constructive and strategic rationale (Partidário, 2020).

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  43 That was the motivation behind earlier proposals to develop a different, non-effects based and more strategic oriented approach in SEA (Partidário, 1996, 1999, 2000). Reasons included: the need to take advantage of the strategic potential of SEA, the capacity of SEA to strategically “influence” development decisions, and the strategic nature of actions to which SEA would apply; the need to deal with systems rather than sites, ensuring the continuity of SEA connection with policy and planning decision-making, instead of persisting on deterministic approaches (plan by plan, programme by programme, site by site) usual in conventional SEA; and the need to explore sustainability pathways when discussing strategic options in decision processes. Research evolved and eventually led to the development of the ST4S model with application to SEA (Partidário, 2012, 2015), which is addressed in this chapter. A growing number of scholars and practitioners have recognized the need to increase strategicness in IA approaches, particularly in SEA and sustainability assessment (Hacking & Guthrie, 2008; Noble & Nwanekezie, 2017; Stoeglehner, 2019). Several authors have positioned SEA as a social construct instrument to address complex systems, to identify and structure environmental and sustainability problems, as well as to understand how priorities and development objectives are established, and the extent to which the democratization of decision-making is recognized (Cashmore & Axelsson, 2013; Lobos & Partidário, 2014; Noble & Nwanekezie, 2017; Noble et al. 2019; Partidário & Monteiro, 2019). ST4S in SEA aims to turn SEA into a more engaging and persuasive approach, a leverage to enable changing practices and a positive instrument in transitions for sustainability (Partidário, 2015, 2016, 2020). Scholars in the disciplinary field of sustainability transition (ST) refer to ST as processes of social change that are nonlinear, disruptive, involve systemic shifts and engage structural transformative change instead of a marginal or incremental one (de Haan & Rotmans 2018; Kohler et al., 2019; Loorbach & Rotmans, 2006). The proposed transformative evolution in SEA, with ST4S, is aligned with the theories, and emerging principles of ST, making SEA a creative and constructive sustainability-oriented instrument, driven by benefits rather than losses (Partidário, 2015, 2020).

WHAT IS ST4S IN SEA? OBJECTIVES, ASSUMPTIONS AND BENEFITS ST4S is a conceptual model that applies strategic thinking in transition processes for sustainability. It is based on complex systems thinking, policy processes, networks of actors, dialogues, knowledge-brokerage, inter-sectoral cooperation, and governance. ST4S has three very specific objectives (adapted from Partidário, 2012): 1. To promote the integration of sustainability values (including biophysical, social, institutional, political and economic aspects) and establish enabling conditions to welcome future development proposals. 2. To add value to decision making through the analysis of opportunities and risks involved in development options and through the transformation of problems into opportunities. 3. To change mentalities and create a strategic culture around decision-making by promoting inter-institutional cooperation and dialogue, while avoiding conflicts.

44  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment In order to meet these objectives, the ST4S model adopts the following assumptions (adapted from Partidário, 2012): 1. Strategic actions are generated through decision cycles, in continuity, strongly associated with policy formation and formulation, and are developed in the context of nonlinear planning and programme development processes. 2. Strategy is characterized by a strong conscience of uncertainty and modifies its actions as a function of emerging unexpected events in its pathway. 3. The complexity of systems demands a whole-system perspective, recognizing the inter-dependencies and self-organizing capacity of its components, and that complex systems are unpredictable, emergent and nonlinear. Strategy is a core concept in ST4S and is understood as an idea or action that seeks to achieve long-term objectives, led by a vision, but maintaining flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, framed by the uncertainty that the future implies. It is a concept that originated in military science and that, in general, refers to the search and planning of means to achieve long-term objectives, keeping an eye on the evolution of reality and a constant capacity to adjust to changes (Mintzberg, 1994). Strategic thinking is the related way of thinking requiring great intuition, logic, argumentation and a lot of flexibility to work with complex systems (understanding of systems, links and anchors, and acceptance of uncertainty), a capacity to reorganize the means when losing sight of the objective, to adapt to contextual changes (changing pathways or routes when necessary), and to remain strongly focused on what is really important in a broader context (time, space and perspectives). For example, SEA in agriculture policies or production schemes or programmes not only needs to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, or the needs and effects on production factors (natural resources such as water and soil, jobs and markets), but it also needs to go largely beyond to assess intended strategies in the context of sustainable food systems, health and livelihood, enhancement of ecosystem services, consumption behaviours, economies of proximity and a number of other aspects, all being context specific. The motivation for SEA with ST4S is to help set development contexts that can be sustainable. It enables integrated practices in formulating strategies inclusive of environment and sustainability dimensions. With ST4S SEA becomes part of the decision process, generating inputs during the processes of formation and formulation of strategies in policies, plans and programmes (PPP). It is not an additional or independent effort, or something else that needs to be done to ensure compliance with legal requirements. The rationale is based on broad integrative, multi-sectoral, multi-level and interdisciplinary strategic thinking. The ST4S model establishes the following key propositions for good practice SEA (adapted from Partidário, 2012): SEA is a strategic facilitator of sustainability processes. SEA should ensure focus on the few relevant aspects that really matter. SEA must speak the language of decision-makers to build trust and easy communication. SEA assesses primarily roots causes, and how these are formulated in conceptual processes (policy formation and formulation in planning), and not results. 5. SEA assesses strategies that are implemented through policies, plans and programmes, but SEA needs to act strategically in relation to when and how it supports decision-making. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  45 For SEA to act strategically it must: –– Position itself in a flexible way in relation to the decision-making process, ensuring close interaction and frequent iteration from the first moments of decision, accompanying the decision cycle. –– Integrate relevant biophysical, social, institutional, and economic aspects, maintaining a strategic focus on a few critical issues. –– Assess the opportunities and risks involved in strategic options from an environmental and sustainability point of view, to guide development along pathways of sustainability, formulating guidelines and support for implementation. –– Ensure the active engagement of stakeholders through dialogues and collaborative initiatives throughout the processes, aimed at reducing conflict and achieving win-win outcomes. The major benefit of ST4S in SEA is that it encourages strategic decision-making to focus attention onto critical decision factors that can be strategic to establish conditions conducive to more environmental and sustainable integrated development. Another benefit of ST4S in SEA is that it facilitates the identification and discussion of development options as directions for sustainability trajectories. Through the promotion of dialogues, it involves decision-makers and the interested stakeholders, including citizens, in prioritizing strategic focus and in assessing the sustainability of strategic decisions, ensuring that the process is equitable, transparent and increases the credibility of decisions. By investing in trust and collaborative processes, and also in communication, speaking the language of decision-makers, SEA can foster political will, encouraging changes in mindsets and creating a more strategic culture in decision-making processes. Strategic thinking requires expanding space and time boundaries to capture multiple interconnections at different levels. It uses systems lenses to understand networks, path dependencies and lock-ins, to capture priorities and uncertainties and to enable focus on the few aspects that may trigger transitions for sustainability. More than analysing and understanding problems, strategic thinking represents a shift towards advancing solutions for desirable environmental and societal change (Hölscher et al., 2018). This is the rationale that is followed in ST4S. It implies a change in philosophies and in technologies, in individual and in collective behaviours and practices, in building relationships, and in the creation of new knowledge and ways of learning (Köhler et al., 2019; Partidário & Sheate, 2013; Sheate & Partidário, 2010).

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES ST4S IN SEA MAKE TO CONVENTIONAL SEA? A core difference between ST4S and conventional approaches to SEA relates to what is expected with SEA (which includes a whole spectrum of possibilities between fulfilling a legal obligation to getting strategic orientations for development), how SEA positions itself in the decision-making process, and how strategic is its role. Table 4.1 summarizes core differences. Strategies for development are generally contained and implemented through PPP, usually presented as indicative or regulatory documents. These PPP are therefore the repository of strategies or intentions and are made explicit through formulated proposals. ST4S SEA takes the strategies for development as the object of assessment, whether being implicit or explicit.

46  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 4.1

Essential differences between conventional SEA and ST4S in SEA ST4S in SEA

Object of assessment Strategic options in relation to its opportunities and risks for sustainability. Positioning

PPP proposals and its alternatives to mitigate environmental (and social) effects.

Proactive to PPP conceptualization (formation and Proactive to formal decision on PPPs adoption, but formulation of strategies).

Driver

Conventional SEA

reactive to PPP conceptualization.

Construction of sustainable futures drawing on the Integration of environmental issues through analysis added-value created by natural and social capital,

and mitigation of the environmental and social effects of

and helping to choose the enabling strategic

proposals.

options. First things first Problem analysis

Prioritize socio-political strategic issues first to

Inform technically on relevant environmental (and social)

then inform.

issues first to then prioritize.

Mostly root causes seeking problem structuring.

Mostly observable symptoms seeking problems solution.

Relation to decision Continually interact with policy- and plan-making Advice to decision-making on how PPP (or multiple cyclic processes in assessing strategic decisions to projects) can improve environmental outcomes and what Assessment

enable more sustainable development contexts.

are how to mitigate effects.

Based on backcasting led by the awareness of

Based on predictions or forecasts built on past evidence,

a desired future, with a vision and long-term

modelled assumptions and anticipated changes.

objectives. Participation and

Dialogues with relevant stakeholders to

Public participation for consultation of views and

engagement

build sustainable futures (priorities, options,

concerns.

opportunities and risks, recommendations). Motivation

Create space for opportunities, contexts for

Provide environmental information to decisions and

development to be sustainable.

report.

These strategies or intentions of development are discussed and assessed long before proposals are formulated or committed in the PPP. As such, SEA becomes a decision facilitator, guiding and supporting the formulation of strategies. In conventional SEA, the object of assessment is normally the formulated proposals. In cases with a strong forward planning influence a discussion of alternatives can open the debate for a participative formulation of proposals but seldom are the strategies behind the alternative proposals the object of discussion. More often, the alternative proposals are discussed and assessed in relation to subsequent effects rather than in relation to which strategies they represent. SEA, as with other forms of IA, have always been presented as being proactive to formal final decision on PPP (or project) approval. However, ST4S SEA is proactive not only to approval decision but above all to PPP conceptualization (formation and formulation), therefore before proposals are made. SEA starts a new cycle when strategic objectives are set to help prioritize strategic issues. It uses an integrated and systemic approach to prioritization, searching for root causalities through a rapid diagnosis in dialogues with relevant stakeholders, to collectively find how environmental and sustainability can be an added value to future development. Once what is really important is agreed, based on multiple perspectives, trend analysis can enable deeper observation. Strategic development options, as alternative directions, or strategic pathways, are identified and assessed based on opportunities and risks for sustainability, always in dialogue with relevant stakeholders. Reporting is important for memory purposes, and necessary to meet legal requirements whenever relevant.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  47 Conventional SEA approaches are reactive to PPP conceptualization (formation and formulation). SEA analysis and assessment happens during or after the PPP proposals are formulated. SEA draws on robust environmental baselines, established through scoping analysis that reflect past trends which might be important in the future, to assesses effects of PPP proposals. Public participation is conducted sometimes during scoping and surely once the assessment is completed. SEA is applied each time a PPP is prepared, if legally mandated, to technically assess the PPP, propose mitigation measures and a monitoring plan as conditions for approval. SEA is strongly motivated by the preparation of an environmental report, in compliance with legal requirements. Routine types of impact assessments, such as EIA and conventional forms of SEA, often focus on observable symptoms, taken as effects, and evaluate the impacts, but tend only to scratch the surface of problems, missing the underlying sources of undesirable change. In strategic thinking assessment, priority should be placed on seeking the root causes of undesirable changes, in line with learnings from sustainable transitions. This entails beginning the search for the causes of impacts by looking from a distance, gaining perspective, revealing connections, and exposing relations of causality. This means that thinking strategically about environmental issues inevitably engages sustainability, even when the understanding of environment is narrow. The biophysical patterns of change that are captured in conventional SEA as effects and impacts, in fact express political actions, social priorities, economic drivers and governance tensions as root causes, all of which, unless duly addressed, will persist, as well as their consequences. Those indirect, root causes, are the focus of attention in SEA with an ST4S approach. The role of SEA in decision-making processes is consequently different, arguably SEA with ST4S radically shifts its position and becomes opposite to conventional SEA (Figure 4.1). In conventional SEA, the driver is the assessment of the effects of development on the environment, following a standard sequence of activities. In ST4S SEA, the driver is the establishment of enabling conditions to welcome future development, triggered by environmental and social values which are taken as forms of capital that bring value to development. SEA with ST4S assesses the opportunities and risks of strategic options for a sustainable development. Figure 4.1 illustrates this opposite logic and approach between conventional SEA and ST4S SEA.

Figure 4.1

Opposite logics in SEA following conventional and ST4S approaches

48  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Given the above, conventional SEA is perhaps more adequate with more operational plans or programmes that do not entail a strategic discussion, or even when proposals aggregate sets of projects or large infrastructures (see Chapter 11 in this book by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). It can adopt a narrower or a broader understanding of the environment, more biophysical or inclusive of social and, sometimes, economic aspects and be more or less connected to sustainability. Conventional SEA expected outcomes include advice to decision-makers on whether PPP proposals, normally closely connected to development projects, could improve their environmental and sustainability outcomes, for which mitigation measures are suggested. With ST4S, SEA offers the capacity to act as an input, a facilitator in helping to structure environmental and sustainability problems to include them in a constructive way, setting societal priorities, designing the development concept, acting with its strategic role in relation to policies and planning development (Partidário, 2000, 2012). As a strategic decision facilitator, SEA plays a constructive rather than informative role when supporting the decision processes. It aims at focusing attention onto what is really important, as well as on the choice of more sustainable options, that is, those with less risks and more opportunities to sustainability processes, and of guidelines to accompany the implementation of strategic decisions.

ST4S IN SEA: HOW DOES IT WORK? With ST4S, the leading purpose of SEA is to help create contexts for sustainable development. For that purpose, a good understanding of the context is needed to enable strategic focus by appropriately identifying and addressing problems, rather than symptoms, and to help find environmental and sustainable viable options as pathways that will enable achieving strategic objectives. It must strive to use the language of decision-makers to improve communication, and also with all stakeholders. It further aims to formulate guidelines and recommendations to overview cyclical implementation. Methodologically, the ST4S model must be anchored in the cyclical decision process of policy- and plan-making. Such processes are continuous, without a start or end point, during which there are fundamental moments of reflection, diagnosis, choices, discussion, and decisions (Feldman & Khademian, 2008; Nitz & Brown, 2001; UNEP, 2009). Often characterized by iterative dynamics, sometimes quite complex, policy- and plan-making are very dependent on decision-making cultures. SEA with an ST4S model approach seeks to integrate environmental and sustainability into these cyclical decision processes. The assessment of development strategies should include ex ante assessment and ex post evaluation. An ex ante assessment targets strategic options as future development pathways. It assesses opportunities and risks of choices between alternative strategic pathways, considering stakeholders’ visions, perspectives and expectations (intra- and inter-generational), context specificities, trends and uncertainties. An ex post evaluation is sought to evaluate the environmental and sustainability positive and negative impacts of the actions undertaken, to decide on the possible need to adopt new actions, or review existing ones to adapt or better use them. The evaluation should be made in relation to a specific strategic assessment benchmark for each case, which includes environmental and sustainability policies. The involvement of relevant actors is vital to ensure multiple values and different perspectives to be acknowledged. The methodology for SEA using ST4S is structured in three non-linear fundamental phases, presented schematically in Figure 4.2.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  49

Figure 4.2

ST4S methodology in three non-linear stages

Context and Strategic Focus Phase The purpose of the context and strategic focus phase is to ensure that SEA focuses only on what matters, and that it is designed to suit each specific context. Through prioritization, expressed in Critical Decision Factors, a strategic focus in the assessment is enabled. The notion of Critical Decision Factors (CDF) is the central concept and tool in the ST4S model. CDF are key integrated themes that structure the strategic analysis, assessment and evaluation. CDF result from an effort of synthesis and prioritization of what is important to increase the sustainability of the PPP strategies to be implemented (Figure 4.3). They are identified mainly through observation and analysis of context and dialogue with relevant stakeholders, to consider multiple perspectives and aspirations. CDFs are considered success factors in a strategic decision and act as windows of observation. The definition of CDF is very context-specific. Therefore, it is important to understand well the context of development and assessment, characterized by three fundamental dimensions: (1) The governance framework, or the identification of responsibilities, competencies, and inter-relationships among the actors involved; (2) The strategic reference framework, or the core macro-policies whose objectives and goals must be considered to provide a reference for the strategic assessment; (3) The problem framework, which structures key concerns, includes environmental and sustainability aspects, indicating their condition as constraints, as sensitivities or weaknesses, and also as potentialities, as well as the driving forces responsible for generating long-term changes. Getting focused therefore starts with understanding the end-point, formulated as the vision, goals and strategic objectives of development, and what is the decision-making problem,

50  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Figure 4.3

The diamond of the ST4S methodology or how to reach to Critical Decision Factors

Source: Partidário (2012).

which must be well-structured. With these elements, through dialogues with stakeholders, prioritization of what is strategically relevant for success is enabled. Therefore, understanding the context and prioritizing what matters, before supporting information on trend analysis is collected, is fundamental to establishing the strategic focus and enabling successful SEA. An assessment framework is established with few assessment criteria anchored in each CDF, supported by a small number of relevant indicators that will be used in trend analysis. A focus report, including the assessment framework and how it was established, is a useful reference for the next stage. Assess Pathways for Sustainability Phase Strategic options are alternative pathways to reach the strategic objectives (where to go), desirably leading to a future grounded in a sustainability vision. This phase, or assessing pathways for sustainability involves analysing the means on how to get to that vision, what is possible compared to what is desirable, if feasible by considering different scenarios, and then finding the actions that, according to priorities, will facilitate: –– –– –– ––

achieving objectives of the Plan/Strategy; achieving environmental and sustainability objectives; contributing to solving problems; and finding guidelines or recommendations that will guide them.

This phase refers to the assessment of strategic options that will allow the achievement of sustainability objectives. The purpose is to assess the opportunities and risks of strategic options, to be able to find which can be pathways to sustainability, and establish guidelines or recommendations that support its implementation. This phase is fundamental in supporting the processes of formulation of policies and strategic priorities in planning (for example, the definition of the territorial model in spatial planning).

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  51 Most strategic pathways for sustainability are not necessarily straightforward, so the role of SEA in discussing strategic options is crucial and should be conducted in a strong interrelationship between policy formulation, planning and strategic assessment teams. The involvement of stakeholders in the identification and assessment of strategic options is crucial, through appropriate communication processes and techniques, and more inclusive engagement and collaboration. The assessment of opportunities and risks can and should be carried out several times, at iterative moments, with the strategic discussion of options. In this phase, SEA deepens the problem framework defined in the Context and Focus phase, to analyse critical trends, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the system, but also threats and opportunities to development. This trend analysis, carried out as a strategic diagnosis using the assessment criteria and indicators defined under each CDF, will support the assessment of opportunities and risks. It aims to analyse what causes change and why change happened, and what can change in the face of driving forces and intended strategies, but avoids unnecessary details. The development of scenarios as imagined futures represents variable outcomes for strategic options. Scenarios should be developed by planning teams as part of the policy formulation or planning process, to imagine different development futures. Depending on how the scenarios are used, it may be useful to assess the scenarios themselves in terms of the opportunities and risks they represent for the sustainability vision. The SEA needs to be prepared to contribute to this strategic discussion, with relevant input into key decision windows. Guidelines are planning, management, governance and monitoring conditions or orientations relevant to the success of the implementation of strategies being assessed. They seek to avoid or reduce risks and better exploit opportunities in processes of transition to sustainability. Guidelines are essential in PPP follow-up, supported by monitoring indicators to confirm the effectiveness of guidelines, how they are implemented, as well as the definition of responsibilities and deadlines in their implementation. Guidelines are formulated to support decision-making and may include recommendations for institutional adjustments or new regulations, for new plans or programmes, for project EIA or for any other type of measures or policy choices that may be relevant. In short, the strategic assessment addresses the opportunities and risks of strategic development options, considering the CDF. It can be based on a trend analysis when time, and available data, permits. In view of found opportunities and risks, guidelines for planning, management and monitoring are defined which set the basis for a follow-up programme, including an institutional governance framework to define levels of institutional involvement and responsibility in the implementation of strategies. A report will record the results of the assessment for communication and memory purpose, or to meet legal requirements when appropriate. Continuous Dialogues Phase An ongoing phase of inter-stakeholder dialogues and follow-up should run continuously, throughout the implementation of strategies included in PPPs. The purpose is for SEA to maintain its collaborative inputs linked to the decision-making process, throughout the decision cycle, and to connect to the subsequent initial stages of policy formulation or planning in a new decision cycle. Knowledge brokerage has been found to be quite adequate to enable different types of knowledges to be shared, recognized, and to be collaborative.

52  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment In this continuous phase, dialogues between SEA and development processes, but also with stakeholders, should be done through adequate communication routes. Follow-up, through monitoring, evaluation, and communication, serves implementation control and uncertainty management, to adjust to emerging unexpected situations in a continuous way. It should be established as a routine act in a process of strategic environmental and sustainability assessment, systematically linked to the formulation of PPPs and involving the relevant actors. With this continuous dialogues phase, SEA lives beyond the formal preparation and approval moment of PPP in the decision cycle. This ST4S approach has been applied to several SEAs in Portugal and in other countries in the world, namely Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mozambique and Indonesia. Two examples are offered in Boxes 4.1 and 4.2 as illustrations.

BOX 4.1 SEA OF THE SINTRA MUNICIPAL MASTER PLAN – CONTEXT OF APPLICATION OF SEA Application of SEA with ST4S to municipal spatial planning.

PURPOSE OF SEA To facilitate the process of formulating the Sintra Municipal Master Plan from the outset, contributing to the planning process, with strategic inputs to plan formation and formulation, considering the perspectives of different actors, to ensure the integration of the environmental and sustainability dimension in the search for and evaluation of spatial planning strategic development options.

OPPORTUNITY OF THE INSTRUMENT Between 2014 and 2018 this SEA was fully integrated with the planning process and started right after the strategic objectives of the Plan were approved. It thus had the possibility of influencing various strategic decisions. Actually the Plan’s strategic objectives were revised in light of the SEA inputs following the focus stage. Also, environmental priorities were integrated into the development of the Plan’s strategic axes and contributed to the design of strategic options. Strategic focus was developed and strategic options were identified in working sessions with a wide range of agents with interest in the municipality of Sintra.

RESULTS To ensure strategic focus, four CDF were adopted: governance, territory diversity, value chain and municipal identity. These contribute to environmental and sustainability driven planning policies, namely the promotion of activities that value natural resources, landscape, historical nuclei, coastal edge and endogenous resources, among others.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  53 The process of defining and assessing strategic options was an enriching collaborative process towards the achievement of strategic directions in the territorial development model. The set of strategic options finally adopted reflect municipal priorities with environmental and sustainability objectives. Municipal policies that stand out include the integration of ecosystem services foreseen in the Plan, as well as climate change adaptation measures. SEA alerted for situations of strategic risk, namely concerning illegally developed urban areas in need of conversion (and alternative financing to solve the problem at the origin), as well as modal shift from individual to public transport, within energy and climate change policies, foreseen in the Sintra Mobility and Transport Plan but lacking clear strategic orientation for this modal shift to become effective. The review process of the Municipal Plan stands out for the importance given to the involvement and participation of the public with the promotion of various participatory moments to continue during the implementation of the Plan. Other promotional strategies for the environment and sustainability in the Plan include the innovation created with the concept of building titles to enable enhancing the value of the environment and of ecological spaces with interest, redirecting the planning of built space towards other appropriate areas. Equally important is the orientation of the Plan towards attracting public and private investments, promoting the development of economic activities that value endogenous resources and ecological systems, for the enjoyment of the population and for a tourism development with identity, which, if this strategic orientation is maintained, will mean an increase in municipal value from an environmental and sustainability point of view. Source: Câmara Municipal de Sintra (2019).

More information at https://​cm​-sintra​.pt/​territorial/​plano​-diretor​-municipal/​arq​-revisao​-do​ -pdm/​avaliacao​-ambiental​-estrategica.

BOX 4.2 SEA OF CHILE’S NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY – CONTEXT OF APPLICATION OF SEA Application of SEA with ST4S to sectorial policy formulation.

PURPOSE OF SEA To facilitate the process of formulating the 2050 Energy Strategy and Policy from the outset, considering the perspectives of different actors, to ensure the integration of the environmental and sustainability dimension in the search for and evaluation of policy strategic options.

54  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

OPPORTUNITY OF THE INSTRUMENT Between 2014 and 2015, SEA contributed to an energy policy with a strong sustainability character, integrating the environmental, productive, social and territorial aspects; SEA was strategic and systemic as it focused on critical development issues, the existing relationships between them, addressing these issues with a long-term perspective; SEA delivered legitimate outcomes because it strengthens the participation of various actors in the formulation of the policy, with a multisectoral and multivariable perspective.

RESULTS SEA was carried out in parallel with the entire process of energy policy formulation, through process interactions, and contemplated four stages: • Focus of the SEA, definition of the object of assessment, the environmental objectives and the assessment framework, characterizing the decision problem and identifying CDF. • Strategic Environmental diagnosis, using assessment criteria and indicators for each of the CDF. • Clear identification of strategic energy development options considered in the policy formulation, and assessment of opportunities and risks of strategic options for sustainability. • Formulation of guidelines to address risks and take advantage of opportunities with a strategic and sustainability focus, and development of follow-up recommendations. There was an iterative and parallel process dedicated to the participation of key actors. The SEA identified 20 key themes organized in four CDFs: environmental conservation and ecosystem services; energy and territory; social benefits; and innovation in energy. The risks and opportunities for strategic decisions on emission reduction, energy poverty reduction, energy efficiency, climate change adaptation, security of energy supply, diversification of generating sources and articulation of decisions between national, regional and local levels were assessed, and strategic options on externalities regulation, energy source targets, energy efficiency targets and integration between energy development and local development were considered. Source: Ministerio de Energía (2015).

More information at http://​www​.energia​.gob​.cl/​sobre​-el​-ministerio/​expediente​ -administrativo and http://​www​.minenergia​.cl/​archivos​_bajar/​ucom/​publicaciones/​EAE4​ _web​.pdf.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  55

FINAL REMARKS Strategic thinking for sustainability must start from the future. It invites the identification of a vision, what we want to reach, and then backcasts to find the actions needed to fill in the gap between where we are and where we want to be. A broad and integrated perspective is fundamental to be able to pursue strategic thinking, stretching views beyond conventional limits, enabling focus on the few aspects that can trigger transitions for sustainability, adapted to each context. Strategic thinking must be focused on what really matters. Given the complexity of processes and challenges, the multiple scales (temporal and spatial) and perspectives, unless a strong focus is adopted it is likely that relevant strategic aspects may be lost in an ocean of issues, many of which may only reveal symptoms of problems, and short-term, immediate priorities. One reason for advancing ST4S is to promote the very nature and capacity of SEA as a strategic instrument and help clarify what SEA can be and what it can deliver. To be strategic is also to be ready to adjust planned pathways to changing circumstances. It recognizes that uncertainty is part of the picture and that the aimed targets may change, smoothly or disruptively. Keeping flexibility is therefore a major condition, to adjust to emerging and unexpected events that will change established routines. We learn from the literature that to address the complexity of environmental and developmental challenges we need to pursue nonlinear, disruptive, systemic shifts that engage constructive transformative changes instead of marginal or incremental ones. ST4S is there to create space for opportunities, for learning and for reflection. We need SEA to be constructive of better development, more engaging, and persuasive of the urgency of integrating nature and people’s values in development decisions. SEA needs to take proactivity, and strategic and systemic thinking, more seriously to cope with those increasing levels of complexity and uncertainty that feature in current and future challenges. Knowing that radical change is hard but incremental change insufficient, the ST4S methodology is an alternative approach to SEA conceived to enable that endeavour.

REFERENCES Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J., Pope, J., Retief, F. 2015. Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management 151: 97–104. Boulton, J.G., Allen, P.M., Bowman, C. 2015. Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Câmara Municipal de Sintra. 2019. Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica da Revisão do Plano Diretor Municipal de Sintra. Sintra (https://​cm​-sintra​.pt/​territorial/​plano​-diretor​-municipal/​arq​-revisao​-do​ -pdm/​avaliacao​-ambiental​-estrategica). Cashmore, M., Axelsson, A. 2013. The mediation of environmental assessment’s influence: what role for power? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39: 5–12. de Haan, F., Rotmans, J. 2018. A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 128: 275–86. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning; in: Fischer, T.B. and Gonzalez, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11).

56  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Feldman, M.S., Khademian, A.M. 2008. The continuous process of policy formation. In Ahmed, K. and Sanchéz-Triana, E. (eds), Strategic Environmental Assessment for Policies. The World Bank: Washington DC, pp. 37–59. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on its substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Hacking, T., Guthrie, P. 2008. A framework for clarifying the meaning of triple bottom-line, integrated, and sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28(2–3): 73–89. Holland, J. 2014. Complexity: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford University Press: Oxford. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J., Loorbach, D. 2018. Transition versus transformation: what’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 1–3. Homer-Dixon, T. 2011. Complexity science. Oxford Leadership Journal: Shifting the Trajectory of Civilization 2(1), 15 pages. Johnson, N. 2011. Simply Complexity: A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory. Oneworld Publications: Oxford. Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschillingj, L., Hess, D., Holtzl, G., Hyysalom, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaao, Martiskaineng M., McMeekinr, A., Mühlemeiers, M.S., Nykvistt, B., Onsongo, E., Pelu, B., Ravenv, R., Rohracherw, H., Sandén, B., Schoty, J., Sovacoolz, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P. 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32. Lobos, V, Partidário, M. 2014. Theory versus practice in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 34–46. Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J. 2006. Managing transitions for sustainable development. In Olsthoorn, X., Wieczorek, A.J., eds, Understanding Industrial Transformation. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, pp. 187–206. Ministerio de Energía (Gobierno de Chile). 2015. La evaluación ambiental estratégica en la política energética. 2050. (http://​www​.minenergia​.cl/​archivos​_bajar/​ucom/​publicaciones/​EAE4​_web​.pdf) [accessed May 2020]. Mintzberg, H. 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Prentice Hall International: London. Nitz, T., Brown, A.L. 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 3(3): 329–42. Noble, B. 2019. Transforming IA from the outside in: capacity and levers for strategic assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 1–4. Noble, B., Gibson, R., White, L., Blakley, J., Croal, P., Nwanekezie, K., Doelle, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708. Noble, B, Nwanekezie, K. 2017. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. Partidário, M.R. 1996. Strategic environmental assessment: key issues emerging from recent practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(1): 31–55. Partidário, M.R. 1999. Strategic environmental assessment: principles and potential. In Petts J., ed., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, vol. 1. Blackwell: Oxford, pp. 60–73. Partidário, M.R. 2000. Elements of an SEA framework—improving the added-value of SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20: 647–63. Partidário, M.R. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide: Methodological Guidance for Strategic Thinking in SEA. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente e Redes Energéticas Nacionais: Lisbon. Partidário, M.R. 2015. A strategic advocacy role in SEA for sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17(1): 1550015 (8 pages). Partidário, M.R. 2016. Using strategic thinking and critical decision factors to achieve sustainability. In Gibson, R.B., ed., Sustainability Assessment: Applications and Opportunities. Earthscan: London, pp. 169–93.

Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S)  57 Partidário, M.R. 2020. Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 146–50. Partidário, M.R., Monteiro, M.B. 2019. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in Portugal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 247–65. Partidário, M.R., Sheate, W.R. 2013. Knowledge brokerage: potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39: 26–36. Retief, F., Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., King, N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment (EA) practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61: 52–60. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M.B.A. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1): 15–31. Sheate, W.R., Partidário, M.R. 2010. Strategic approaches and assessment techniques—potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 278–88. Stoeglehner, G. 2019. Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 1–5. Tetlow, M., Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30: 15–24. UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 2009. Integrated Assessment: Guidance for Mainstreaming Sustainability Into Policymaking. UNEP: Geneva.

5. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action Naja Marot, Thomas B. Fischer, Olivier Sykes, Mojca Golobič, Tara Muthoora and Ainhoa González

WHY AND HOW TERRITORIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT WAS DEVELOPED In the 1980s and 1990s there was growing awareness amongst European Union (EU) Member States and the European Commission (EC) of the spatial dimension and impacts of the process of European integration, and the spatially differential effects of EU sectoral policies and legislation. This led to the publication of a number of reports and culminated in the agreement of a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999 (CEC, 1999). The ESDP adopted an interpretation of “balanced and sustainable spatial development” which emphasised the need for territorially-significant policies and programmes to address economic, social, environmental and cultural aspects of sustainability. In this context, the need for some form of assessment of the territorial impacts of EU policies was recognised. A follow-up ESDP Action Plan sought to sustain the momentum behind the development of what became known as territorial impact assessment (TIA). The EU White Paper on Governance (CEC, 2001) called for overall policy coherence and stressed the need to consider the territorial impacts of EU policies in areas such as transport, energy and the environment, and avoiding “a logic which is too sector-specific” (CEC, 2001, p. 10). In order to deliver policy coherence, it sought to promote greater involvement and dialogue with local and regional authorities in policy development, and called on the EU’s Committee of the Regions (CoR) to “play a more proactive role in examining policy” and to “review the local and regional impact of certain directives” (CEC, 2001, p. 10). A desire to better understand the diverse impacts policies may have, across the EU, led to the initiation of the ESPON (European Observation Network for Territorial Development) programme in 2002, supported by the CoR as well as national and regional actors in the EU (e.g. national ministries responsible for spatial planning and transportation, national institutions responsible for the absorption of EU funds, and regional development agencies). The first projects run by ESPON were mostly dedicated to the assessment of infrastructure projects, in particular those related to the TENs (Trans-European Networks). Later projects were not commissioned based on individual sectoral needs but with the purpose of developing an EU-wide approach to TIA, implemented across the different EU member states. Territorial cohesion was subsequently also included as a policy objective in the EU Lisbon Treaty (Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, 2007) which entered into force in 2009. 58

Territorial impact assessment  59 Since 1999, a few approaches to TIA have been discussed and tested. An initial computerised quantitative TIA method was developed by Camagni (2006). Next, a TIA Quick Check was developed through the ESPON ARTS (Assessment of Regional and Territorial Sensitivity) project (ESPON, 2011), using a computerised quantitative approach. Finally, a qualitative approach was developed through the EATIA (ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment) project. This relies on regional and local stakeholder input (Fischer et al., 2012). Subsequently, a Commission Staff Working Document and ESPON practical guidance for policy-makers and practitioners (CoR, 2013a; ESPON, 2012) and an associated video1 were released. To date, the main areas of TIA application relate to major infrastructure projects, large-scale water management and cross-border spatial development plans and actions. The necessity and institutional position of TIA has been mainly recognised at the EU level (Zonneveld and Waterhout, 2009). In this context, it has been emphasised that TIA should become obligatory for the European Commission, but not for EU member states. This is perhaps unsurprising, though, as the advocate of the regions and localities in the EU, the CoR (2013b, p. 1) has backed “territorial impact assessments to become a standard practice promoted by the European Commission” and has liaised with “key EU, national and regional institutions” to “emphasise the need for TIA in the policy making process” (CoR, 2013b, pp. 4–5).

WHAT IS A TERRITORIAL IMPACT? Reflecting on the discussion since the beginning of the 1990s, the notion of territorial impact has been included in EU documents and policies such as the Treaty of Amsterdam (Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, 1997), the ESDP, the Treaty of Lisbon (Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, 2007), the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (CEC, 2008), Europe 2020 (European Commission, 2010) and the Territorial Agenda (EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development, 2011). It has also been developed under the ESPON programme (Essig and Kaucic, 2017). The most common way of approaching the definition is from an assessment perspective, essentially answering the question of what potential impacts could arise in different EU regions from an introduction of EU policies or directives. In the ESPON ARTS project, territorial impact was defined as: the potential effect (in the future) of a given EU policy or directive as a consequence of field exposure, regional exposure and regional sensitivity. (ESPON, 2011, p. 8)

Potential impacts can be direct or indirect along specific cause-and-effect logical chains. ‘Exposure’ describes the intensity with which EU directives and policies affect European regions, integrating particular ‘fields’ of the territorial realm (e.g. surface water quality, emissions, sectoral productions and others). ‘Sensitivity’ refers to how far territories are sensitive to, and relate to impacts in specific exposure areas due to their economic and geographical characteristics and the social values and priorities that are likely to be affected. Impacts can 1 See the oficial vídeo on the ESPON website: https://​www​.espon​.eu/​topics​-policy/​publications/​ guidance/​territorial​-impact​-assessment​-policies​-and​-eu​-directives.

60  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment thus be evaluated through their spatial dimension and the actual physical evidence ‘on the ground’. Taking a more comprehensive view, this also includes governance and development aspects. The governance aspect of territorial impact is often neglected in assessments, although as Tennekes and Hornis (2008, p. 18) noted: “governance can explain to some extent what happens between the EU policy and the final territorial impact”. Finally, in the ESPON EATIA project, a comprehensive definition of territorial impact was adopted, encompassing wider economic, social and environmental aspects, considering a territorial impact to be any impact on a given geographically defined territory, whether on spatial usage, governance, or on wider economic, social or environmental aspects, which results from the introduction or transposition of an EU directive or policy. (Fischer et al., 2012, p. 60)

TIA AND TERRITORIAL COHESION, WIDER EU POLICY AND OTHER STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS Most definitions of territorial impact refer to the concept of Territorial Cohesion (TC). This is connected with the EU policy objective that “people should not be disadvantaged by wherever they happen to live or work in the Union” (CEC, 2004, p. 27). It is based on an understanding that the quality of places where people live and work can influence their access to economic and social opportunities as well as quality of life (Davoudi, 2005). The concept of TC derives from existing development objectives, such as sustainability, competitiveness and quality of life, putting them into a territorial perspective. It promotes not only economic cohesion, but also social and environmental cohesion, considering different spatial levels from the local level to the EU level. TC is concerned with both regional disparities and accessibility to services (Faludi, 2009; Hamez, 2005; Janin Rivolin, 2010). In practical terms, it is considered to imply efforts towards lessening differences among the regions by applying measures that pay attention to different potentials of the regions. The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion – Turning Diversity into Strength (CEC, 2009) and the EU’s revised Territorial Agenda (EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development, 2011) placed a significant emphasis on the need for Europe’s territories to make the most of their diverse “territorial potentials” if the EU overall was to maximise opportunities for sustainable growth. As Hübner stated (2008, p. 2), “each territory is endowed with a different growth potential and each territory needs tailor-made policies to make the most of this potential”. The coordination of policies to achieve greater policy coherence to foster TC was seen as being one of the most relevant messages to emerge from the TC Green Paper consultation (DG Regio, 2009). Thus, the ESPON ARTS project noted that the focus in the TC Green Paper on local specificities, knowledge and identity was particularly relevant for the impact assessment debate as regional diversities imply a different sensitivity to EU legislation and programmes. TIA has therefore been seen as providing a method of assessing the extent to which extant and emerging policies across the scales of multi-level governance in the EU might contribute to, or detract from, the balanced delivery of TC goals at EU-level and in given national, regional and local territories. Medeiros (2016) refers to TIA as “the new kid on the block in policy evaluation”. It sits alongside and must vie for attention and influence against a range of other Impact Assessment (IA) procedures; in particular, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Regulatory

Territorial impact assessment  61 Impact Assessment (RIA). There is a wider context which determines the prospects for its meaningful application and influence. Since the White Paper on Governance (CEC, 2001), for example, it has been a key concern in the EC to improve its own track record regarding delivering coherent policies. The EC’s (regulatory) IA procedure was introduced in 2002 (CEC, 2002). It is applied to all policy proposals of the Commission, and each Directorate-General has an IA unit which assists its policy-makers in carrying out IAs related to the proposals they are working on. However, territorial impact and TIA are not mentioned in the related guidelines. The format and purpose of the EC’s IA procedure is similar to legislative IAs used in other countries – e.g. the UK (Sykes and Fischer, 2017) and the Netherlands (Schout et al., 2006).

TIA METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES Two main TIA methodological approaches can be distinguished: (a) quantitative approaches that rely on computerised models and that make up the bulk of cases conducted to date, and (b) the EATIA approach which relies on a qualitative approach. In addition to these two, there is a hybrid approach, the TARGET_TIA, which is based on both, quantitative and qualitative methods (Medeiros, 2015). A decision on the most suitable approach for use in a particular situation should be made, based on time and resources available, the administrative level at which assessment is to be performed, the territorial context, as well as the knowledge and experience of the professionals doing the assessment. In cases where specific regions are targets of assessment, evaluators can use official statistical data available for either regional or local administrative levels. Using TC indicators can also benefit TIA processes, and related ESPON projects (e.g. KITCASP) have attempted to define a coherent set to support Cohesion Policy (González et al., 2015). However, territorial data are usually not provided by national statistics. The focus and content of a specific TIA will depend on the following (see also Chapter 27, Fischer and González, 2021): ●● the policy, or more specifically, the measures to be introduced with the implementation of the policy/regulation; ●● the capacity of the institutional framework to implement the policy, including the relevant actors (e.g. representatives of directorates/ministries, and the financial resources available); ●● the territorial units in which the impact may or may not occur and their characteristics with regards to the policy in question; and ●● the potential impacts evaluated by their direction (positive/negative) and their power of influence. Most commonly, TIA uses statistical indicators to describe the situation in the regions to be assessed and the impacts themselves. With regard to indicators, availability is important. Usually the more local the level, the less likely it is that indicators are available and proxy data may need to be used, or additional territorial data may need to be derived from, for example, geographic information system (GIS) analytical tools. In case of cross-border TIA, transnational availability and comparability of data is emphasized. Statistical data and GIS cluster analysis serve as an input to create typologies that help categorise and cluster regions

62  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment under assessment. The assessment of groups of regions instead of individual regions can aid to synchronise an impact on territorial units that are alike with regards to specific characteristics. Projections are used to predict future development of a region or area in the presence or absence of a particular policy. TIA aims at projecting what happens if no policy is put in place and what happens if the policy is put in place. The most complex methods entail tools, created to support quantitative assessment of territorial impacts, and computerise the process of TIA, including the cooperation of actors participating in the assessment, and the combined presentation of information on impacts. The ESPON ARTS project (2011) developed one such tool. Also, the QUICK scan (ESPON, 2011) falls into this category, as advanced by the European Environmental Agency and Alterra. ESPON ARTS assesses policy impacts, using a vulnerability approach via three elements: exposure, sensitivity and impact, and as such provides a quick impression of the overall impact. Regional exposure is about identifying regions that are exposed to a policy, for example, a particular urban area. With regional sensitivity analysis, how strong the impact of a policy option is could be assessed, based on quantitative information and/or expert judgments. Both, regional exposure and regional sensitivity, then define the territorial impact. Consultation and participation techniques can support TIA, by engaging the concerned stakeholders in the process. How much consultation and participation is included in the TIA depends on the time available for the assessment and the skills of the professionals running it. The very first TIA example dates back to the year 2004, and is associated with ESPON project 2.1.1 on ‘territorial impact of EU transport and TEN policies’ (ESPON, 2004). In this project, ten scenarios were created with the help of three numeric models to assess the effects of policies on the regional development potential. Importantly, most TIAs to date have run as research projects and mostly in connection with EU policies. TIA has been applied to environmental and territory related directives, and in the context of the INTERREG2 cross-border programmes for Scandinavia (Medeiros, 2015) and Spain (Medeiros, 2017). Only in a few cases has TIA been performed at the project level, such as the Egnatia motorway system in south-eastern Europe (Gavanas et al., 2018). The most recent TIA projects have focused on the assessment of impacts in a cross-border context, attempting to evaluate the efficiency of EU policies in overcoming the barrier effects of member states’ borders. Cross-border impacts have been assessed in Scandinavia (Medeiros, 2015), Spain (Medeiros, 2017) and more recently in Ireland/Northern Ireland, Sweden/ Norway, The Netherlands/Germany, Bulgaria/Rumania and Spain/Portugal (Dallhammer et al., 2019). The only example of TIA commissioned by a country is one for the Netherlands in 2009 (Evers et al., 2009) in which an ex ante analysis of territorial cohesion policy was adopted in order to evaluate how five different interpretations of territorial cohesion might affect Dutch municipalities and particular statistical regions. In addition, there is an example of TIA in the context of cohesion policy in the Czech Republic (Novosák et al., 2018). Table 5.1 provides an overview of those TIAs conducted to date and their characteristics.

2 INTERREG is one of the key instruments of the European Union (EU) supporting transnational co-operation across the member states’ borders.

European countries

2005b)

(ESPON,

energy policy”

impact of EU

territorial

networks and

services and

trends of energy

“Territorial

Qualitative

6. Other set of indicators related to energy dependency and renewables potential.

5. Environmental objectives (indicators D).

4. Competitive energy markets (indicators C).

3. Reliable supplies of energy (indicators B).

– NUTS0, only some 1. Core Indicators related to energy consumption, energy production and energy prices. data on NUTS2 2. Economy, society and energy (indicators A).

Group analysis for agriculture. Indicators:

territorially distinct effects.

EU Energy policy

payments etc.) might play a distinct role within the CAP reform process and may cause

2005a)

Quantitative/

Each type of support (market price support, direct income payments, agri-environmental

(ESPON,

2005

classification of CAP and RDP measures.

Policy”

ESPON 2.1.4

(CAP) and Regional Development Policy (RDP) grouped into categories based on our

Development

augmented by findings from an EU-wide review of literature.

A statistical analysis of indicators and data at NUTS3 level over the period 1990 to 2000, A set of hypotheses on the territorial impact of the Common Agricultural Policy

Rural Development policy

and Rural

Common Agricultural policy,

impact of CAP

“Territorial

ESPON 2.1.3

Qualitative

transport, but also ICTs policies.

Quantitative/

Typologies of regions developed, based on the classification of the predicted impacts of

TEN policies”

(ESPON, 2004)

mass, connectivity and development trends as basic indicators) and polycentricism.

both) and three models: SASI, CGEurope and STIMA*.

Evaluation based on 10 scenarios (on road/rail infrastructure, pricing, and combination of

transport and

Europe – NUTS3

Europe – NUTS3

Short description of the method

Investigation of effects on “regional development potential” (using competitiveness,

transport policy

Territorial Unit

Impact of EU

Quantitative

Transeuropean network policy,

(sector, policy, project)

(qualitative/

quantitative)

Subject of the assessment

Approach

“Territorial

2005

2004

ESPON

2.1.1 Project

Year

TIAs performed to date and their characteristics

Example

Table 5.1

Territorial impact assessment  63

of the policy implications. Qualitative data analysis through case studies for assessment of specific regional impacts in different countries.

impact of EU

energy policy”

As single-dimension impact (SDI) through single impact indicators of the policy examined; As summative impact (SI) on three pre-defined macro-components of territorial cohesion – Territorial Efficiency, Territorial Quality and Territorial Identity, and Summative Territorial Impact. Highly quantified procedure. Highly dependent on the availability of cause/effect relationships between indicators and quantitative data.

Orientations

in relation

to the ESDP

and Cohesion

Policy

(ESPON, 2010)

society and on landscape evaluated on two levels:

– NUTS3 regions

on ESPON

Scenarios and

Impacts on the economy and competitiveness, on environment and climate change, on

NUT2 regions, TEN

3.2: Spatial

TEQUILA simulation model.

Europe, CAP –

TIP-TAP, based

2005b) ESPON

(ESPON,

Definition of Typologies – a tool for identifying regional “types” and assist consideration

development.

territorial

data on NUTS2

Territorial impact analysis of energy prices’ variations using Input–Output modelling;

TEN and CAP policy

The following techniques are used:

Short description of the method

– NUTS0, only some Regression Analysis techniques – examination of the relationships between energy and

European countries

Territorial Unit

networks and

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative/

EU Energy policy

(sector, policy, project)

(qualitative/

quantitative)

Subject of the assessment

Approach

services and

trends of energy

2009

2005

ESPON 2.1.4

“Territorial

Year

Example

64  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Year

Based on five different interpretations of territorial cohesion (socio-economic

Short description of the method

Economic, Social, Environmental-Spatial and Administrative impacts evaluated.

Slovenia (NUTS3)

the renewable energy, Seweso

2012)

(Fischer et al.,

Assessment

Numeric evaluation.

Pre-set of indicators.

UK, Portugal and

directive, energy efficiency, on

Impact

EATIA – Espon 2012

and Territorial

Performed before EU territorial cohesion policy was adopted – the definition of the terri-

graphical areas)

administrative framework to be changed, affected activites by actors, affected geo-

4. Estimate impact for the Netherlands (actors to be affected, extent of legal and

3. Identify alternative policy options.

expectations).

2. Analyse problem and context (driving forces behind the problem, future

and for spatial policy and objectives).

requirements, possible impacts – extent of impact, relevance for the spatial structure

1. Survey of the situation (determine the policy phase, significance, knowledge

four-step procedure:

coordination).

torial cohesion not finalised yet. Four-step simplified assessment procedure based on the participative techniques.

and NUTS3 regions

Dutch municipalities convergence, economic competitiveness, rural perspective, spatial planning, policy

EU NUTS2 regions,

Territorial Unit

Selected regions in

Qualitative

Qualitative

Territorial Cohesion policy

(sector, policy, project)

(qualitative/

quantitative)

Subject of the assessment

Approach

Four EU directives: habitat

2009)

(Evers et al.,

the Netherlands

TIA method for 2009

Example

Territorial impact assessment  65

regional exposure and regional sensitivity matrix.

Preparation of the territorial impact matrix prepared based on the directive/exposure,

3. Confrontation with regional characeristics matrix.

2. Translation into an exposure matrix using predefined territorial indicators.

1. Logical chain, indicating main cause/effect relatinship based on a directive.

Three independent steps’ procedure:

Assessment based on vulnerability concept (exposure, sensitivity, and potential impacts).

Short description of the method

area.

Data collection, interviews.

Direct/indirect impact, ex ante/ex post analysis.

of the evaluated intervention.

the final policy impacts in each analysed dimension, as well as the final average impact

The insertion of the potential impact values in a spreadsheet with the formula to calculate

quantitative (statistical analysis) data.

on a deep analysis of available qualitative (bibliography, interviews, project analysis) and

Production of a potential impact value (−4 to +4) of projects/programmes/policies, based

institutional, and (iv) environmental sustainability.

Four large domains: (i) socioeconomic coheson, (ii) territorial articulation, (iii)

institutional-urban and if it contributes to the territorial capital valorisation of the border

(ii) cultural-social, (iii) economy-technology, (iv) environmental-heritage, (v)

2015)

Interreg (the period 1996–2016) in Scandinavia

Qualitative

CBC tool

(Medeiros,

performance of buildings Interreg-A programme – Ins

Quantitative/

Cross-border regions Adapted TARGET-TIA tool, based on the barrier effect concept: (i) accessibility,

NUTS2

Territorial Unit

TARGET-TIA 2016

road transport vehicles, energy

clean and energy-efficient

sustainable use of pesticides,

critical infrastructure,

recognition of qualifications,

electronic road toll systems,

liability, interoperability of

of use of biofuels, environmental

environmental noise, promotion

12 EU directives: air quality,

(ESPON, 2011)

Quantitative

quantitative)

(sector, policy, project)

(qualitative/

water framework, Seveso,

2011

ESPON

Subject of the assessment

Approach

ARTS project

Year

Example

66  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

2017

TIA_ Egnatia

A multidimensional and multi-vector TIA tool that assesses both, ex ante and/or ex post

and qualitative

2019

Cross-Border

Northern Ireland; Sweden/

Norway; The Netherlands/

(Dall-hammer

et al., 2019)

Cross-border areas

impacts of the road transport system (in this case TEN-T Egnatia motorway). A combination of ESPON ARTS project approaches and qualitative assessment.

Notes: * SASI – recursive simulation model of socio-economic regional development; CGEurope – a spatial computable general equilibrium model, STIMA – Spatial Telecommunications IA.

Portugal/Spain

Germany; Romania/Bulgaria;

five border regions: Ireland/

Collaboration

support programme policies in

Both, quantitative Interreg border region financial

2017–

TIA for

3. The construction of a synthetic tool for the assessment and understanding of the

platform already operated within the Egnatia’s Observatory System).

work set above (compliance with the international experience, relativeness to the

2. The selection of the appropriate indicators taking into account the conceptual frame-

cross-border area.

meaning of polycentricity, inter-modality and territorial cooperation in the given

1. The first step sets the conceptual and methodological references for clarifying the

Three-step procedure:

of transport and the enlargement of cross-border cooperation.

concludes to an overall composite indicator measuring the ‘level of territorial cohesion’

NUTS2

with emphasis on impacts regarding the polycentricity of space, the intermodal operation

polycentric spatial organization and cross-border territorial cooperation. The procedure

South-East Europe;

Indicators grouped into three main fields of TIA, including transport inter-modality,

from very negative (–4) to very positive (+4).

A formula that on the basis of spreadsheet produces a potential impact value, varying

territorial impacts of projects/programmes/policies.

2018)

Quantitative

level

regional and national governance/cooperation; and morphologic polycentricity.

related components): socio-economic cohesion; environmental sustainability; territorial

Evaluation of territorial impact in the four territorial cohesion dimensions (including their

(Gavanas et al.,

system

motorway

2017

2017)

level, Portugal –

Spain – national

motorway system

Qualitative

tool (Medeiros, 2014,

Short description of the method

Cross-border area of

EU cohesion policy

Quantitative/

TARGET- TIA 2013,

Territorial Unit

Development of the Egnatia

(sector, policy, project)

quantitative)

Subject of the assessment

(qualitative/

Year

Approach

Example

Territorial impact assessment  67

68  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

TIA CASE STUDIES Two TIA case studies are introduced here to explore and discuss practical implications in TIA. The authors were involved in both case studies and, therefore, first-hand experience and perceptions play an important part on this exploration. They include the 2010–12 ESPON EATIA project (Fischer et al., 2012, 2015) and the cross-border cooperation project conducted between 2018 and 2019 (Dallhammer et al., 2019). EATIA Project In the EATIA project (see Fischer et al., 2012), the possibility of involving regional and/ or local stakeholders was tested. The rationale behind it was to find a way that would allow member states to better anticipate the impacts of EU policy proposals, and formulate national positions and transposition strategies that could ensure the minimisation of negative territorial impacts and the enhancement of positive outcomes. The EATIA approach was developed, based on a number of assumptions, as follows: ●● The TIA methodology should be prepared with the needs of national, regional and local authorities of EU member states in mind. TIA should be an instrument helping those authorities to identify positive and negative, deliberate and unexpected, long and short as well as direct, indirect and cumulative territorial impacts of European draft directives and potentially other European policy. Furthermore, TIA should inform the national transposition processes of those directives and policy. ●● The TIA methodology should be simple and straightforward. National, regional and local level authorities should be able to apply TIA without having to acquire complex expert knowledge. ●● In the interest of efficiency, resources required (e.g. data) to conduct the TIA should be minimal. ●● The TIA methodology should be robust and replicable throughout the EU, whilst allowing for some flexibility to reflect specific policy-making and planning traditions; outcomes of TIAs conducted in different member states on the same draft directive/policy need to be transparent and comparable. Central to the project was a highly participatory methodology which involved the departments and ministries responsible for spatial planning from three member states: the UK, Slovenia and Portugal (the stakeholders). It also engaged impact assessment expert teams from four universities (Liverpool, Ljubljana, Porto and Delft), and ‘learning networks’ of between 15 and 20 public and private sector practitioners from each of these countries. The EATIA methodology consists of three main elements, related to process, techniques and governance. In a first phase, screening (whether TIA is necessary) and scoping (what TIA should include and what types of regions and localities are most likely to be affected) are performed. These screenings are conducted by national departments or ministries responsible for the transposition of a draft directive, supported by the department responsible for spatial planning. Tools to support this phase are checklists and logical chains in which the content of the directive (e.g. objective, measures) is presented. Screening and scoping may be undertaken within established RIA procedures – e.g. SEA. Based on the testing done in the project, this can take as little as half a day if done in a workshop with knowledgeable representatives of

Territorial impact assessment  69 different departments who come together in a cooperative spirit. The following questions need to be asked: 1. Will there be significant territorial impact due to the proposed directive/policy? 2. What will be the character of these impacts and/or with what kind of criteria can they be described? 3. Where (in what types of areas/regions/sectors) will the impacts develop? A pilot TIA on the impacts of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EC in Slovenia was conducted (Marot et al., 2013). At the heart of this was a workshop attended by nine participants, coming from the ministry responsible for spatial planning, from the national office for development and European matters, and from four municipalities that have high shares of habitats to be protected. Participants validated the content of a logical chain then discussed a typology for clustering the regions according to the share of protected areas. During a brainstorming exercise, potential impacts of the directive were listed. Also, 61 criteria established for the assessment of the impacts were checked. These represented four main topics: environment (21), economy (19), society (14), and administration (7). Figure 5.1 shows a resulting impact map for 12 Slovenian regions, indicating what regions will be most and least affected and those that are expected to have medium exposure to the Habitats Directive.

Figure 5.1

Impact on Slovenian regions of the Habitat Directive 92/43/EC

Source: Marot et al. (2013).

In a second phase of the EATIA approach, assessment is done by experts most familiar with regional and local situations. Experts can include, for example, regional or local spatial planning authorities (in small countries possibly together with national administration), existing SEA teams and planning commissions that already convene at regular intervals and possess an understanding of territorial issues and sensitivity. In order to optimize the process, the national level, responsible for screening and scoping should then alert those authorities most likely to be affected by a directive/policy.

−0.8 (5 /5)

(5 /5)

(1 / 1)

(1 / 1)

−0.7

0.7

(9 / 10)

(5 / 10)

0.5

0.1

0.4

(10 / 14)

(10 / 14)

(5 /5)

−1.1

(1 / 1)

0.4

(10 / 10)

0.1

(11 / 14)

0.5

(5 /5)

−0.7

(1 / 1)

0.6

(6 / 10)

−0.2

(9 / 14)

0.7

(5 /5)

−0.9

(1 / 1)

0.6

(8 / 10)

−0.1

(11/ 14)

0.6

(5 /5)

−0.9

(1 / 1)

0.3

(9 / 10)

0.1

(12/ 14)

0.8

R3

(5 /5)

−0.9

(1 / 1)

0.8

(1 / 10)

−0.8

(2 / 14)

1.4

R1

(5 /5)

−1.0

(1 / 1)

1.7

(4 / 10)

−0.4

(5 / 14)

1.0

R2

(5 /5)

−1.1

(1 / 1)

1.0

(4 / 10)

−0.3

(5 / 14)

0.8

R3

implementation of plans on protected areas

M3 Assessment of acceptability of the effects of the

Notes: *R1 – regions with the smallest share of Natura 2000 protected sites and the smallest area of “agricultural” and “settlement” Natura. R2 – regions with a large share of Natura 2000 protected sites, medium exposed “agricultural” and “settlement” Natura and a large area of the rest of Natura. R3 – regions with a medium share of Natura 2000 protected sites, a large area of “agricultural” and “settlement” Natura and a medium-sized area of the rest of Natura. NB: Impact scores range between −2 (very negative) and +2 (very positive). The numbers in brackets indicate the number of chosen indicators from total available indicators. The last phase is the evaluation of impacts. This requires linking impacts and objectives with criteria. The evaluation is done based on national, and possibly European, territorial policy objectives. In the context of the project, it included the Territorial Agenda for the EU, and the Slovene spatial development policy. Evaluation is done by central government departments/ministries using the information provided by regional/local authorities, possibly through the centrally managed website or with the help of the research team. Regional/local authorities may decide to evaluate assessment results in the light of regional/local territorial policy objectives. For this purpose, impact matrices, evaluation maps (see Figure 5.2) and radar charts may be prepared for synthesizing the results in a manner that can be easily comprehended. Source: Fischer et al. (2012).

Governance, administration

Society

Economy

0.6

0.4

R2

R1

R1*

R3*

measures for areas of Natura 2000

conservation R2*

M2: Establishing the necessary conservation

M1: Designation of sites as special areas of

Impact matrix for three measures/policies of the Habitat Directive

Environment and territory

Impact area

Table 5.2

70  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Example of territorial presentation of impacts with the help of evaluation map for the proposal of SEVESO III directive

Source: Fischer et al. (2012, p. 89).

Figure 5.2

Territorial impact assessment  71

72  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment In larger countries, a centrally managed web-based system could be used to provide authorities with information on draft directives. Through this website, alerts could also be sent out to regional/local authorities. An impact assessment matrix is used for scoring the impact of each individual measure assessed within the relevant group of regions. The impacts are expressed through strength (i.e. expected size or scope of impact) in a numerical manner (0=negligible impact, 1=medium impact, 2=strong impact) and direction: + for improving initial condition, − for its worsening), complemented with an explanation of the assessment. An example of an overview of common effects of an individual measure on a field of assessment can be seen in Table 5.2. Testing undertaken over the course of the project has shown that an experienced impact assessor (e.g. a planner previously engaged in SEA, an impact assessment consultant) is likely to find the TIA methodology approach simple and straightforward to conduct. The most complex part is probably the starting phase where the policy needs to be broken down into measures and objectives to facilitate the assessment, appropriate indicators selected, and relevant data collected and processed. Cross-Border Cooperation TIA This project was aimed at providing evidence to assess the effectiveness of funding measures that targeted the improvement of the socio-economic, health, and environmental conditions of cross-border regions. In this context, emerging impacts of INTERREG cross-border collaboration programmes were assessed in five border areas: Germany and the Netherlands; Sweden and Norway; Romania and Bulgaria; Spain and Portugal; and the UK and Ireland (more specifically between the Republic of Ireland (RoI), Northern Ireland (NI) and Western Scotland). This section focuses on the RoI and NI case study (Dallhammer et al., 2019). The purpose of the project was threefold: ●● To brief politicians and policy-makers in the border regions about TIA; ●● To provide evidence of the territorial distribution of impacts of the most recent cross-border collaboration programme; and ●● To reflect on the methodology applied and its usefulness in other programmes. After decades of socio-political conflict and violence in NI, and the resultant economic vulnerability, a series of cooperation measures were undertaken in this border region to encourage TC, regeneration and repopulation along the border. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU (so-called ‘Brexit’) made the project particularly relevant. The purpose of the TIA was to assess impacts with regard to the following three Cross-border Cooperation Programme objectives: ●● To increase the number and capacity of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) engaged in cross-border research and innovation activity in the region aimed at the development of new products, processes and tradable services; ●● To improve freshwater quality in cross-border river basins; and ●● To improve the health and well-being of people living in the region by enabling them to access quality health and social care services in the most appropriate setting to their needs. In the course of the TIA process, available data were collected (desktop exercise) and two expert workshops were held with participants from health and social care, business development, and water quality backgrounds.

Territorial impact assessment  73 Table 5.3

Example for ‘Intervention Logic’

Needs

Measures

Effects

Indicators

SO 1.1: SMEs engaged in cross-border research and innovation aimed at the development of new products, process and services Develop the innovation capacity No. of enterprises receiving of local business and increase

support (no. 1408).

Widen the definition of

No. of SMEs collaborating with

research institute as currently

research institutes (R).

the number of SMEs actively

too narrow (NB. Only three

participating in cross border

institutes in border region).

research.

Expand concept of border region as not reflected in operations.

Target: The percentage of SMEs No. of enterprises receiving in the eligible region involved

grants (no. 19).

in research and innovation cross

Increase in CB goods and

No. of SMEs declaring cross

tradable services.

border exports in goods and services (C).

border collaborations (22%, no. 223 in 2014 to 33%, no. 676 in 2023).

Source: Dallhammer et al. (2019).

Intervention logic was used to select the indicators that represented a systemic picture of how the programme functions in the programme area. The intervention logic is a chain, establishing a logical and coherent link between the programme, the effects on the regions and the indicators measuring these effects (Table 5.3). It is based on a participatory consideration of the needs identified for the regions which are being tackled by measures funded through the programme. These measures have effects on the region, which are depicted via indicators in a TIA. The indicators are grouped as result indicators (capturing the results of and applied by the programme itself), common cross-border cooperation indicators (for various regions, which ensure comparability), or additional indicators developed to capture the impact of a particular programme measure. On the basis of the quantitative and qualitative indicators, the TIA process produces an Impact Assessment Matrix (IAM) (Table 5.4). This Matrix computes the indicators for each territorial unit for statistics (in the case of this project, NUTS 3), which were subsequently mapped (Figure 5.3). Quantitative indicators were populated using available datasets for both RoI and NI. Qualitative indicators, in contrast, were based on expert opinions gathered and consensus was sought during the consultation workshops, which were supported by graphic recording (Figure 5.4). Experts reacted positively to this approach as it facilitated thinking about big concepts, the connections between ideas, providing a visual representation of the workshops’ aims, processes and outcomes. The workshops engaged regional and local experts on areas relevant to the selected programme objectives, including: programme managers, statisticians, planners, hydrologists, engineers and health service representatives. Gathering perceptions to populate the qualitative indicators during the workshop was complemented with interviews. A number of workshop participants that were beneficiaries within the programme were individually consulted to discuss the benefits and their observations of the programme. Finally, a temporal evaluation of the impacts (short, medium or long term) was attempted. All this information was then used to define indicator values for before and after an intervention.

74  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The project findings pointed to clear differences in the impact the programme was having in the cross-border region. Although the programme was mid-term at the time, which means the impact of the funding was still to be realised, the TIA revealed that between the 2014 baseline and the date of analysis in 2018 there had been many positive developments on both sides of the border. For example, the indicators relating to the health and social care objective indicated that rates of medical prescribing have increased in both jurisdictions, but were higher in RoI. One of the health of the economy indicators showed that the numbers of SMEs have increased for all types of business activity in RoI and the west and south of NI; however, the north of Northern Ireland had been the most effected by decreases in the numbers and types of SME activity. The indicator relating to health of river water quality showed a decrease in the north-western region (RoI) and remained the same in the Neagh Bann region (NI). Overall, the results of the project ascertain the validity of the approach. Combining quantitative and qualitative data, based on data availability considerations and expert opinion, provides an effective way to capture evidence on the territorial distribution of impacts of the Cross-border Collaboration Programme.

Figure 5.3

Percentage change in business counts by activity

Source: Dallhammer et al. (2019, p. 89).

Territorial impact assessment  75 Table 5.4

Impact assessment matrix

Indicator

Assessment

Nature of Impact

NI

RoI

Magnitude (0–2)

1

1

Direction against baseline

+

+

method No. of SMEs collaborating

Qualitative

with research institutes

Temporal distribution (short/medium/long term) SHORT Justification, notes: Programme launched at the end of 2017, local experts assume this will increase No. of SMEs declaring cross Qualitative

Magnitude (0–2)

1

1

border exports in goods and

Direction against baseline

+

+

services

Temporal distribution (short/medium/long term) SHORT

Magnitude (0–2)

0

0

Direction against baseline

0

0

Justification, notes: Depends of outcome of Brexit negotiations Productivity/Growth in the

Qualitative

region

Temporal distribution (short/medium/long term) ? Justification, notes: The effects are measured at a local level, at the regional level this will be difficult to discern from other wider impacts Depends on Brexit negotiations

Source: Dallhammer et al. (2019).

Nevertheless, shortcomings were also identified with a number of preliminary selected indicators. For example, health specialists foresaw issues with patient confidentiality and sharing of data even between health organisations, affecting the inclusion of certain indicators in the TIA. Similarly, whilst experts offered original insight into local conditions and devised effective indicators for their subject areas, this created a requirement for sometimes exceptional data that were difficult to source. The strength of this TIA case study is the role local decision-makers have in creating indicators that assist them in analysing the impact of their programmes. Such a bottom-up approach empowers decision-makers on deciding how impact is effectively measured, and gives them ownership of the indicators, ensuring both that these would be monitored going forward and that any adverse effects of measures can be reported and addressed.

Graphic recording of the first workshop

Source: Drawn during the workshop by Eimear McNally (2018).

Figure 5.4

76  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Territorial impact assessment  77

CONCLUSIONS TIA is a policy-SEA type assessment which to date has been used in particular by the European Commission in order to assess potential impacts of policy initiatives, for example directives. Whilst its main purpose is the assessment of impacts with regards to the European concept of territorial cohesion, it can also be used to evaluate programme outcomes. There are both quantitative and qualitative approaches to TIA with specific guidelines, and its use has been tested in numerous research projects but it remains rarely used in practice. Flexibility of TIA is an important strength of the instrument, in particular when applied to various administrative levels. Yet, its effectiveness depends on the knowledge and capacity of local and regional administrators, whose expertise is essential to the assessment process but who may possess limited assessment skills and might also feel distant from EU-level policy-making. The usefulness of TIA in policy-making has been demonstrated in a number of cases, particularly in relation to transport infrastructure policy, but also in the assessment of directives or in the assessment of EU cross-border funding programmes, as the cases discussed in this chapter illustrate. When TIA emerged, some in the EU spatial planning community saw it as a successor of SEA. However, it soon became clear that SEA was already deeply institutionalised within the EU and firmly rooted in practice, and that therefore this was unlikely to happen. However, at the policy level, TIA can fill in a practice gap and help to systematically assess environmental, social, economic and wider spatial impacts of policy initiatives across the EU and its regions.

REFERENCES Camagni, R. 2006. Territorial impact assessment—TIA: A methodological proposal. Italian Journal of Regional Science (Scienze Regionali) 5(2): 135–46. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective— towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU. Committee on Spatial Development. Brussels: CEC. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2001. The EU White Paper on Governance. Brussels: CEC. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2002. Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment. COM(2002) 276 final. Brussels: CEC. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2004. A New Partnership for Cohesion Convergence Competitiveness Cooperation. Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Luxemburg: European Communities. Available at http://​ec​.europa​.eu/​regional​_policy/​sources/​docoffic/​official/​reports/​ cohesion3/​cohesion3​_en​.htm [accessed 20/03/2020]. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2008. Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion— Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength, Directorate General—Regional Policy. Brussels: CEC, Directorate-General Energy and Transport. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2009. Impact Assessment Guidelines (SEC(2009)92). Brussels: CEC. Available at http://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​nature/​natura2000/​ management/docs/ Wind_farms.pdf [accessed 2/12/2019]. Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States 1997. Treaty of Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Available at http://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​en/​treaties/​dat/​11997D/​htm/​11997D​.html [accessed 5/12/2013].

78  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States 2007. Treaty of Lisbon. Lisbon: Official Journal of the European Union (2007/C 306/01). Available at http://​eur​-lex​.europa​ .eu/​JOHtml​.do​?uri​=​OJ:​C:​2007:​306:​SOM:​EN:​HTML [accessed 5/12/2013]. CoR [Committee of the Regions] 2013a. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Assessing territorial impacts’. OJ C 280, 27. 9. 2013, Brussels: CoR: 13–18. CoR [Committee of the Regions] 2013b. Report on the Consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network: Assessment of Territorial Impact, Rapporteur Mr Michael Schneider (DE/EPP), R/CdR 2731/2013. Brussels: CoR. Available at https://​portal​.cor​.europa​.eu/​subsidiarity/​news/​Documents/​ TIA​%20Report​.pdf [accessed 5/12/ 2013]. Dallhammer, E., Schuh, B., Gaugitsch, R., Derszniak-Noirjean, M., Unfried, M., Fischer, T.B., and Palenberg, D. 2019. Territorial Impact Assessment for Cross-border Co-operation. Luxembourg: ESPON. Available at https://​www​.espon​.eu/​TIA​-CBC [accessed 16/4/2020]. Davoudi, S. 2005. Understanding territorial cohesion. Planning Practice & Research 20(4): 433–41. DG Regio 2009. Consultation on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength (SEC(2008) 2550). Brussels: European Commission. Available at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​regional​_policy/​archive/​ consultation/terco/consultation_en.htm [accessed 16/4/2020]. ESPON 2004. ESPON project 2.1.1: Territorial Impact of EU Transport and TEN Policies. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON 2005a. ESPON project 2.1.3: Territorial Impact of CAP and Rural Development Policy. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON 2005b. ESPON project 2.1.4: Territorial Trends of Energy Services and Networks and Territorial Impact of EU Energy Policy. Luxembourg: ESPON, Research Centre for Energy, Transport and Environment Economics. ESPON 2010. ESPON TIPTAP Project—Territorial Impact Package for Transport and Agricultural Policies. Luxembourg: ESPON. ESPON 2011. ESPON ARTS Assessment of Regional and Territorial Sensitivity, Draft final report. Luxembourg: ESPON & ÖIR, BEST, OTB, PBL. ESPON 2012. Territorial Impact Assessment of Policies and EU Directives—A Practical Guide for Policymakers and Practitioners based on ESPON Projects and the European Commission. Luxembourg: ESPON. Available at http://​www​.espon​.eu/​export/​sites/​default/​Documents/​ Publications/TerritorialImpactAssessment/TIA_Printed_version.pdf [accessed 2/12/2019]. Essig, S. and Kaucic, J. 2017. ESPON TIA: balancing between policy orientation, practicability and scientific ambition, in E. Medeiros (ed.), Uncovering the Territorial Dimension of European Union Cohesion Policy, Oxford, New York: Routledge (chapter 12). EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development 2011. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 – Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. Available at http://​www​.eu2011​.hu/​files/​bveu/​documents/​TA2020​.pdf [accessed 30/9/2011]. European Commission 2010. Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020 A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. COM(2010) 2020. Brussels: European Commission. Evers, D., Tennekes, J., Borsboom, J., Heiligenberg, H. and Thissen, M. 2009. Territorial Impact Assessment of Territorial Cohesion. The Hague: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Faludi, A. 2009. A turning point in the development of European spatial planning? The ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union’ and the ‘First Action Programme’. Progress in Planning 71(1): 1–42. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Conclusions: towards a theory of strategic environmental assessment?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 27). Fischer, T. B., Gore, T., Golobic, M., Pinho, P., Sykes, O., Marot, N., and Waterhout, B. 2015. Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) of European draft directives – the emergence of a new policy assessment instrument. European Planning Studies 23(3): 433–51. Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Gore, T., Marot, N., Golobic, M., Pinho, P., Waterhout, B. and Perdicoulis, A. 2012. ESPON EATIA. ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment. Final Report. Luxembourg: ESPON. Available at http://​www​.espon​.eu/​export/​sites/​default/​Documents/​Projects/​TargetedAnalyses/​ EATIA/​Final​ReportEATIA28June2012Afinal​.pdf [accessed 5/12/2013].

Territorial impact assessment  79 Gavanas, N., Moutsiakis, E., Tasopoulou, A., Verani, E. and Fourkas, V. 2018. The territorial impact assessment of transport: the case of the Egnatia motorway system in the cohesion potential of Southeast Europe. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 36(4): 294–307. González, A., Daly, G., Adams, N., Pinch, P., Valtenbergs, V., Burns, M.C. and Johannesson, H. 2015. Indicators for spatial planning and territorial cohesion: stakeholder-driven selection approach for improving usability at regional and local levels. Regional Studies 49(9): 1588–1602. Hamez, G. 2005. Territorial cohesion: how to operationalize and measure the concept? Planning Theory & Practice 6(3): 400–402. Hübner, D. 2008. “Presentation of the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion” Speech/08/651. Marseilles, 26 November 2008. Available at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​commission/​presscorner/​detail/​ en/ SPEECH_08_651 [accessed 16/4/2020]. Janin Rivolin, U. 2010. EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress. European Journal of Spatial Development 38: 1–28. Marot, N., Kolarič, Š. and Golobič, M. 2013. Slovenia as the natural park of Europe? A territorial impact assessment in the case of Natura 2000. Acta geographica Slovenica 53(1): 91–116. Medeiros, E. 2015. Territorial impact assessment and cross-border cooperation. Regional Studies, Regional Science 2(1): 97–115. Medeiros, E. 2016. Territorial impact assessment and public policies: the case of Portugal and the EU. Public Policy Portuguese Journal 1(1): 51–61. Medeiros, E. 2017. European Union cohesion policy and Spain: a territorial impact assessment. Regional Studies 51(8): 1259–69. Novosák, J., Hájek, O., Severova, L., Spiesova, D. and Novosakova, J. 2018. Territorial impact assessment: cohesion policy and balanced territorial development (Czechia). DETUROPE – the Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 10(2): 75–90. Schout, A., Jordan, A. and Schout, J. A. 2006. The Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the Capacities of Networked Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sykes, O. and Fischer, T.B. 2017. Impact assessments? What impact assessments? – Is anybody actually planning to leave the EU? Town and Country Planning 86(12): 544–7. Tennekes, J. and Hornis, W. 2008. Ruimtelijke-effectanalyse van EU-beleid: een leidraad (Eng. Spatial Impact Analysis of EU Policies: A Guide). Den Haag: Ruimtelijk Planbureau. Zonneveld, W. and Waterhout, B. 2009. EU territorial impact assessment: under what conditions? In Territorial Cohesion of Europe and Integrative Planning, 49th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, 25–9 August 2009, Lodz: European Regional Science Association.

6. GIS-based strategic environmental assessment Ainhoa González and Davide Geneletti

INTRODUCTION Spatial planning decisions require deliberation of multiple, often conflicting, socio-economic and environmental considerations. In the current state of affairs, it has never been more important to resolve this tension with an urge towards sustainability: bringing environmental considerations to the forefront. Fostering environmental integration into spatial planning, in particular, concerns a wide array of natural resources and features. Under the European Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (EC, 2001), for example, the effects on biodiversity, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, and the landscape must be taken into account during the preparation of plans/programmes. Man-made assets, such as infrastructure and cultural heritage, and society as a whole (through population and human health considerations) must be also given due consideration, including the interrelationship between all factors. These environmental issues are also defined under the SEA Protocol (UNECE, 2003) and, indeed, the European SEA Directive (EC, 2014). This thematic range of SEA, and of environmental assessment in general, calls for an approach that integrates not only all relevant information and data on the various environmental aspects (including quality or protection status, associated ecosystem services, etc.), but also public/stakeholder views about their relative importance. Central to the above is also the need to consider the spatial implications of planning decisions in order to facilitate an informed process for regulating the use of land and marine resources. All our actions, whether wide-ranging or localised, are geographically bound. As such, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide a meaningful tool for spatially assessing all multiple criteria in conjunction with public opinion and, therefore, represent an important support tool for environmental assessments and planning decisions. With their ability to gather, explore, analyse, model and represent spatial data, they can be instrumental facilitators of evidence-base. Technological advancements, the advent of internet mapping and the growing availability and public release of spatial data have fostered the uptake of GIS across sectors. GIS-based spatial decision support systems, both desk-based and online, have proliferated in recent years (Babelon et al., 2017; González et al., 2019; Smith, 2016). The open data movement increasingly embraced at governmental level is also supporting this uptake (Kitchin, 2014). Large, wide and varied socio-economic and environmental datasets (covering areas such as natural resources, ecosystem services, environmental quality, land-use, census and health) are increasingly available to the benefit of informed and substantiated planning processes. The confluence of growingly available (geospatial) data with rapidly developing GIS-based tools and solutions for handling such data opens up unique opportunities for good governance. GIS facilitate evidence-based planning, promoting transparent, traceable and reproducible results within public administrations (González, 2017; Mourhir et al., 2016). They can be paramount to funnelling knowledge on environmental quality and to examining, forecasting and 80

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  81 communicating environmental effects (González and Gazzola, 2019). Moreover, multi-criteria spatial approaches promote joint understanding, thinking and problem solving, by mediating expert and stakeholder knowledge, and by facilitating dialogue (Babelon et al., 2017; Cravens, 2016; González, 2017). GIS-based multi-criteria analysis (MCA) can be applied across planning hierarchies, sectors and different Impact assessment (IA) tools (see e.g. Chapter 5 on TIA by Marot et al., 2021). However, spatial plans and, in particular, lower planning tiers can benefit the most from the extensive use of GIS because of their geographically explicit policy formulations. These plans often provide detailed zoning schemes and identify the precise boundaries of future land-uses. Hence, GIS analysis (from simple map overlaying to more complex modelling and simulations) can be used to generate convincing impact estimates of people’s exposure to environmental contamination, land take, ecosystem fragmentation, etc. (Geneletti, 2015; Willis and Keller, 2007). GIS-based MCA effectively support both Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)-type and more strategic SEA approaches, helping visualise environmental sensitivity or the effects of land-use changes, and thus steer interventions to suitable locations. MCA helps to combine the factual information resulting from the GIS modelling, with value-based information (e.g. stakeholders’ preferences and policy-makers’ priorities) in an explicit way (Geneletti, 2019). For example, in site selection problems, GIS-based MCA can be used to spatially characterise the relevant environmental and socio-economic features, and then combine them in a way that reflects the viewpoints of the actors involved in the decision (e.g. through “weighting workshops”; see Tiitu et al., 2018). The reliability of GIS-based assessments is largely dependent on the accuracy and quality of spatial data. Despite the growing availability of spatial/geospatial information, the lack of systemic quality checks can result in data limitations affecting the quality and reliability of outputs, which can subsequently lead to mistrust (González and Gazzola, 2019; Majumdar 2017). Moreover, the complexity of environmental interactions may hinder an effective spatial examination of interrelationships. Therefore, GIS approaches to SEA must be understood as supportive rather than definite solutions. Being cognisant of data limitations and uncertainties is essential, but arguably GIS can still effectively support participative knowledge generation for decision-making. The following sections examine the gradual development and uptake of GIS in SEA and their applicability across SEA stages, using case studies to examine their benefits and limitations. The chapter concludes with a set of recommendations as to how best implement the technology and consider the analytical outputs in decision-making.

EVOLUTION OF GIS USE IN SEA The use of digital spatial datasets started to rise worldwide in the 1980s. Initially, at the time, GIS were used to create digital maps. Gathering data onsite (by means of Global Positioning Systems (GPS)), transferring the information to a computer interface, and plotting the results on a digital map allowed visualising and exploring field observations. Such thematic illustrations of environmental considerations are widely used to facilitate the description of the baseline environment and the preparation of environmental reports, inherent to SEA and EIA processes. Undertaking spatial analysis, for example, to support site selection or site suitability assessment started to emerge in the 1990s (e.g. Baban and Flannagan, 1998; Chen

82  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment and Delaney, 1998; Lober, 1995), with no far-off predictions that GIS was to become central to informing decisions (Kindleberger, 1992). While applications and methods rapidly developed within the research community, Vanderhaegen and Muro (2005) reported that only half of SEA/EIA practitioners used GIS for performing complex analysis of impacts or scenario analysis. In 2007, Directive 2007/2/EC on the creation of an INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe (INSPIRE) (EC, 2007) opened a new road for spatial data creation and sharing across European member states. The INSPIRE Directive promotes the use of spatial data and GIS across a wide range of purposes with the aim of supporting sustainable development. The drafting of the Directive also fostered the introduction of GIS requirements into other environmental legislation. These include both the Water Framework Directive (CEC, 2000) and the Noise Directive (CEC, 2002), which require submission of certain geographic information in map form. It was already anticipated at that time, that such an infrastructure would itself promote further use of spatial data, by making relevant and quality geographic information available for the formulation, evaluation and monitoring of plans and programmes (CEC, 2005). This is becoming streamlined in recent times through the creation of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs), commonly developed at national level. Parallel to this, there has also been a noticeable shift on the use of online interfaces for spatial data visualisation, exploration and analysis not only by specialised users but also the general public (Babelon et al., 2017; Haklay et al., 2008; Li, 2006; Smith, 2016; Veenendaal et al., 2017). This has supported the development and uptake of online GIS-based support tools for SEA (e.g. González et al., 2019) and, indeed, for spatial planning (e.g. Cravens, 2016; Ghaemi et al., 2009; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017). While the majority of such applications are experimental, some countries are starting to implement them in practice (Box 6.1). In current SEA practice, we can sketch three broad levels of GIS use: –– First level. The use of GIS is mainly limited to represent and describe environmental or socio-economic features, for example by visually overlaying areas with different protection status or exposed to different environmental risks. The use of spatial information is largely limited to the baseline part of the SEA (and SEA reporting), focusing on collating and representing existing GIS layers without analytical insights. –– Second level. Besides being largely used in the baseline, GIS are employed to compute at least some of the impact indicators adopted by the SEA. For example, GIS can be used to compare possible plan alternatives by spatially analysing their impact in terms of agricultural soil loss or ecosystem fragmentation. The use of GIS is not embedded in the SEA process, but it is a “back office” activity carried out by the analysts involved in the plan/SEA. –– Third level. GIS are used to support (part of) the actual SEA process. This includes, for example, the following activities: processing data to prepare GIS layers suitable to guide the identification of planning issues and objectives; supporting the identification of planning alternatives through real-time simulations of their effects (e.g. through scenarios and projections); engaging stakeholders through participatory GIS; and setting up GIS routines to execute the monitoring plan. Although the general trend in practice shows a progressive increase in the integration of GIS-based information and GIS analysis in SEA, the three levels above do not represent a chronological evolution. Rather, they co-exist in practice, being largely dependent upon the

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  83 context, the scale, type and sector of the plan, as well as the specific experience and expertise of the planning/SEA teams.

BOX 6.1 UPTAKE OF GIS IN IRISH PUBLIC ORGANISATIONS AND ITS APPLICATION TO SEA Ireland provides a good example of the effort and steady trajectory for setting up a national-level system to mainstream GIS in SEA. The adoption of GIS in the country mirrors that of other countries: as technology became more affordable and user-friendly, increasing efforts were made to introduce it within government departments. Industry followed this trend, and while GIS was progressively applied across sectors, a number of GIS champions supported and pushed for a full integration, making it a front end. GIS was formally introduced in Ireland in the 1990s when the Local Government Computer Services Board requested local authorities take up GIS for database management. However, it was not until the turn of the century when the use and application of GIS was fully embraced across the public sector; most local authorities and governmental departments now have a dedicated GIS officer or team, often linked to the planning section. Around 2007, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a designated SEA environmental authority, developed an internal GIS-based SEA reporting tool. The tool automatically generated SEA screening and scoping reports, containing a number of maps highlighting the key environmental considerations in the plan/programme area together with the available quantitative and qualitative values for those environmental factors. In 2009, they published the GIS for SEA Manual: Improving the Evidence Base for SEA, which was subsequently updated in 2017 (EPA, 2017). And this was followed by the SEA Spatial Information Sources Inventory, which is regularly updated.1 These resources have helped with the uptake of GIS in SEA in the country, and the large majority of SEA Environmental Reports do include maps to support assessments and recommendations. More recently, in October 2019, the EPA, together with University College Dublin, the All-Island Research Observatory and Ordnance Survey Ireland, have launched a national Environmental Sensitivity Mapping Webtool (ESM webtool – http://​www​.enviromap​.ie) with the aim of providing a consistent and robust evidence-base to support SEA and planning decisions in the country. See Box 6.3 for more detail.

SOME THOUGHTS ON SPATIAL DATA The SEA Directive does not formally require the use or generation of spatial datasets, or indeed GIS, but it is considered that their application can provide several benefits when compared with traditional methods. Such benefits include: objectiveness, consistency, transparency and efficiency (Craglia et al., 2012; González et al., 2011; Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005). However,

1

See https://​www​.epa​.ie/​pubs/​advice/​ea/​seaspatialin​formationsourcesinventory​.html.

84  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment GIS applications remain burdened by data access, availability and quality limitations (e.g. Craglia et al., 2012; González, 2012). These issues hold true for any method and technique, but in the context of SEA they become significantly relevant given the breadth of environmental aspects that need to be examined and considered in the assessment, and the fact that much of these datasets are dispersed. SEA practitioners, and plan-/programme-makers more generally, have to access data from multiple sources given the lack of centralised repositories. While SDIs often provide an inventory of available data resources, many of these are still held within individual organisations and, in some cases, they have access restrictions (e.g. permission forms or fees may apply). Similarly, the open data movement is helping address some accessibility issues, but arguably spatial data and knowledge gaps persist, particularly for certain SEA themes such as landscape or soils. Data improvement needs are being tackled by researchers, practitioners and citizens on a daily basis. And, arguably, big data (e.g. the Internet of Things, citizen science, remote sensing) has the potential to augment the potential of GIS-based SEA (González and Gazzola, 2019). However, there is a general lack of verification – there are no national initiatives for spatial data quality checks. Therefore, while it is anticipated that the growing availability and accessibility of spatial data will support regular and persistent GIS use across sectors, there is a need to remain alert and cognisant of the effects of data quality and scale limitations on GIS outputs, and the implications for both environmental assessment (SEA/EIA) findings and recommendations, as well as for planning decisions.

GIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAIN SEA STAGES GIS can support each SEA stage through the provision of spatially specific data and information. Their ability to combine objective data (i.e. environmental variables) and subjective values (in the form of values or weights that capture the relative importance of the variables and thus emphasise priority areas or key public concerns) enable the simultaneous consideration of scientific facts and public perceptions (González and Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018). Moreover, a systematic and timely implementation of a GIS approach can ensure that the appropriate information (in the form of digital maps or spatial statistics, for example) is made available to support each SEA stage and assist in the preparation of the plan/programme. GIS are, by their nature, more useful for sectoral plans and programmes that propose specific locational policies and/or interventions (e.g. siting of facilities and infrastructures; land-use zoning schemes). Therefore, spatial planning can significantly benefit from GIS approaches. In particular, local level plans/programmes are best suited to GIS-based environmental assessment methods. Higher planning tiers commonly contain broad and non-spatial policies that do not render themselves appraisable through GIS. The following sections provide an overview of how GIS can support different stages of an SEA process, with examples from practice. While some of these examples represent one-off applications linked to research projects, GIS are widely applied by SEA practitioners and consultants to support screening, scoping and the description of the baseline environment in particular and, regularly also, to anticipate the environmental effects of proposed alternatives. Screening and Scoping the Assessment GIS are often used as support tools in case-by-case screening as well as in scoping. They can facilitate a quick overview of critical environmental sensitivities and issues within the plan/

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  85 programme area. For example, checking ecological designations and water quality within or adjacent to the plan/programme area can provide a rapid indication of the need for SEA outside legislative thresholds (Box 6.2). Simple mapping approaches can be applied to create thematic maps (of biodiversity richness, landscape protection or surface waters with poor ecological status) from existing data. Overlaying these with proposed interventions (e.g. land-use zonings) enables observing any spatial linkages and, in this way, exploring overlaps between development pressures and environmental sensitivities. At scoping stage, in addition to focusing the assessment on the intrinsic environmental sensitivities or potential land-use conflicts occurring at that location, GIS can also assist in defining the geographical envelope and scale of the assessment. This includes the identification of issues that need to be addressed across different spatial scales (e.g. ecological networks, mobility systems, cycling routes). The use of GIS can also facilitate science-practice communication by providing a visual means for exchanging information and knowledge (Bohman et al. 2015; González et al., 2011; González and Gazzola, 2019), for example during the public “scoping workshops”, which are mandatory under some SEA legislations. Box 6.3 illustrates an example from practice where GIS analyses were conducted to support the SEA scoping stage for a municipal-level plan.

BOX 6.2 GIS FOR SEA SCREENING: SEA OF BLESSINGTON LOCAL AREA PLAN 2013–2019, IRELAND

Figure 6.1 Ireland

GIS for sea screening: Sea of Blessington local area plan 2013–2019,

86  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment At the time of plan preparation, the Blessington Local Area Plan had less than 10,000 inhabitants and, therefore, SEA was not mandatory under Statutory Instrument No. 436 of 2004 ruling SEA requirements at the time (this threshold has since been reduced to 5,000 inhabitants). However, GIS-based SEA and AA screening revealed important environmental and planning issues within the plan area, including designated Special Protection Areas and proposed Natural Heritage Areas (left) and locally important aquifers (right). As a result, it was determined that the Local Area Plan should be subject to SEA. Source: Wicklow County Council (2012).

BOX 6.3 GIS FOR SEA SCOPING: SEA OF THE URBAN PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PONTE SAN PIETRO, ITALY During the scoping phase of the SEA, GIS was extensively used to identify key challenges and formulate initial recommendations about issues that should be addressed by the plan. In addition, GIS analysis contributed to the selection of a set of (spatial) indicators to assess the environmental performance of the plan throughout the SEA process. During scoping, the spatial analysis primarily consisted in map overlaying (e.g. to visualise the distribution of the main elements of the ecological network at regional scale; see map below) and buffering operations (to qualitatively assess the accessibility to urban green space). The resulting maps featured prominently in the scoping report, and were instrumental in facilitating discussion with the public and stakeholders during the scoping workshop, held by the planning authority in the early stage of the SEA process.

Figure 6.2 GIS for sea scoping: SEA of the urban plan of the Municipality of Ponte San Pietro, Italy Source: Comune di Ponte San Pietro (2010).

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  87 Constructing the Baseline GIS are most widely used to support the description of the baseline environment (González, 2012; Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005). In order to inform the drafting of the plan (or rather its alternatives), baseline datasets comprising physical factors (e.g. land cover, topography, geology), fieldwork data (e.g. water quality sampling data) and statistical data (e.g. population density) are brought together, commonly from different sources, to form a spatial database that fits both the geographical scale of the plan/programme and the scope of the associated SEA. Spatial modelling can also be applied at this stage to obtain specific sets of information (e.g. flood-risk areas, coastal erosion) which can generate valuable predictive information for the assessment. Any assessment difficulties associated with gaps and inconsistencies in the relevant datasets should be addressed during this stage. SEA-relevant datasets are commonly gathered from myriad third-party sources. The general lack of centralised repositories or, indeed, of knowledge on SEA-relevant available datasets, often results in SEAs within the same jurisdiction relying on different sources of data or using inconsistent sets of data. Moreover, the lack of data quality checks can affect the accuracy of outputs and, ultimately, assessments and decisions. It is therefore important that, in so far as possible, data are checked, corrected and completed as appropriate. Any unresolved data issues need to be clearly acknowledged in the Environmental Report for an effective and informed interpretation of GIS baseline maps. In Ireland, as an example, the recently launched Environmental Sensitivity Mapping (ESM) web-tool attempts to address some of these difficulties by centralising all SEA-relevant publicly available datasets into a single interface (Box 6.4).

BOX 6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY MAPPING WEB-TOOL In October 2019, the Irish EPA launched a novel GIS-based decision-support tool for SEA and planning processes in Ireland (http://​www​.enviromap​.ie). The web-tool centralises access to SEA data by bringing together over 100 disparate public datasets, verified by governmental organisations, which are grouped according to SEA themes. It allows planners, SEA practitioners and the general public to examine environmental considerations and create plan-specific environmental sensitivity maps. This examination can also include public opinion on the relative importance of the various environmental aspects, through the incorporation of a user-defined weight into the analysis. This can be done rapidly, effectively and without the need for GIS skills. Moreover, the systematic sensitivity analysis ensures a degree of consistency and transparency across assessments. The output maps can help to anticipate potential land-use conflicts, thus informing the identification of suitable development locations while protecting the environment. As well as its primary use in SEA and planning, the web-tool is also useful for a wide range of other sectors and applications.

88  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Figure 6.3

Environmental sensitivity mapping web-tool

Source: González (2017).

Identifying Shortcomings/Opportunities and Contributing to Define a Plan’s Objectives Building on the baseline information, GIS can be further used to conduct analysis of the data collected, in order to summarise the key environmental and socio-economic features of the area, as well as the key elements of the current planning context (e.g. constraints to land-use transformation, planned infrastructures and facilities, or priority area for agricultural soil protection). The purpose is to organise and interpret the baseline data in order to understand existing or future shortcomings and opportunities, and use this knowledge to contribute to the identification (or to the revision) of the planning objectives (Steiner, 2008). An example of approach that can be used in this phase is SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, and its spatial version, which was applied to SEA by Geneletti et al. (2007); see Box 6.5. SWOT analysis is a commonly used tool to study the external and internal factors that affect a decision situation (Wheelen and Hunger, 1995).

BOX 6.5 SWOT ANALYSIS FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF BORGO VALSUGANA, ITALY A spatial representation of some of the elements of the SWOT analysis carried out for the municipality of Borgo Valsugana is presented below. When applied in planning, strengths and weaknesses represent, respectively, positive and negative internal elements of the study area (e.g. the presence of well-preserved and well-connected green spaces or high noise levels). Opportunities and threats represent external factors, for example, associated with environmental or socio-economic features of neighbouring areas (e.g. the presence of facilities that generate traffic through the study area), or to decisions that do not depend on the planning authority of the study area (e.g. siting of an infrastructure).

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  89

Figure 6.4

SWOT analysis for the Municipality of Borgo Valsugana, Italy

Source: Geneletti et al. (2017).

Developing and Comparing Alternatives/Options Consideration of reasonable and realistic planning scenarios (e.g. land-use zoning options and their location) can be easily achieved using GIS. The capacity of GIS to illustrate proposed alternatives against the baseline environmental data by using simple overlay techniques, for example, can facilitate their assessment and, thereby, the identification of the most environmentally sensitive areas and the most suitable development scenario. The use of GIS to spatially assess alternatives against previously prepared baseline maps (e.g. suitability analysis (Geneletti, 2008; González et al. 2011)) augments conventional impact assessment methods in SEA, such as expert judgements of matrix-based assessments. While GIS applications for assessing the impact of proposed alternatives remains basic (González, 2012; Riddlesden et al., 2012), there are growing efforts to better identify and define potential adverse effects (e.g. Bragagnolo and Geneletti, 2013; see also Box 10.8 in Chapter 10 by González, 2021), as well as anticipate impacts under different scenarios (e.g. Bryan et al., 2011; see also Box 6.7). Similarly, the effects of different population growth rates on urban development can be simulated, and then used to assess the environmental impacts of proposed planning actions, and support decision-making about those actions (Box 6.6).

90  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

BOX 6.6 USING GIS TO SIMULATE FUTURE SCENARIOS Land-use scenarios showing the growth of urban settlements in Caia (Mozambique) under five different spatial plan policies (P1–P5) and three population growth forecasts (low, medium and high) were simulated (left panel). These were the visually compared in terms of their environmental performance. The effects of alternative spatial plan policies were assessed against a set of environmental performance indicators, including deforestation, loss of agricultural land, encroachment of flood-prone areas and wetlands and access to water sources (right panel). This allowed identification of critical environmental effects related to the implementation of each policy, and to suggest possible strategies to address them.

Figure 6.5

Using GIS to simulate future scenarios

Source: Geneletti (2012).

BOX 6.7 LANDSCAPE FUTURES ANALYSIS A study of natural resource management scenarios for southern Australia examines the contribution of each scenario to achieving set targets for conserving and managing natural capital assets in the region. The study not only looks at policy drivers (influencing land-use and management) but also at external drivers (e.g. climate change) to analyse and quantify the environmental, economic, and social impacts at the landscape level. The method combines linear programming and scenario analysis using GIS. The spatial distribution of costs and benefits of previously identified natural resource management actions are modelled against future climate scenarios, to then quantify the impacts across a range of indicators.

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  91

Figure 6.6

Landscape futures analysis

The maps illustrate changes in environmental, economic, and social indicators under different land-use spatial prioritisation options (defined through stakeholder consultation) and for mild, moderate and severe warming/drying climate scenarios. While this study was not directly linked to an SEA, this systematic approach can provide insights into the most environmentally robust and cost-effective option and, in this way, guide strategic regional planning decisions towards the more desirable landscape futures. Source: Bryan et al. (2011).

92  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Assessing the Overall Environmental Performance of the Plan Once a first draft of the plan is drawn, its overall environmental performance can be assessed, and the results used to propose revisions, as well as mitigation measures, until the final version of the plan is produced. To this purpose, key environmental performance indicators are selected during SEA. Most of these indicators are spatial, hence GIS can play a key role in supporting this stage (Box 6.8). For example, in the case of urban planning, spatial indicators can be used to quantify the expected overall land take caused by the land-use changes foreseen by the proposed plan (Geneletti et al., 2017). This can be used to check if the plan is compliant with existing quality standards and regulations, as well as to understand and quantify cumulative effects.

BOX 6.8 GIS TO ASSESS THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE PLAN: SEA OF THE URBAN PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALBIATE, ITALY In the early stage of the SEA process, a set of 15 core environmental performance indicators was established. These indicators were used to guide the development of the plan, and assess its overall performance with respect to the current environmental conditions. The indicators cover four main topics: soil protection (including measures of e.g. land take and urban sprawl), ecosystem conservation (e.g. fragmentation, naturalness), urban quality (e.g. accessibility to services, public transport and green space), and health (e.g. exposure to noise and air pollution). All the indicators were computed using GIS analysis in order to quantify, and visually represent the differences between the current conditions, and the predicted future conditions, once the plan is implemented. For example, the maps below show the time required to walk to the closest primary school from residential areas in the current (left) and future (right) conditions.

Figure 6.7 GIS to assess the overall impact of the plan: SEA of the urban plan of the Municipality of Albiate, Italy Source: Comune di Albiate (2009).

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  93 Developing a Monitoring Plan and Follow-up Monitoring has been acknowledged to be one of the most problematic steps of SEA in practice (e.g. Gachechiladze-Bozhesku and Fischer, 2012; González et al., 2019; Partidário and Arts, 2005). Data gathering requirements to follow-up both plan implementation and the effectiveness of SEA mitigation measures are costly and time-consuming. Nevertheless, a systematic approach to data updating and maintenance within planning authorities or environmental agencies can go a long way towards facilitating this stage through the use of GIS (Box 6.9). In certain cases, it is only a matter of updating attribute information associated with the spatial dataset using information from other sources (e.g. ongoing water quality monitoring by state agencies). Moreover, growing access to remote sensing data (e.g. satellite imagery and sensors) and citizen science provide unique opportunities to support and enhance SEA monitoring, providing real-time data at low cost (González and Gazzola, 2019).

BOX 6.9 SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL SEA MONITORING SYSTEM

Figure 6.8

South Dublin County Council SEA Monitoring System

Approximately half of the SEA indicators in South Dublin are being drawn from monitoring systems already in place both within and external to the Council. The remainder are being derived through a web-based SEA Monitoring System created to capture critical data at the planning application decision-making stage. These development-derived Indicators allow a means of monitoring significant environmental impacts of implementing the policies and objectives of the County Development Plan and also, as information builds up over time, will enable evidence-based policy analysis and review. The figures above address landscape and natural heritage protection and public transport indicators (rural housing pressure monitoring on the right, and public transport accessibility of areas and districts within the County on the left). Source: EPA (2017).

94  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Consultation and Participation GIS have the potential to improve stakeholder and public involvement through communicating information more effectively. The use of digital maps or their inclusion in Environmental Reports can facilitate the spatial and/or non-technical understanding of issues during public consultation. Moreover, participatory GIS approaches (e.g. public participation GIS (PPGIS), and participatory mapping) are growing and opening up significant opportunities for public engagement in SEA and plan-making. They enable timely and accessible dissemination of scientific information, especially when online, as well as meaningful ways of collating values and perceptions of stakeholders, practitioners and the general public on environmental resources and services (e.g. González and Gazzola, 2019). PPGIS are typically designed to engage stakeholders, and the general public, in a planning process by allowing them to identify locations in a digital map (often embedded in a web-based tool) that have specific attributes (Rall et al., 2019). Attributes may refer to values (e.g. aesthetic, cultural, spiritual) associated with, or activities performed in, a specific location. More generally, PPGIS refer to any approaches that support the lay public in identifying, or creating, spatial information, including, for example, community mapping and spatially explicit surveys and interviews (Kopperoinen et al., 2016). An interesting case study is presented by Raymond et al. (2016), who developed a PPGIS method to identify and assess multiple elements of environmental justice in popular recreational areas in Helsinki. The PPGIS was designed to record activity diversity (e.g. walking, jogging, birdwatching), user diversity, and perceived problems and unpleasant experiences (e.g. perception of unsafety, unpleasant scenery, crowdedness) through an interface where users could drag and drop digital points (i.e. locations) on to a map. The outcomes of the study provide a wealth of information that can be used to especially inform the early stages of the planning and SEA processes, particularly for those associated with local land-use planning, where issues and priorities need to be identified.

SOME GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS There are multiple GIS approaches that suit different SEA stages and that need to be contextualised to the problem at hand – there is no one-method-fits-all solution. Acknowledging that shortcoming relating to spatial data gaps and deficiencies remain, and that some approaches embed modelling assumptions, it is undeniable that GIS can enhance SEA by bringing in spatial considerations which are central to many sectoral decisions. The adequate consideration of the spatial dimension of environmental aspects can complement other assessment methods (e.g. expert judgements and matrix-based), improve the explicitness of assessment outcomes and facilitate the understanding of potential land-use conflicts promoting a robust evidence-based approach to environmental planning and decision-making.

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  95 The following general recommendations are put forward with the purpose of optimising the implementation and contribution of GIS to SEA. These have been adapted from the GIS for SEA guidance published by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2017). ●● Establish spatial data sharing mechanism. Data creators, plan-makers and SEA practitioners alike should embrace data sharing mechanisms to ensure that existing datasets are freely available or available at marginal costs and, therefore, readily applicable to support planning and impact assessment. ●● Check the quality of each dataset. Verify that data are the most current (i.e. up to date), that both datasets and their attributes are coherent and complete, and that they contain all the relevant information for the plan/programme area. ●● Document data inconsistencies (e.g. topological mismatches, data gaps, unexplained or missing attributes, scale limitations). Where limitations, inconsistencies and errors are discovered in the datasets, acknowledge them in the Environmental Report. In addition, contact the data source or provider to report on and amend the identified error or, alternatively, improve the dataset in-house through consultation with the data owner. ●● Facilitate the spatially specific definition of sectoral land-uses and areas of policy application from the earliest stages of plan development (e.g. using GIS when sketching out alternative scenarios). Although the zoning of lands is more explicit at local area level, the definition of indicative strategic areas at regional level can help address any spatial issues. These strategic zonings help maintain focus when formulating policies and actions. ●● Use modelling tools where available and applicable to simulate and explore possible future scenarios based on population trends, land-use changes, climate, energy supply and consumption, waste water volume and treatment capacity, etc. These can further inform the identification and development of reasonable and realistic alternatives. ●● Use the spatial assessment of proposed alternatives to detect and highlight potential direct and cumulative environmental effects/impacts. The mapping of environmental constraints alongside the spatially specific provision of a plan can facilitate easy and early anticipation of the principal direct and cumulative impacts associated with the accommodation of growth. These can be further assessed using other published documents/data. The geographic representation of environmental resources/sensitivities and development pressures, as well as supporting spatial analytics and statistics, can significantly enhance the explicitness of assessments. ●● Use GIS outputs to inform decision-making. The generated maps (representing both environmental and development planning issues) and the quantitative data extracted (e.g. changes on indicator values) can enhance the evidence base. GIS outputs can be of value when deciding on or prioritising land-use zonings or when formulating planning policies/ actions. In addition, maps have the ability to portray multiple datasets in a very concentrated and visually explicit manner to better highlight issues. They can also articulate the information contained in Environmental Reports by outlining findings in graphic form. ●● Update data during the monitoring stage. Use the collated values (either using GPS during fieldwork or from other monitoring arrangements, including remote sensing and citizen science) to rapidly update relevant spatial datasets. The updated values can be re-mapped and contrasted with the baseline environment maps to assess the increase/ decrease in environmental quality (e.g. water quality) or the relative degree of impact from development (e.g. planning consents on an area) providing essential information for future plans and SEA iterations.

96  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

CONCLUSIONS GIS applications in SEA are growing, with more analytical and participative approaches being developed and applied in practice. This chapter presents some of these and illustrates how varying methods, or a combination of methods, are most suitable at different SEA stages. Arguably, GIS can be most applicable as support tools in the preparation and assessment of local plans, given the commonly greater spatial detail at this planning level. Nevertheless, GIS have also proven to be of significant use in forecasting land-use and demographic scenarios to inform higher level spatial decisions. All in all, GIS can provide a number of benefits (e.g. systematic and transparent assessments approaches, an evidence-based planning) but they do not come without limitations. Shortcomings mainly result from spatial data gaps and deficiencies, access limitations, and modelling assumptions, all of which not only affect GIS outcomes but, ultimately, assessments and decisions. These need to be fully acknowledged when reporting assessment findings. Nevertheless, GIS contribute the spatial dimension of effects, an aspect that has been largely overlooked in other assessment approaches (e.g. matrix-based expert judgements, cost– benefit analysis) and one that is essential for informed decisions, particularly in the context of spatial planning. The advent of online GIS, technological advancements, an increasingly tech-savvy society, together with the growing availability of (big) data anticipate that GIS are to become central and essential in environmental assessments going forward. This is supported by the move towards a data-driven knowledge-based society, the rising appetite for developing a digital twin of the Earth, and the motivation to develop and adopt easy-to-use and easy-to-understand evidence-based methods in plan-making so that processes are more participative and transparent, and their outcomes better informed and more sustainable.

REFERENCES Baban, S.M.J. and Flannagan, J. 1998. Developing and implementing GIS-assisted constraints criteria for planning landfill sites in the UK. Planning Practice & Research, 13(2): 139–51. Babelon, I., Ståhle, A. and Balfors, B. 2017. Toward cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(8): 1366–90. Bohman, A., Neset, T. S., Opach, T. and Rød, J. K. 2015. Decision support for adaptive action assessing the potential of geographic visualization. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(12): 2193–211. Bragagnolo, C. and Geneletti, D. 2013. Dealing with land use decisions in uncertain contexts: a method to support Strategic Environmental Assessment of spatial plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57: 50–77. Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., King, D. and Meyer, W.S. 2011. Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(1): 83–91. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC, of 23rd October, establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Commission of the European Communities. Official Journal of the European Union L327/1, 23 October. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2002. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25th June, relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union L189/12, 18 July. CEC [Commission of the European Communities] 2005. Proposal, of 29th June, for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the Community (INSPIRE); Political Agreement. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels.

GIS-based strategic environmental assessment  97 Chen, F. and Delaney, J. 1998. Expert knowledge acquisition: a methodology for GIS assisted industrial land suitability assessment. Urban Policy and Research, 16(4): 301–15. Comune di Albiate 2009. Valutazione ambientale strategica del Documento di piano del Piano di Governo del Territorio. Rapporto Ambientale. Available at http://​www​.forumtools​.biz/​Comune​_Albiate/​upload/​ adlze5apmn1w​d12vdajjvzr0200904031159RA​_parteI​.pdf. Comune di Ponte San Pietro 2010. Valutazione ambientale strategica del Documento di piano del Piano di Governo del Territorio. Documento di Scoping. Craglia, M., Pavanello, L. and Smith, R.S. 2012. Are we there yet? Assessing the contribution of INSPIRE to EIA and SEA studies. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(1), 1250005 (22 pages). Cravens, A. E. 2016. Negotiation and decision making with collaborative software: how MarineMap ‘changed the game’ in California’s Marine Life Protected Act initiative. Environmental Management, 57(2): 474–97. EC [European Commission] 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union, L197/30, 21.7.2001. EC [European Commission] 2007. Directive 2007/2/EC, of 14th March, establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European community (INSPIRE). European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union L108/1, 24 May. EC [European Commission] 2014. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of the European Union, L124, 1–18. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] 2017. GISEA manual: Improving the Evidence Base in SEA. Prepared by A. González, for the Environmental Protection Agency: Ireland. Available at http://​www​ .epa​.ie/​pubs/​advice/​ea/​giseamanual​.html. Gachechiladze-Bozhesku, M. and Fischer, T. B. 2012. Benefits of and barriers to SEA follow-up—theory and practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34: 22–30. Geneletti, D. 2008. Impact assessment of proposed ski areas: a GIS approach integrating biological, physical and landscape indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2–3): 116–30. Geneletti, D. 2012. Environmental assessment of spatial plan policies through land use scenarios: a study in a fast-developing town in rural Mozambique. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1): 1–10. Geneletti, D. 2015. Research in strategic environmental assessment needs to better address analytical methods. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17(1): 1550014. Geneletti, D. 2019. Multicriteria Analysis for Environmental Decision-making. Anthem Press. Geneletti, D., Bagli, S., Napolitano, P. and Pistocchi, A. 2007. Spatial decision support for strategic environmental assessment of land-use plans: a case study in Southern Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(5): 408–23. Geneletti, D., Biasiolli, A. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2017. Land take and the effectiveness of project screening in environmental impact assessment: findings from an empirical study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 67: 117–23. Ghaemi, P., Swift, J., Sister, C., Wilson, J. P. and Wolch, J. 2009. Design and implementation of a web-based platform to support interactive environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33: 482–91. González, A. 2012. GIS in environmental assessment: a review of current issues and future needs. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14: 1–23. González, A. 2017. Mapping environmental sensitivity: a systematic online approach to support environmental assessment and planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66: 86–98. González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 10). González, A. and Enríquez-de-Salamanca, Á. 2018. Spatial multi-criteria analysis in environmental assessment: a review and reflection on benefits and limitations. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 20(3): 1840001. González, A. and Gazzola, P. 2019. Untapping the potential of technological advancements in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4): 585–603. González, A., Gilmer, A., Foley, R., Sweeney, J. and Fry, J. 2011. Applying geographic information systems to support strategic environmental assessment: opportunities and limitations in the context of Irish land-use plans. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3): 368–81.

98  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment González, A., Gleeson, J. and McCarthy, E. 2019. Designing and developing a web tool to support Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software, 111: 472–82. Grêt-Regamey, A., Altwegg, J., Sirén, E. A., van Strien, M. J. and Weibel, B. 2017. Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning: a spatial decision support tool. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165: 206–19. Haklay, M., Singleton, A. and Parker, C. 2008. Web mapping 2.0: the neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geography Compass, 2(6): 2011–39. Kindleberger, C. 1992. Tomorrow’s GIS. The American City & County, 107(4): 38–48. Kitchin, R. 2014. The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and their Consequences, SAGE Publications. Kopperoinen, L., Albert, C. and Itkonen, P. 2016. Applications of biodiversity and ecosystem services imact assessment in spatial planning, in: Geneletti, D. (ed.), Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment (pp. 222–54), Edward Elgar Publishing. Li, S. 2006. Web-based collaborative spatial decision support systems: a technological perspective, in: Balram, S. and Dragicevic, S. (eds), Collaborative Geographic Information Systems (pp. 285–315), Idea Group Publishing Lober, D. J. 1995. Resolving the siting impasse: modeling social and environmental locational criteria with a geographic information system. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(4): 482–95. Majumdar, S. R. 2017. The case of public involvement in transportation planning using social media. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(1): 121–33. Marot, N., Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Golobič, M., Muthoora, T. and González, A. 2021. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 5). Mourhir, A., Rachidi, T., Papageorgiou, E. I., Karim, M. and Alaoui, F. S. 2016. A cognitive map framework to support integrated environmental assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software, 77: 81–94. Partidário, M. R. and Arts, J. 2005. Exploring the concept of strategic environmental assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3): 246–57. Rall, R., Hansen, R. and Pauleit, S. 2019. The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40: 264–74. Raymond, C. M., Gottwald, S., Kuoppa, J. and Kyttae, M. 2016. Integrating multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153: 198–208. Riddlesden, A., Singleton, A. D. and Fischer, T. B. 2012. A survey of the use of Geographic Information Systems in English local authority impact assessments. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(1): 1250006. Smith, D. A. 2016. Online interactive thematic mapping: applications and techniques for socio-economic research. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 57: 106–17. Steiner, F. 2008. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning, second edn, Island Press. Tiitu, M., Viinikka, A., Kopperoinen, L. and Geneletti, D. 2018. Balancing urban green space and residential infill development: a spatial multi-criteria approach based on practitioner engagement. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 20(3): 1840004. UNECE 2003. Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment – the ‘SEA Protocol’. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Available at http://​www​.unece​.org/​env/​eia/​sea​_protocol​.htm. Vanderhaegen, M. and Muro, E. 2005. Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2): 123–42. Veenendaal, B., Brovelli, M. A. and Li, S. 2017. Review of web mapping: eras, trends and directions. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(10): 317 (31 pages). Wheelen, T. L. and Hunger, J. D. 1995. Strategic Management and Business Policy, fifth edn, Addison-Wesley. Wicklow County Council 2012. Blessington Local Area Plan 2013–2019 Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Report. Available at https://​www​.wicklow​.ie/​Living/​Services/​Planning/​ Development​-Plans​-Strategies/​Local​-Area​-Town​-Settlement​-Plans/​Blessington/​Blessington​-Local​ -Area​-Plan​-2013–2019. Willis, M. R. and Keller, A. A. 2007. A framework for assessing the impact of land use policy on community exposure to air toxics. Journal of Environmental Management, 83(2): 213–27.

PART III ISSUES OF EFFECTIVENESS

7. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness Riki Thérivel and Ainhoa González

WHAT IS SEA EFFECTIVENESS? Effectiveness can be described as “how well [something] works or whether it works as intended and meets the purposes for which it is designed” (Sadler, 1996). The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2002) states that a good Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) “informs planners, decision-makers and affected public on the sustainability of strategic decisions, facilitates the search for the best alternative and ensures a democratic decision-making process”. The European SEA Directive (EC, 2001) states that SEA’s objective is to “provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoptions of plans (…) with a view to promoting sustainable development”. So key tests of SEA effectiveness are whether it improves plans, promotes sustainability and environmental protection, and supports a more participative plan-making process. However, effective SEAs are said to require a supportive policy context; the SEA process must be carried out reasonably well; and the benefits of SEA should outweigh its cost. In response to SEA, planners may learn about environmental sustainability, and organisations may change – possibly improving the effectiveness of future rounds of SEA. The above suggests that there are several, possibly interlinked, dimensions of SEA effectiveness: ●● Context: whether appropriate legislation and guidance exists, competent authorities are clearly identified and have adequate capacity to carry out SEA, etc. ●● Procedural: whether the stages of the SEA process are carried out well, for instance whether good baseline data are collected or alternatives are considered well. ●● Pluralist: whether the SEA helps to achieve greater public participation, accommodate competing points of view, and increase democratisation. ●● Substantive: whether the SEA leads to changes in the plan. ●● Normative: whether the SEA supports, for instance, achievement of sustainable development and mutually reinforcing gains, greater equity and minimisation of trade-offs. ●● Knowledge and learning: whether the stakeholders involved in the SEA change their way of thinking as a result of the SEA, and whether monitoring of the plan’s actual impacts helps to improve wider SEA practice. ●● Transactive: whether the SEA process is efficient in time and cost terms, and whether its benefits outweigh its costs. These dimensions are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

100

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  101

SEA EFFECTIVENESS DIMENSIONS Context SEA effectiveness begins before any one plan and its SEA are prepared. The context for SEA includes the presence (or not) of SEA legislation, guidance and training, available capacity and resources for carrying out SEA, power relations between various stakeholders, and the wider political and institutional culture (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2017; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Runhaar, 2009; Wang et al., 2012). A basic ‘context’ requirement is the existence of adequate SEA legislation or related requirements (e.g. by multilateral development agencies). In contexts of limited or no SEA legislation, few SEAs will be carried out (Chanchitpricha et al., 2019; Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019). Obligatory SEA ensures that the environmental impacts of a plan will be assessed; provides a forum for stakeholders to get involved in the plan-making process; introduces an element of oversight and transparency; helps to organise the process of fact-finding and deliberation; and has a ‘disciplining’ effect on plan-makers (Musil and Smutný, 2019). In this sense, the global SEA context is increasingly effective, as more and more countries enact SEA legislation. However, ‘context’ goes beyond legal requirements and requires e.g. the consideration of a rational and linear plan-making framework. The SEA process assumes that plan-making is ‘deliberate’ in terms of identifying plan objectives and the best way of implementing them; the assumption is that decisions are made in a ‘rational’ step-wise approach (formulate problem, identify alternatives, assess impacts, etc.); and decisions are made once, clearly, by a formal ‘decision-maker’. Of course, in real life this is not the case. Plan-making in practice is often characterised by power struggles, entrenched thinking attempting to stay entrenched, and compromises and negotiations. In reality, SEA does not ‘inform’ plan-making in the manner initially expected (Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Wallington et al., 2007). As such, there has been increasing focus in SEA research on the analysis of networks of players and institutions, power relations, and decision-making cultures (Wallington et al., 2007). Higher institutional problems, such as ministries that do not share information between them and with the public, often lead to procedural and contextual constraints such as inadequate guidance, training, baseline data and financial resources (Slunge and Tran, 2014). A lack of political commitment and community awareness of the need for sustainable development can also slow the uptake of SEA (João and Annandale, 2016; Partidário and Monteiro, 2019; Saxena et al., 2016). Similarly, where stakeholders have little (technical, financial, capacity) support for carrying out SEA, SEA effectiveness is likely to be poor. That said, many planners are genuinely open to new information provided by SEA (e.g. Arce-Ruiz et al., 2019; Fischer et al., 2009; González et al., 2019), although the wider policy context may restrict implementation of SEA recommendations. Some authors (e.g. Axelsson et al., 2012; João and Annandale, 2016) suggest that context issues in developing countries are particularly problematic. Such SEAs are often constrained by institutional practices incompatible with principles of good governance, vested interests, deep distrust among stakeholders and historical failures to implement policy commitments. Aid agencies often undertake SEA with the host government acting more like an observer than an active participant (Hobbs, 2016). SEA may be carried out as a way of streamlining or bypassing project environmental impact assessment (Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019), but it

102  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment may also be a country’s only tool for identifying and querying a plan’s impacts (Muntean et al., 2019). Other authors (e.g. Arce-Ruiz et al., 2019; Geißler et al., 2019) suggest that developed countries may be no better, with planners treating SEA as a formality to be carried out rather than as a tool to inform their plan. More positively, a supportive SEA context of up-to-date guidance (see also Chapter 9 by Annandale et al., 2021), SEA forums where practitioners can share ideas, certification or other quality checks of SEA consultants, links between SEA and other legislation (especially legislation that sets standards or targets), an authority that assesses the quality of the SEA reports, and SEA champions in high places, can help to ensure that SEA practice is robust and effective (Cepuš et al., 2019; González et al., 2019; McLauchlan and João, 2019; Tokarczyk-Dorociak et al., 2019). Procedural The procedural dimension of SEA refers to how, and how well, the SEA process is undertaken, for instance the adequacy of the data used, whether appropriate scoping was carried out, what alternatives were considered. This is the dimension that has been reviewed most frequently in the literature (e.g. João and Annandale, 2016; Olagunju and Gunn, 2015; Park, 2014; Tshibangu and Montaño, 2016; Wu et al., 2011). This section is short because, compared with the other dimensions of SEA effectiveness, procedural effectiveness is well understood and widely practised. Of course, there is no one way of carrying out SEA, and the procedural approach to an SEA will depend on the policy, plan or programme context and the type of plan (e.g. scale of plan, whether it is a land use plan or relates to a specific sector). Typically, an SEA’s procedural effectiveness is determined by checking whether, and how well, the SEA conforms to the legal requirements and good practice guidance of the relevant jurisdiction. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2017) distinguish between two levels of ‘adequacy’ in this regard: 1. Legal adequacy: is the SEA process compliant with the relevant legislations and principles? 2. ‘Fitness for purpose’: is the SEA commensurate with and appropriate to the potential significance of the environmental impacts of the plan, and is the technical information presented in the SEA report complete and sufficient for the planning decision? Common procedural weaknesses include data quality and scale limitations (González, 2012; Thérivel and Fischer, 2012), poor or non-existent consideration of alternatives, an overly broad assessment that does not focus on key issues, inadequate consideration of the impacts of a plan outside the plan area, and lack of spatial analysis for spatial plans. Pluralist Pluralist effectiveness refers to the level of engagement of different stakeholders (especially the public and statutory consultees) in the SEA process, their level of satisfaction with the engagement, and how different value systems and perspectives held by stakeholders are integrated in the SEA process (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Cashmore et al., 2010; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2017; Hanna and Noble, 2015; Runhaar, 2009; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007). Participation in SEA by all groups can ensure that plan-makers have the full range of information needed to develop a good plan; provide information and share

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  103 decision-making power with the public, enhancing democratisation; and provide a greater (or lesser) voice for marginalised groups (Jiliberto, 2011). At minimum, SEA should lead to two-way communication from stakeholders to planners. Ideally, it should fully engage stakeholders in the plan-making process through ‘active’ forms of participation (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010; Sinclair et al., 2008). A more inclusive approach is more painstaking, expensive, time consuming and makes the procedure more open to external influences. But such an approach is also more capable of incorporating insights from stakeholders, and more likely to increase knowledge and learning in all participants (van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2010). That said, not all decisions require the highest level of ‘participation’ (van Doren, 2011). Plans/programmes or sections thereof that are well-understood and uncontroversial require less participation than other more uncertain and controversial plans. Participation is also not static: informing people about SEA could engender calls for more participation, and even quite closed and technocratic processes can be broken open if the public becomes aware of an issue and mobilises against it. In providing new, legitimate ways in which stakeholders can participate in planning decisions, SEA might also improve democratisation and help to reallocate power (Cashmore et al., 2010). Politics have been described as ‘who gets what, when and how’, and SEA’s pluralist dimension can threaten entrenched political interests. Plan-makers may actively engender participation where this could rebalance what they perceive as unbalanced or inappropriately political decisions, or where it could help with the implementation of the plan. In other contexts, they may prefer to keep ‘participation’ at a level where it does not threaten entrenched interests. Public participation techniques could also be manipulated to constrain opportunities for already-disadvantaged stakeholders, for instance through formal or quasi-legal hearings or by limiting the type of information that is deemed appropriate for the SEA (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010). As such, in practice, public involvement in SEAs tends to be limited at best, with one-way provision of information being more common than genuinely two-way communication (e.g. Cepuš et al., 2019; Geißler et al., 2019; Partidário and Monteiro, 2019; Peterson and Vahtrus, 2019). A cheering anomaly is the Austrian ‘SEA round table’ model which has been used for four rounds of waste management planning in Vienna, and which is said to have led to significant changes to the plans and learning by all participants (Arbter, 2019). Substantive Improvement in plans is typically described as substantive effectiveness (see also Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021), and includes improved environmental or socio-economic conditions, other improvements to the plan resulting from the SEA (e.g. clearer wording, more defendable), and the extent to which the plan conforms with the SEA’s recommendations (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Bond et al., 2018a; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2017; Hanna and Noble, 2015; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007; Thérivel and Minas, 2002; Van Doren et al., 2013). Substantive effectiveness is closely bound up with the concept of trade-offs, particularly between economic growth and environmental protection. Most countries – Bhutan and Wales being notable exceptions – lack a national consensus about cultural values, which makes decision-making and trade-offs difficult (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013; Retief

104  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment et al., 2013). Although some guidance for making complex trade-off decisions exist (e.g. Gibson, 2006), no country has formally adopted them. This can lead to planning decisions being swayed by short-term thinking and political pressure, typically permitting environmentally harmful development in the name of economic growth. The emergence of Extinction Rebellion and its highlighting of the climate emergency is a cheering example of this working in the opposite direction: suddenly climate change is high on political agendas, with the public querying whether planned development will help to reduce climate change. The substantive effectiveness of a given SEA may be influenced by procedural aspects of SEA, notably how the SEA report findings are presented. For instance, more extreme ‘environmentally friendly’ alternatives or mitigation measures may be less likely to be taken up by planners than less extreme measures. Runhaar (2009) also notes that SEA effectiveness studies focus on SEA recommendations that have been incorporated into the plan, but not on those that have not. SEAs may make recommendations for subsequent projects and their Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), but their substantive effectiveness may be limited if there are no legal requirements for their implementation (Noble et al., 2019). It is also difficult to distinguish between changes made to a plan in response to SEA, and those that would have been made anyway. SEA is a decision-informing, not a decision-making, tool, so there is generally no requirement for the plan to incorporate the most sustainable alternative (Thérivel, 2013). The main SEA stages that influence plan-making are the consideration of alternatives (more strategic) and mitigation measures (more detailed); however, Bonifazi et al. (2011) suggest that most SEAs influence plans through mitigation measures, thus steering implementation rather than affecting strategic planning choices. In some cases, the substantive effectiveness of a plan will only be seen many years in the future, through individual projects that may be additionally informed by EIAs (Park, 2014). It may never be possible to determine an SEA’s substantive effectiveness, because the plan may have changed regardless of the SEA, or even the best SEA might not be able to avoid an unsustainable outcome (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2017). Van Doren et al. (2013) have devised a scale of substantive effectiveness, which starts with simple acquaintance by the decision-maker with the SEA, and concludes with environmental protection. They suggest that the lower levels are necessary precursors to the higher levels – there is a cumulative character to SEA substantive effectiveness. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2017) also suggest that there is a time dimension to the substantive aspect of SEA: an immediate outcome of SEA might be that the plan is influenced or changed, an intermediate outcome might be a more sustainable plan, and a long-term outcome might be environmental or social benefits. Normative Normative effectiveness includes compliance with the planning organisation’s mandate, regulations or higher-level policy commitments; reflections of public values in the plan; and achievement of internationally agreed objectives such as sustainable development, environmental justice and/or resilience (McLauchlan and João, 2011; Runhaar, 2009; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007; Thérivel and Minas, 2002). Whereas the substantive dimension could be described as ‘did the SEA lead to changes?’, the normative dimension could be described as ‘did it lead to the right kind of changes? did people agree with the changes?’.

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  105 But what is ‘the right kind of change’? Some authors (e.g. Runhaar and Driessen, 2007) argue that the norms of SEA should reflect those of society (assuming that these can be identified and agreed on), and that planning decisions and knowledge must be acceptable to stakeholders. Others (e.g. McLauchlan and João, 2011; Pope et al., 2017; Thérivel and Minas, 2002) suggest that sustainability or environmental justice should be the norm. The two sets of norms – societal v. fixed – may be very different. There is clearly a link between a plan’s objectives, the alternatives considered, and the norms that may be promoted, with the more strategic alternatives having the greatest potential to integrate sustainability norms into plans (Morrison-Saunders and Thérivel, 2006). Gibson (2013) describes a number of normative criteria, including long-term socio-ecological system integrity; livelihood sufficiency and opportunity for everyone; intragenerational and intergenerational equity; resource maintenance and efficiency; socio-ecological civility and democratic governance; precaution and adaptation; and immediate and long-term integration. An SEA can test a plan’s sustainability in different ways that reflect different normative approaches: against sustainability thresholds, against other alternatives, and whether the plan contributes to sustainability. In turn, the SEA conclusions can be documented in different ways: focusing on environmental sustainability only, disaggregated (triple bottom line) variables, composite sustainability variables, or systems representations (Lobos and Partidário, 2014). Intergenerational equity represents a relevant normative dimension by relating to ‘who wins and who loses’. The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. However, in practice, there have been difficulties in applying this concept to plans generally, much less to SEA. Bond and Morrison-Saunders (2011) argue that, although planners and society believe that intergenerational equity is important, there is a ‘cognitive dissonance’ where behaviour does not match beliefs. This also applies to intragenerational equity or ‘environmental justice’. The OECD/DAC (2008) procedures, for instance, have been described as a ‘pro-poor’ approach, giving preference to the specific needs of the poor and recognition of their dependence on the surrounding ecosystems and the services they provide (Hobbs, 2016). However, in practice, SEAs rarely promote this. Knowledge and Learning The knowledge and learning by all stakeholders that comes from carrying out SEAs can carry on beyond that specific SEA to improve stakeholders’ longer-term understanding of environmental issues, change stakeholders’ views in more fundamental ways, identify data gaps to be filled in time, and build up environmental governance capacity (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2017; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Runhaar, 2009; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007). This, in turn, can speed up and strengthen subsequent rounds of SEA. SEA can lead to planners, the public and other stakeholders learning new things or changing their world view. They may apply this learning to the SEA or plan in question; to future SEAs, plans or EIAs; or to wider matters. Active learning involves deliberately thinking about what was learned. This would require those who have carried out an SEA to think about how that SEA worked and what could be changed next time, and then applying that learning to the next round of plan-making and SEA (Kolb, 1984). This is relatively simple for the consultants who carry out multiple SEAs, since

106  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment it is in their interest to carry out high-quality and efficient SEAs, but may be harder for the planning team, particularly as it requires continuity of staff over time. The SEA Directive’s requirement for a post-adoption ‘SEA statement’ is an obvious stage for reflective observation, but it is unclear whether many planning teams use it in this way. Similarly, existing limitations in monitoring mean that the actual impacts of a plan are not known, and this limits the learning that can be brought forward to the next plan cycle (Cepuš et al., 2019; González et al.; 2019; Tokarczyk-Dorociak et al., 2019). Direct learning involves decision-makers learning about environmental issues and incorporating those issues in plan-making. Indirect learning, instead, includes “anticipation of decision-makers on SEAs, resulting in more environmentally friendly decisions than what would have been the case otherwise; more or new ideas that are used in subsequent rounds of decision-making; and impacts on situations and processes other than those supported by the SEA” (Runhaar 2009, p. 201). Indirect learning is particularly helpful where plans are cyclical and where planning teams do not change much over time. Learning from SEA can also be single loop or double loop. Single-loop learning, also described as ‘procedural’ or ‘instrumental’ learning, aims to solve problems within given goals, values and frameworks. In SEA terms, it would involve modifying a plan to improve its environmental outcomes without changing its underlying strategy (Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Double-loop or ‘transformative’ learning questions and changes the way in which decisions are made, and the assumptions and values that underlie decisions. Several authors (e.g. Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Wallington et al., 2007; Walker et al., 2016) suggest that transformative learning leads to more profound, more beneficial changes than single-loop learning. Walker et al. (2016) list ideal conditions for transformative learning: accurate and complete information; freedom from coercion and distorting self-deception; openness to alternative points of view; the ability to weigh evidence and assess arguments objectively; equal opportunity to participate in discourse; and willingness to seek understanding and agreement and to accept a resulting best judgment. Openness to alternative points of view is key to this (Kørnøv et al., 2011; Sims, 2012). However, this is not the norm in practice: Axelson et al. (2012, p. 128) found that policy SEA “created space for new policy framings to emerge and new governance expectations to develop”, but generated little in the way of ‘deep learning’. Jha-Thakur et al. (2009) suggest that the use of consultants to carry out SEA, and the recommendations of advisory bodies may encourage double-loop learning. Completely ‘in-house’ plan-making can mean that plans are developed through inertia, and that planners may limit themselves to correcting what is wrong in their plan rather than introducing new ideas. On the other hand, the use of consultants may de-skill planners, and carries the risk of SEA acting as simply a box-ticking exercise with no associated learning. Certainly, in highly politicised contexts, where there are powerful dominant interests or where there is corruption, there may be no learning from SEA at all (Jha-Thakur et al. 2009). Learning is also not necessarily ‘good’: McLauchlan and João (2019) suggest that planners can learn how to bypass SEA requirements, or carry out ‘cookie cutter’ SEAs, as well as to generate robust and effective SEAs. Transactive A final SEA effectiveness dimension which spans all the previous dimensions is transactive effectiveness, namely the costs and benefits of SEA, its efficiency, and its cost-effectiveness (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Bond et al., 2018b; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2015).

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  107 Carrying out SEA incurs definite short-term costs to the planning team, in terms of preparing the SEA report or paying for its preparation; carrying out additional SEA consultation; implementing changes resulting from the SEA; and responding to any legal challenges triggered by SEA. There are also costs to the public, statutory bodies, and other stakeholders in responding to SEA consultations; and to developers and other in implementing changes resulting from SEA. Only the cost of preparing the SEA report has been quantified, and even then the range is huge: from roughly €5,000 for a minor land-use plan in a ‘cheap’ country, to €1 million for a complex, contentious, national or international level plan (EC 2009, 2016, 2019; Partidário and Monteiro, 2019; Thérivel, 2019). The consensus seems to be that the SEA report and consultation on it cost roughly 10% of the plan-making costs, but much less than 1% of the cost of implementing the plan (EC, 2016, 2019; Musil and Smutný, 2019; Peterson and Vahtrus, 2019). Where there are legal challenges to an SEA, these can easily be as great or greater than the costs of preparing the SEA report. This has led planners and SEA consultants to often carry out over-precautionary, over-long, over-expensive and under-focused SEAs (Thérivel, 2019). SEA also has the potential to lead to significant benefits in environmental and social costs avoided, environmental and social gains enhanced, reduced vulnerability of the plan to challenge, and improved knowledge and inter-agency working. These benefits may well outweigh the SEA costs by several orders of magnitude where, for instance, an SEA protects important ecosystem services, improves people’s health, or leads to significantly more energy- and water-efficient development (Thérivel and González, 2020). Unfortunately, whereas the costs of SEA are monetisable, the benefits (even where potentially monetisable, e.g. through ecosystem services) have not been quantified to date. The benefits – as opposed to the definite costs of SEA – are also dependent on whether the SEA is effective in substantive, normative, pluralist and knowledge and learning terms. In any case, SEA costs can be minimised through good scoping, easily accessible data, a supportive context where costs and data are shared between agencies, and in some cases by improving planners’ in-house SEA capacity (Cepuš et al., 2019; Chanchitpricha et al., 2019). Thérivel (2019) also suggests that, with increasing SEA practice, it is possible to ‘do more with less’: carrying out more comprehensive SEAs for more risk-averse planners, on roughly the same budget.

LINKS BETWEEN SEA EFFECTIVENESS DIMENSIONS Figure 7.1 shows our interpretation of the links between the seven SEA effectiveness dimensions. The dimensions are interrelated, with context affecting pluralist and procedural effectiveness, which in turn affect normative and substantive effectiveness, and knowledge and learning. Poor effectiveness of the ‘earlier’ dimensions can limit the effectiveness of ‘later’ dimensions. For instance, a lack of legal requirement for SEA can stop all further SEA effectiveness except in cases of voluntary SEA. Poor scoping (procedural) may mean that the SEA is longer and more expensive than necessary, reducing transactive effectiveness (Tokarczyk-Dorociak, 2019). Poor consideration of alternatives and mitigation (procedural) may lead to limited substantive effectiveness. Low pluralist effectiveness can lead to poor substantive effectiveness and limited knowledge and learning.

108  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The SEA context predates a specific plan, and many aspects of normative and substantive effectiveness only occur after plan adoption. Furthermore, some SEA effectiveness dimensions are tangible (e.g. procedural aspects of SEA report preparation), while others are intangible (e.g. improved planning, environmental protection, stakeholder engagement). As such, analysing SEA effectiveness goes beyond looking at individual SEA reports and their associated plans: some aspects of effectiveness can only be explored through interviews or surveys once the SEA is completed and its effects on the plan and stakeholders become apparent.

Figure 7.1

Links between the dimensions of SEA effectiveness

IMPROVING SEA EFFECTIVENESS Table 7.1 suggests a range of measures for improving SEA effectiveness. It is divided into basic criteria that all reasonably effective SEAs should achieve, and more advanced criteria to help improve SEA effectiveness in the longer-term. The criteria can act as a checklist for how effective a specific SEA or a country’s SEA system is. The basic criteria should be able to be achieved through legislation and some financial support: they are the equivalent of single-loop learning. The more advanced criteria probably require ‘transformative’ learning on an institutional scale, but this kind of learning will probably also lead to the kinds of plans that our children and grandchildren can be proud of.1

We are very grateful to the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, and particularly to the ‘SEA champion’ Tadhg O’Mahony, for funding the research that underpins this article. We are also grateful to the many people we interviewed as part of this research. 1

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  109 Table 7.1 SEA effectiveness

More effective SEAs: a checklist Basic criteria for effective SEA

More advanced criteria for effective SEA

●●SEA legislation and guidance exist

●●Government leaders ‘own’ and support SEA

dimension Context

●●SEA is carried out early enough to affect the plan ●●SEA champions exist in high places ●●The planning authority has adequate training/ capacity for SEA ●●Budgets for SEA (including monitoring of the plan’s impacts) are adequate

●●A centralised SEA organising body exists ●●Environmental authorities have binding and sanctioning power ●●Ministries and stakeholders are coordinated and cooperative, and share information ●●SEA consultants must be certified and/or the quality of SEA reports is independently reviewed ●●National reviews of SEA effectiveness are regularly carried out, and changes to the SEA system are

Procedural

●●Robust scoping, with an explanation of why issues have been scoped out, and the potential to reconsider them if appropriate ●●Good baseline data, ideally in GIS format and publicly accessible ●●Consideration of all reasonable alternatives to the plan

made in response to the review findings ●●Cumulative impacts are considered, and mitigation is recommended for significant cumulative impacts ●●Reasons are given for why the preferred alternatives have been chosen ●●A clear explanation is given of what mitigation measures have been incorporated into the plan or, if not, why not

●●Assessment and comparison of the alternatives on ●●Significant impacts of the plan are regularly (e.g. an equal basis ●●Recommendations for mitigation measures for

annually) monitored, including thresholds for remedial action, and what the remedial action should be

the plan ●●Clear non-technical summary ●●SEA quality is good enough to avoid judicial review, or is found to be adequate at judicial Pluralist

review ●●The public has opportunities to participate throughout the entire process (scoping, generation of alternatives, comments on SEA report) and particularly early in the process ●●Communication is two-way (listening as well as telling)

●●Traditionally disenfranchised groups (e.g. Aboriginal people) are actively consulted ●●Changes made in response to consultation comments are documented, and an explanation is provided where changes were not made in response to comments

●●Planners actively consider consultees’ comments Substantive

on the SEA ●●Planners, decision-makers (politicians), the public ●●Decision-makers formally respond to the SEA findand other stakeholders all read/consult/refer to the

ings/recommendations, including where they did not

SEA information

take the recommendation on board

●●SEA leads to environmentally beneficial changes ●●The SEA-related changes to the plan are clearly in the plan ●●SEA improves the plan in other ways (e.g. clearer wording) ●●SEA contributes to or influences the decision-making process (at all stages, not only final approval)

implemented

110  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment SEA effectiveness

Basic criteria for effective SEA

More advanced criteria for effective SEA

●●The SEA report refers to legal standards and

●●The plan achieves a high level of protection of the

dimension Normative

thresholds (e.g. on air or water quality) ●●SEA leads to more environmentally sound alternatives being chosen and implemented

environment ●●The plan achieves sustainability for key global issues (e.g. climate change, biodiversity loss) ●●The plan achieves inter-generational equity ●●The plan achieves intra-generational equity

Knowledge and Learning

●●SEA guidance and good practice examples are available ●●The planning team understands the purpose of SEA, SEA legal requirements, and how to carry out SEA ●●The public and other stakeholders understand the purpose of SEA and how to respond to SEA findings ●●Decision-makers understand the purpose and importance of SEA ●●Planners’ environmental knowledge is improved as a result of SEA

●●The plan achieves resilience ●●Planners/consultants actively review the effectiveness of their SEA(s) ●●Planners change their overall approach to plan-making as a result of SEA ●●Institutional memory is preserved through continuity of planning teams ●●Training courses, round tables or other forms of learning, collaboration and communication about SEA are available and regularly used ●●The actual impacts of the plan are regularly monitored ●●SEA monitoring reports are prepared on a regular basis ●●Monitoring data from previous plan is used in the next round of planning

Transactive

●●SEA is carried out within a reasonable time frame ●●The benefits of SEA are perceived by all parties to without undue delay ●●SEA is carried out by experienced teams that foster efficiency ●●Unnecessary data collection and assessment detail

exceed the costs of SEA ●●The benefits of SEA are quantified/monetised where possible (e.g. ecosystem services protected, health benefits from preventing air pollution)

are avoided

REFERENCES Acharibasam, J.B. and Noble, B.F. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(3): 177–87. Annandale, D., Montaño, M., Fischer, T.B., Purcell, C. and Coles, J. 2021. Guidelines for SEA in developing countries: examples from Asia, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 9). Arbter, K. 2019. SEA in Austria and the participative SEA Round Table model. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 188–98. Arce-Ruiz R.M., Soria-Lara, J.A. and González-del-Campo, A. 2019. SEA effectiveness in Spain: Insights from practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 327–33. Axelsson, A., Annandale, D., Cashmore, M., Slunge, D., Akbom, A., Loayza, F. and Verheem, R. 2012. Policy SEA: Lessons from development co-operation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(2): 124–9. Bond, A. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2011. Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31: 1–7. Bond, A., Pope, J., Retief, F. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2018a. On legitimacy in impact assessment: An epistemologically-based conceptualisation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 69: 16–23. Bond, A., Retief F., Cave, B., Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Duinker, P.N., Verheem, R. and Brown, A.L. 2018b. A contribution to the conceptualization of quality in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 68: 49–58.

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  111 Bonifazi, A., Rega, C. and Gazzola, P. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment and the democratization of spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(1): 9–37. Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T. and Emmelin, L. 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 371–9. Cepuš, S., Strmšnik, K., Harmel, M., Krajnc, A., Premelč, M., Harmel, E. and Weldt, S. 2019. The effectiveness of the SEA process in Slovenia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 312–26. Chanchitpricha, C., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Bond, A. 2019. Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 356–68. Dalal-Clayton, D.B. and Sadler, B. 2017. A methodology for reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessments in development cooperation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 35(3): 257–67. EC [European Commission] 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: EC. Official Journal of the European Union L197/30, 21.7.2001. EC [European Commission] 2009. Study Concerning the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). Prepared by COWI for the European Commission, Brussels: DG Environment. EC [European Commission] 2016. Study Concerning the Preparation of the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC). Luxembourg: European Union. EC [European Commission] 2019. Study to Support the REFIT Evaluation of Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (SEA Directive): Draft Final Report. Brussels: EC. Fischer, T.B., Gazzola P., Jha-Thakur U., Kidd S. and Peel, D. 2009. Learning through EC Directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(6): 421–8. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does SEA lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 15–24. Geißler, G., Rehhausen A., Fischer T.B. and Hanusch M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Germany? – Meta-review of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 219–32. Gibson, R.B. 2006. Sustainability assessment: Basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3): 170–82. Gibson, R.B. 2013. Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 2–12. González, A. 2012. GIS in environmental assessment: A review of current issues and future needs. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14: 1–23. González, A., Bullock, C., Gaughran, A. and Watkin-Bourne, K. 2019. Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 233–46. Hanna, K. and Noble B.F. 2015. Using a Delphi study to identify effectiveness criteria for environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 33(2): 116–25. Hobbs, J. 2016. Towards good practice in SEA for development cooperation. Chapter 7 in Sadler, B. and Dusik J. (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. IAIA [International Association for Impact Assessment] 2002. Strategic environmental assessment performance criteria. Available at http://​www​.iaia​.org/​uploads/​pdf/​sp1​.pdf. Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Peel, D., Fischer, T.B. and Kidd, S. 2009. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment – the significance of learning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(2): 133–44. Jiliberto, R. 2011. Recognizing the institutional dimension of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29(2): 133–40.

112  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment João, E. and Annandale D. 2016. SEA procedures and methods. Chapter 10 in Sadler, B. and Dusik J., eds, European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kørnøv, L. and Thissen, W. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: Implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 191–200. Kørnøv, L., Lyhne, I., Larsen, S.V. and Hansen, A.M. 2011. Change agents in the field of strategic environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(2): 203–28. Lobos, V. and Partidário M. 2014. Theory versus practice in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 34–46. McLauchlan, A. and João E. 2019. Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 299–311. Morrison-Saunders, A. and Pope, J. 2013. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 54–63. Morrison-Saunders, A. and Thérivel, R. 2006. Sustainability integration and assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(3): 281–98. Morrison-Saunders, A., Bond, A., Pope, J. and Retief, F. 2015. Demonstrating the benefits of impact assessment for proponents. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 33(2): 108–15. Muntean, L., Ionescu-Tămaș, C.T. and Măcicășan, V. 2019. Strategic environmental assessment in Romania: Between benefits and constraints. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 292–8. Musil, M. and Smutný, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in the Czech Republic. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 199–209. Noble, B., Gibson, R., White, L., Blakley, J., Croal, P., Nwanekezie, K. and Doelle, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 344–55. OECD/DAC [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee] 2008. Natural Resources and Pro-Poor Growth: The Economics and Politics. Paris: OECD. O’Faircheallaigh, C. 2010. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 19–27. Olagunju, A. and Gunn, J.A.E. (2015). First steps towards best practice SEA in a developing nation: Lessons from the central Namib uranium rush SEA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 33(1): 57–67. Park, J.R. 2014. The Role and Use of Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments in Fulfilling NEPA and State Environmental Mandates. Rockville, MD: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Partidário, M.R. and Monteiro, M.B. 2019. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in Portugal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 247–65. Peterson, K. and Vahtrus S. 2019. Factor affecting SEA effectiveness in Estonia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 210–18. Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2017. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 205–17. Retief, F., Morrison-Saunders, A., Geneletti, D. and Pope, J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 13–23. Runhaar, H. 2009. Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29: 200–209. Runhaar, H. and Driessen, P.J. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(1): 2–14. Sadler, B. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Saxena, A., Rajvanshi, A. and Mathur, V.B. 2016. Progressive trends in the uptake of SEA in South Asia. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 18(2): 1–22.

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness  113 Sims, L. 2012. Taking a learning approach to community-based strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(4): 242–52. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A. and Fitzpatrick, P. 2008. Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: Critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28(7): 415–28. Slunge, D. and Tran, T.T.H. 2014. Challenges to institutionalizing strategic environmental assessment: The case of Vietnam. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 53–61. Thérivel, R. 2013. Use of sustainability appraisal by English planning inspectors and judges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 26–34. Thérivel, R. 2019. Effectiveness of English local plan SA/SEAs. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 266–78. Thérivel, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2012. Sustainability appraisal in England, UVP Report 26(1): 16–21. Thérivel, R. and Minas, P. 2002. Ensuring effective sustainability appraisal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(2): 81–91. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2020. Is SEA worth it? Short-term costs and long-term benefits of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 83: DOI: 10.1016/j. eiar.2020.106411. Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K., Kazak, J.K., Anna, H., Szewrański S. and Świąder, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Poland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 279–91. Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2016. Energy-related strategic environmental assessment applied by multilateral development agencies: An analysis based on good practice criteria. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61: 27–37. Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: The case of Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 334–43. van Buuren, A. and Nooteboom, S. 2010. The success of SEA in the Dutch planning practice: How formal assessments can contribute to collaborative governance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 127–35. van Doren, D. 2011. The effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in the Netherlands: An analysis of three cases. MSc thesis. Utrecht: University of Utrecht. van Doren, D., Driessen, P.P.J., Schijf, B. and Runhaar, H.A.C. 2013. Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 120–30. Walker, H., Spaling, H. and Sinclair, A.J. 2016. Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: Adapting practice and participation in Kenya. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 34(3): 186–98. Wallington, T., Bina, O. and Thissen, W. 2007. Theorising strategic environmental assessment: Fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 569–84. Wang, H., Bai, H., Liu, J. and Xu, H. 2012. Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing strategic environmental assessment effectiveness. Ecological Indicators 23: 413–20. WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development] 1987. Our Common Future. Available at http://​www​.un​-documents​.net/​our​-common​-future​.pdf. Wu, J., Chang, I.-S., Bina, O., Lam, K.C. and Xu, H. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment implementation in China: Five-year review and prospects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31: 77–84.

8. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions? Reflections on its substantive effectiveness Thomas B. Fischer and Francois P. Retief

INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on one of the key purposes of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), namely to make policy, plan and programme (PPP) decisions and resulting actions more environmentally sustainable. It therefore focuses on what is widely referred to as substantive effectiveness (see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021). Whilst substantive effectiveness has been said to include effects that SEA produces “in the decision-makers’ understanding or awareness of environmental and sustainability issues, and in the extent to which such issues are considered throughout the planning and decision-making” (Bina et al., 2011, p. 573), we will also reflect on the possibility of creating evidence on PPPs and associated actions becoming more environmentally sustainable as a consequence of applying SEA (Fischer, 2009; Chanchitpricha and Bond, 2013; Thérivel and González, 2019). The support of environmentally sustainable development is the main substantive objective of SEA. In this context, the main vision of the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the first act globally to formulate requirements for both SEA and project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), was that “humans should co-exist with nature in productive harmony” (section 101; US government, 1970). To what extent more environmentally sustainable decisions are supported by SEA is therefore the ultimate indicator for its overall substantive effectiveness. Generally speaking, justification for applying SEA is connected with an ability to produce beneficial outcomes with regard to environmental sustainability. SEA effectiveness has been discussed widely in the literature (most recently in a special issue of the journal Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal; see Thérivel and González, 2019). To date, empirical evidence for substantive effectiveness has been covered by few authors only (e.g. Phylip-Jones and Fischer, 2015; Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Margato and Sanchez, 2014; Rega et al., 2018; Fischer et al., 2019; Geissler et al., 2019; Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019). Overall, the focus of the existing professional literature on effectiveness has mostly been on other aspects (see Chapter 7 in this book by Thérivel and González, 2021, and Thérivel and González, 2019). These include, in particular, procedural effectiveness (Fischer, 1999b; Jones et al., 2005; Retief, 2007a), context conditions for the effective application of SEA (Marsden, 1998; Fischer, 2006; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007), participation and pluralism (Owens et al., 2004; Cape et al., 2018), normative aspects (Fischer and Xu, 2009; McLauchlan and João, 2012; Gibson 2013) and learning (Fischer et al., 2009; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Whilst transactive effectiveness (i.e. resource efficiency) has also been explored, the generation of empirical evidence for this has remained underdeveloped (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Thérivel and González, 2020). 114

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  115 When attempting to evaluate substantive effectiveness of SEA, it is important to start from the assumption that SEA has an impact on the environmental consciousness of decision-makers, simply by being a requirement (Cashmore et al., 2004; Jay et al., 2007) and that, therefore, actions may be influenced even before a particular SEA process is formally started, e.g. when starting to consider PPPs. In this context, it is important that SEA requirements can be both the cause for developing a greater environmental consciousness, as well as an expression of an already developed environmental consciousness (Gazzola et al., 2011). However, this particular aspect of substantive effectiveness will not be covered in this chapter and the focus will instead be on any emerging evidence on PPPs and associated actions becoming more environmentally sustainable as a consequence of SEA. Subsequently, first, SEA’s role for generating information and associated challenges are explored. This is followed by a discussion on what can be understood by environmentally sustainable outcomes through SEA. Empirical evidence for SEA resulting in more environmentally sustainable PPPs and associated actions is presented before the important role of context conditions is explained. Finally, conclusions are drawn and an outlook is depicted.

SEA FOR GENERATING INFORMATION AND ASSOCIATED CHALLENGES Environmental information is provided by SEA in particular through the description of the environmental baseline, the identification and evaluation of different alternatives/options in terms of their potential environmental impacts, the determination of impact significance (with regard to environmental and other objectives; see also Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021) for each of them and the depiction of ways to avoid, minimise, mitigate or compensate remaining impacts, the formulation of recommendations, as well as monitoring. Whilst SEA provisions usually include suggestions for specific environmental aspects to be considered, these are frequently not binding, and the choice of relevant components is left to the discretion of the assessor. This is why different environmental aspects/issues receive varying degrees of attention. Getting the focus and scope of SEA right is one of the main early challenges in any SEA process (IEMA, 2017). Ultimately, this determines the potential of SEA achieving substantive effectiveness. Information on environmental aspects provided in SEA is guided by overall environmental and other objectives, the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the magnitude of any potential impacts. Aspects and impacts need to be appropriate to a specific PPP situation and scale (IAEA, 2018). In this context, information needs to be relevant in order to elucidate our understanding of potentially significant impacts. However, aspects covered in SEA may not necessarily be determined only by relevance or need, but also by other considerations, such as availability of data, routines, public pressure or political considerations (Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Nitz and Brown, 2001; González et al., 2011). The focus and scope of SEA is therefore not determined purely by hard data and objective information. SEA has implications for individual as well as institutional/organisational learning, and a capacity to derive more environmentally sustainable decisions is associated with its learning effect. In this context, whereas changes made to a concrete PPP by SEA can be connected with what Argyris and Schön (1974; 1978) in their theory of organisational learning termed ‘single-loop learning’ (case-specific knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application and

116  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment analysis), more fundamental adjustments in terms of values, attitudes and (institutional) routines may be related to their ‘double-loop learning’ (see Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Fischer et al. (2010) reflected on different situations of SEA application and how these influence the consideration of different issues (see also Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). In this context, they considered the frequency with which environmental indicators for four topics were considered in assessments of 22 randomly chosen European transport PPPs and strategic (‘big’) projects; habitat loss, climate change, air pollution and noise pollution. Habitat loss was found to be consistently considered to a lesser extent than climate change, air pollution and noise pollution. Furthermore, SEA conducted at different decision tiers was found to give preference to the consideration of specific effects. For example, ‘noise pollution’, was considered to a lesser extent at higher policy and plan tiers than in more project-oriented SEAs. Furthermore, different environmental issues have been found to be addressed through different methodological approaches. This was described by Fischer (1999a), who observed that different environmental components (e.g. air, water, flora, fauna) were assessed in different ways, based on e.g. quantitative and qualitative methods and techniques (Noble et al., 2012). The choice of a particular method was found to depend on specific sectoral and scientific traditions (e.g. modelling in transport planning and overlay mapping in land-use planning). The quality of SEA documentation appears to play a particular important role for an ability of SEA to effectively influence decisions that can result in environmentally sustainable outcomes. Quality here is understood in terms of what is frequently (and routinely) included and put forward in SEA quality review packages. One of the first quality review packages designed for project EIA was by Lee and Colley (1987). For European Directive-based SEA, it was one put forward by Bonde and Cherp (2000). Review packages allow the grading of questions on important SEA aspects in terms of e.g. being fully, satisfactorily or not met for review categories such as: ●● PPP and environmental (and sustainability) baseline description, PPP and SEA process integration; ●● identification and evaluation of key issues/options; ●● determination of impact significance; ●● consultation process; ●● presentation of information and results; ●● recommendations on preferred options, monitoring. Generally speaking, poor quality documentation is likely to be more easily ignored and taken less seriously by those preparing PPPs. This was shown by e.g. Phylip-Jones and Fischer (2015) for offshore wind farm SEAs in the UK and Germany. However, there is much scope for further research exploring the causal relationship between information presented and decisions made. Dealing with causality has been particularly elusive in SEA research.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES THROUGH SEA SEA would not be needed if PPPs considered aspects of the bio-physical environment adequately and on a par with economic and social aspects in a balanced manner. However, this is currently not observed (see Chapter 14 by Fischer et al., 2021). Furthermore, over the last

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  117 couple of decades, many countries have aimed at speeding up planning processes to achieve higher economic growth. This has increased pressure, in particular with regard to an adequate consideration of environmental issues, and talk on e.g. ‘cutting green tape’ is frequently heard in many countries, including e.g. Australia (Morton, 2019), the UK (Collins, 2019), South Africa (Kidd et al., 2018) and many others. Associated endeavours are found in different sectors and are described, for example, in Chapter 11 in this book on transport planning (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). SEA has short- to medium-term direct impacts on a PPP through changing specific decisions (a) in the PPP it is assessing and also (b) potentially in other related PPPs (and projects). Following Nitz and Holland (2000), changes may happen in terms of e.g. (1) concrete ‘design’; (2) environmental management commitments/conditions; (3) planned activities; and (4) in terms of enforcement of certain PPP approval conditions. Decisions are associated with the systematic and participative SEA process for a particular PPP which results in generating environmental information. Furthermore, in a systematically tiered PPP system, different tiers should clearly refer to each other and influence each other. In this context, SEA can play a key role in reconciling the diverse range of aspects and impacts covered in different PPPs (Barker and Fischer, 2003). Whilst tiering is frequently portrayed in terms of a top-down hierarchy, in reality no PPP situation is likely to start with a blank sheet of paper. This means that it is not just higher tiers influencing lower tiers, but lower tiers influencing higher tiers, as well (Partidário and Arts, 2005). SEA can also have medium- to long-term indirect impacts in a number of ways. It can, for example, lead to changes in attitudes or values of those involved in the process. Furthermore, SEA application might lead to changes in established routines of institutions. It is of particular importance that these indirect impacts may take some time, and, as a consequence, SEA may only become effective for subsequent PPPs. In this context, speaking about strategic planning in general, Faludi (2000) suggested that strategic plans are probably best evaluated not based on direct, concrete material outcomes, but rather in terms of how they improve understanding of decision-makers for current and future problems (see also Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021). There are many challenges when attempting to relate the application of SEA with more environmentally sustainable outcomes (see e.g. Marsden, 1998). Associated SEA follow-up has been described as not only being difficult, but it has also been argued that “the very relevance of doing so may be questioned” (Arts, 1998). However, policy-makers and planners require evidence to be provided in order to justify what they are doing and hence it is important to deliver as much evidence as possible. In many assessment systems, this expectation to justify decisions and demonstrate the rationale for decisions is considered a basic administrative justice principle (Retief et al., 2020). Factors that seriously hamper post-evaluation at strategic levels (i.e. establishing a direct link between decision and implementation) have been said to include (Partidário and Fischer, 2004): ●● ●● ●● ●●

the comprehensiveness and the potentially very high level of abstraction at strategic levels; the importance of after-linked decision-making and parties other than the leading authority; the problem of uncertainty; the difficulty in establishing causal relationships between the content of strategic plan and the environmental impacts that occur; ●● the limited value of conformance as evaluation criteria; and ●● the dynamic, political-administrative context of strategic planning.

118  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment This raises the question as to how the implementation of SEA decisions should be monitored. In this context, it is particularly important to acknowledge that the further away a decision is taking place from the project level, the less likely it is that a direct causal link can be made from ‘decision’ to ‘implementation’. In planning systems that are more conceptual in nature, the link between SEA and sustainable outcomes may be difficult to establish. For example, in UK spatial planning, core strategies of local plans mainly aim at formulating planning policies, which are in effect statements of development intent (in this context, see Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021). In planning systems with a focus on concrete land-use changes, on the other hand, such as Austria and Germany (see Chapter 2 by Rehhausen and Hanusch, 2021), this is more straightforward. This was shown by Kidd et al. (2008) and Fischer et al. (2009). Wallagh’s definition (1988, pp. 122–3, quoted in Faludi, 2000, p. 310) of effective policy implementation is particularly useful when considering monitoring SEA decisions. Referring to policies, he suggested that effective implementation may take the following forms: ●● an operational decision conforms to the policy and explicit reference is being made to it, demonstrating that conformance has not been accidental; ●● arguments are being derived from the policy for taking non-conforming decisions, i.e. departures are deliberate; ●● the policy provides the basis for analysing consequences of an incidental decision which happens to contravene the policy, thus bringing that decision under the umbrella of the policy; or ●● if and when departures become too frequent and the policy must be reviewed, the original policy may still be said to have worked for as long as the review takes that policy as its point of departure. It may therefore be suggested that whilst subsequent decisions should always explicitly acknowledge previous SEAs, it is unrealistic to expect a one-to-one implementation of higher tier decisions at lower tiers. This is why feedback from lower to higher tiers is as vital as lower tiers being informed by higher tiers. Leknes (2001) observed that, in the later stages of decision-making, the findings of EIA were likely to give way to political considerations. Therefore, there is a need to be realistic about what SEA’s impact looks like in practice.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SEA RESULTING IN MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS AND ACTIONS Subsequently, evidence from the professional literature for SEA being able to lead to more environmentally sustainable PPPs and associated actions is summarised. Much of the research on substantive effectiveness has focused on establishing opinions by those involved in SEA on its impacts in terms of changing a PPP, and there have only been a few attempts to gather other evidence. SEA’s impacts on environmental protection on the ground are difficult to ascertain and measure through e.g. auditing. Whilst there have been various attempts to do this for project EIA (see e.g. Dipper et al., 1998; Jones and Fischer, 2016), for SEA there has only been a focus on e.g. what developments were either avoided or mitigated. This is further explained below. All sources subsequently presented indicate that whilst there are a range of challenges and pitfalls, SEA has been able to demonstrate meaningful success in making decisions more environmentally sustainable.

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  119 Thérivel and Minas (2002) reflected on environmental/sustainability appraisal practice in English local land-use planning. They found that, overall, 70% of all appraisals had led to concrete plan change, up from an earlier study, in which Thérivel (1995) found that only 50% of appraisals had led to plan changes. Similar figures were reported about ten years later by Thérivel and Fischer (2012). Fischer (2002) analysed 60 SEAs for spatial and transport policies, plans and programmes from the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Some statistical analysis was used in this context and it was established that in the transport sector, SEA application had led to a significantly greater consideration of explicit sustainability objectives, targets and proposed measures. Furthermore, based on interviews in 2007 on SEA practices in ten countries/states (California (USA), Western Australia, South Africa, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland, Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Canada) formalisation of SEA was found to lead to a more consistent consideration of environmental issues in PPPs (Fischer, 2007). Of all systems considered, only the non-participatory, non-formal Dutch e-test for cabinet decisions at policy level was judged to not have a recognisable effect, mainly because it was applied too late (see also Verheem, 2005). The overall formalised Dutch EIA-based SEA system, on the other hand, was considered to be highly effective. In a study on the learning potential of SEA in the UK, Germany and Italy, SEA was found to lead to observable changes in the underlying plans (see Kidd et al., 2008; Fischer et al., 2009). In the case of a regional spatial plan in Germany, for example, between 5% and 10% of the areas for raw material extraction had changed, based on SEA. Furthermore, 13 land-use changes (about 4% of total suggested changes) arose, based on comments made during SEA consultation (Fischer et al., 2009). Furthermore, SEA was identified to have led to changes in institutional routines and values (Gazzola et al., 2011). In this context, in an earlier study, van Eck and Scholten (1997) considered long-term SEA effectiveness in the Netherlands. They found that environmental awareness in different administrations was observed to have been enhanced through SEA. Rega et al. (2018) looked at the impact of SEA on plans in Italy and Spain through the lens of SEA authorities. SEA is well established in both countries, either at regional or local levels. The outcome of SEA is reasoned opinions on plans, and based on the impact of these reasoned opinions the substantive effectiveness of SEA may be determined. Overall, the authors evaluated 40 SEAs, 20 from each country. They found that amendments were made on the basis of SEA in all cases. Whilst some were major, most were either of a moderate or minor nature. Changes were greatest with regard to mitigation and compensation added to the plan. They also established that the SEA reports did not usually say how the underlying plan was influenced which makes follow-up more difficult. Importantly, the authors found that in those cases where an independent regional SEA authority existed, more substantive changes were requested than in those cases where the SEA authority was associated with the local planning authority, underlying the importance of a suitable institutional setup for the effective application of SEA. From a developing country perspective, research from South Africa (where SEA is not formally required) suggests slightly less promising results, based on the review of six high-profile SEA case studies and measured against four key performance areas (KPAs) and nine key performance indicators (KPIs) (Retief, 2007b; Retief et al., 2008). The results show a general inability to influence the contents of plans and programmes as well as decision-making in general. However, significantly, certain indirect outcomes were achieved, such as highlighting

120  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment deficiencies and gaps in existing policy as well as examples where SEA facilitated capacity building and raised awareness of sustainability issues. Moreover, SEAs also contributed significantly to information generation and sharing. However, the latest empirical research on SEAs effectiveness for renewable energy plans in South Africa showed meaningful success in influencing PPP both in terms of upstream policy and downstream project-level decision-making (Fischer et al., 2019). The latter might therefore suggest a positive progression in the substantive effectiveness of SEA in South Africa from 2007 to 2019.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT CONDITIONS FOR MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS AND ACTION THROUGH SEA This section firstly explores how SEA is thought to be able to create more environmentally sustainable decisions, drawing together some important aspects from the previous sections. Context conditions that have been observed to enable SEA to support more environmentally sustainable decisions are outlined next. SEA’s capability to support more environmentally sustainable decisions is thought to be connected with three main functions (following Fischer, 2007): (1) providing information to; (2) enabling involvement in; and (3) critically reflecting on, PPPs. These functions support the claim made by Cowell and Owens (2006, p. 405) that SEA processes present one of those “crucial institutional spaces for challenges to the status quo”, potentially leading to more sustainable and environmentally conscious patterns of development to emerge. The context within which SEA is applied has been found to play a crucial role for the ability of SEA to make PPPs more environmentally sustainable (see e.g. Marsden, 1998; Fischer, 2005; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007). Attempts at developing ‘institution-centred SEA’ (i.e. assessment for institutional reform) for non-, poorly or underdeveloped PPP systems focus on these overall context conditions. Fischer (2007) summarised six overall context conditions that support SEA’s ability. These revolve around formal requirements and provisions, clear goals, appropriate funding, time and support for SEA, a willingness to cooperate, clear assessment boundaries and the acknowledgement of uncertainties. Based on a review of spatial and transport PPPs from the UK and the Netherlands in 2002, the time spent on an SEA was found to be correlated in a statistically significant manner with the opinions of PPP makers on SEA’s overall impact (Fischer, 2002). One condition which has received particular attention over the years and which may play a pivotal role in improving SEA’s substantive effectiveness revolves around the type of PPP, the associated focus of SEA and role of the assessor. In this context, Fischer (2003) hypothesised that the role of the assessor and an associated ‘degree of communication’/‘acting strategy’ may be dependent on (a) the level of ‘concreteness’. Whereas, for example, a policy would normally be considered to be somewhat vague, a programme would be seen as being more concrete. Furthermore, (b) the technical knowledge is thought to increase from policies over plans to programmes and projects. Very similar frameworks have been designed by other authors, based on the policy analysis literature (Owens et al., 2004). Here, the ‘structuredness’ of a problem was said to be related to the degree to which a consensus on values and norms exists and the certainty about that knowledge (following Runhaar and Driessen, 2007). This can be connected with an acting strategy, requiring a ‘problem solver’ for structured prob-

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  121 lems, and an advocate in moderately structured problems where there is consensus on goals. Whereas, regarding totally unstructured problems, a problem recogniser is said to be necessary, in moderately structured problems where there is no consensus on values, a mediator is said to be necessary. Ultimately, these acting strategies can be connected with the contingency model of organisational decision-making, as first developed by Thompson and Tuden in 1956. They charted decision-making models in terms of means and ends uncertainty (uncertainty about how and why to take a course of action).

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK This chapter has discussed the substantive effectiveness of SEA and how it is currently thought to be able to support more environmentally sustainable PPP decisions and associated actions. Whilst research suggests that SEA is able to lead to more environmentally sustainable PPPs, associated empirical evidence is still thin and there are currently a range of challenges that prevent SEA from developing its full potential. SEA is effective, in particular, through processes of single- and double-loop learning. By providing for information in a systematic process, SEA is leading to direct PPP changes. Furthermore, SEA potentially also leads to more indirect changes through involvement and participation. However, overall changes are frequently of only a minor or moderate nature and there is plenty of scope for the instrument to be strengthened. Actual changes on the ground are often difficult to ascribe to SEA. Whilst PPP making and SEA are complementary, they serve different functions. It is obvious that SEA as a strong and enforceable, formalised instrument is not likely to be seen in a favourable light by everyone. However, there are indications that being formalised and legislated may be critical for achieving its potential to lead to more environmentally sustainable development outcomes (Verheem, 2005; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Retief et al., 2008). As long as SEA is not required to be a central determinant in decision-making, the instrument is likely to play a minor role only. In this context, binding goals would support a more effective SEA, for example a commitment to pursue ‘no-net environmental deterioration’ options provided by SEA. Whilst SEA’s effectiveness in terms of leading to more environmentally sustainable PPP making should only be judged with a long-term perspective, there are certain rules for effective SEA. Most importantly, the instrument needs to be applied early enough to be able to have an impact. In order to be able to serve as a ‘counter-balance’ platform, consultations and public participation are of particular importance and need to be organised in a transparent and effective way. A fundamental issue is the quality of the documentation prepared during the SEA process. If the information provided is insufficient, the instrument is not likely to be perceived as being beneficial. Empirical research on substantive effectiveness across different contexts should be better coordinated and integrated. Ultimately, to further strengthen our understanding of the substantive effectiveness of SEA, we recommend moving beyond the current very context-specific and case-study focused research towards large-scale international comparative and temporal SEA research projects. This will greatly enhance efforts to progress and strengthen the fundamental theoretical basis for SEA. Finally, whilst there have been some attempts at SEA theory development (e.g. Lawrence, 1997; Bartlett and Kurian, 1999; Weston, 2002; Fischer, 2007), overall, to date this has

122  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment remained rudimentary. A theory based on a sound empirical evidence base is needed to overcome the reluctance of many disciplines to engage with the instrument. An attempt to build a theory is provided in Chapter 27 of this book (Fischer and González, 2021).

REFERENCES Acharibasam, J.B. and Noble, B.F. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(3): 177–87. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. 1978. Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Arts, J. 1998. EIA Follow-Up: On the Role of Ex Post Evaluation in EIA. Groningen: GeoPress. Barker, A. and Fischer, T.B. 2003. English regionalism and sustainability: towards the development of an integrated approach to SEA. European Planning Studies, 11(6): 697–716. Bartlett, R.V. and Kurian, P.A. 1999. The theory of environmental impact assessment. Policy and Politics 27(4): 415–33. Bina, O., Jing, W., Brown, L. and Partidário, M.R. 2011. An inquiry into the concept of SEA effectiveness: towards criteria for Chinese practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(6): 572–81. Bonde, J. and Cherp, A. 2000. Quality review package for strategic environmental assessments of land-use plans. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(2): 99–110. Cape, L., Retief, F., Lochner, P., Fischer, T. and Bond, A. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 69: 32–41. Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. and Bond, A. 2004. The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 22(4): 295–310. Chanchitpricha, C. and Bond, A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 65–72. Collins, F. 2019. Government to launch an “accelerated planning” green paper in autumn 2019, available at https://​www​.cla​.org​.uk/​government​-launch​-accelerated​-planning​-green​-paper​-autumn​-2019. Cowell, R. and Owens, S. 2006. Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24: 403–21. Dipper, B., Jones, C. and Wood, C. 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(6): 731–47. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11) Faludi, A. 2000. The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research 15(4): 299–318. Fischer, D., Lochner, P. and Annegarn, H. 2019. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment to facilitate renewable energy planning and improved decision-making: a South African case study. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1): 28–38. Fischer, T.B. 1999a. Comparative analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts in SEA for transport related policies, plans and programs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19: 275–303. Fischer, T.B. 1999b. The consideration of sustainability aspects within transport infrastructure related policies, plans and programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42(2): 189–219. Fischer, T.B. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. 2003. Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(2): 155–70.

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  123 Fischer, T.B. 2005. Having an impact? – Context elements for effective SEA application in transport policy, plan and programme making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 7(3): 407–32. Fischer, T.B. 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3): 183–97. Fischer, T.B. 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. 2009. On the role(s) of (strategic) environmental assessment in ‘greening’ decision making, University of Utrecht, Copernicus Lecture, 2 March. Available at https://​www​.researchgate​ .net/​publication/​266470590​_On​_the​_roles​_of​_strategic​_environmental​_assessment​_in​_​%27greening​ %27​_decision​_making. Fischer, T.B. and Gazzola, P. 2006. SEA good practice elements and performance criteria – equally valid in all countries? – the case of Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(4): 396–409. Fischer, T.B. and Xu, He. 2009. Differences in perceptions of effective strategic environmental assessment application in the UK and China. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 11(4): 471–85. Fischer, T.B., Dalkmann, H., Lowry, M. and Tennøy, A. 2010. The dimensions and context of transport decision making, in: Robert Joumard and Henrik Gudmundsson (eds), Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport, 79–102. Paris: Les collections de l’Inrets. Fischer, T.B., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U., Kidd, S. and Peel, D. 2009. Learning through EC Directive-based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(6): 421–8. Fischer, T.B. and Gonzáles, A. 2021. Conclusions: towards a theory of strategic environmental assessment?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 27). Fischer, T.B., Muthoora, T. and Sworowski, N. 2021. Integration through strategic environmental assessment: the case of health in English strategic planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 14). Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U., Kidd, S., Peel, D. and Fischer, T.B. 2011. Enhancing environmental appraisal effectiveness: towards an understanding of internal context conditions in organisational learning. Planning Theory and Practice 12(2): 183–204. Geissler, G., Rehhausen, A., Fischer, T. and Hanusch, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Germany? Meta-review of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(2–3): 219–32. Gibson, R. 2013. Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 2–12. González, A., Gilmer, A., Foley, R., Sweeney, J. and Fry, J. 2011. Applying geographic information systems to support strategic environmental assessment: opportunities and limitations in the context of Irish land-use plans. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(3): 368–81. Hayes, S.J. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 3). IAEA 2018. Strategic environmental assessment for nuclear power programmes – guidelines, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 74 pages, available at https://​www​.iaea​.org/​publications/​12251/​ strategic​-environmental​-assessment​-for​-nuclear​-power​-programmes​-guidelines. IEMA 2017. Delivering proportionate EA, Lincoln: IEMA, available at https://​www​.iema​.net/​policy/​ia/​ proportionate​-eia​-guidance​-2017​.pdf. Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P. and Wood, C.M. 2007. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 287–300. Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Fischer, T.B., Peel, D. and Kidd, S. 2009. SEA effectiveness – the significance of learning, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 27(2): 133–44. Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. and Wood, C. (eds) 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning. London: Earthscan. Jones, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2016. EIA follow-up in the UK – a 2015 update, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management: 1650006 (22 pages).

124  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Kidd, M., Retief, F. and Alberts, R. 2018. Integrated environmental impact assessment and management. In N. King, H. Strydom and F. Retief (eds), Environmental Management in South Africa, 3rd edition. Cape Town: Juta Publishing. Kidd, S., Fischer, T., Gazzola, P., Jha-Thakur, U. and Peel, D. 2008. Developing the Learning Potential of Appraisal in Spatial Planning, Final ESRC Project Report. Kørnøv, L. and Thissen, W. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 191–200. Lawrence, D.P. 1997. The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17: 79–107. Lee, N. and Colley, R. 1987. Reviewing the quality of environmental appraisals, Occasional Paper, School of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester. Leknes, E. 2001. The roles of EIA in the decision-making process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21: 309–34. Margato, V. and Sanchez, L. 2014. Quality and outcomes: a critical review of strategic environmental assessment in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(2): 1–32. Marsden, S. 1998. Importance of context in measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 16(4): 255–66. McLauchlan, A. and João, E. 2012. The inherent tensions arising from attempting to carry out strategic environmental assessments on all policies, plans and programmes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 36: 23–33. Morton, A. 2019. Review of federal environment laws will cut ‘green tape’ and speed up approval, The Guardian, 29 October, available at https://​www​.theguardian​.com/​environment/​2019/​oct/​29/​review​-of​ -federal​-environment​-laws​-will​-cut​-green​-tape​-and​-speed​-up​-approvals. Nitz, T. and Brown, A. 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 3(3): 329–42. Nitz, T. and Holland, I. 2000. Does EIA facilitate environmental management activities? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2(1): 1–17. Noble, B., Gunn, J. and Martin, J. 2012. Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(3): 139–47. Owens, S., Rayner, T. and Bina, O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning A 36(11): 1943–59. Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Partidário, M.R. and Arts, J. 2005. Exploring the concept of SEA follow-up, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23(5): 246–57. Partidário, M.R. and Fischer, T.B. 2004. SEA, in: J. Arts and A. Morrison-Saunders (eds), Follow-up in Environmental Assessment, 224–47. London: Earthscan. Phylip-Jones, J. and Fischer, T.B. 2015. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 202–12. Rega, C., Singer, J.P. and Geneletti, D. 2018. Investigating the substantive effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment of urban planning: evidence from Italy and Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 73: 60–69. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Retief, F. 2007a. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 84–100. Retief, F. 2007b. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management 9(1): 83–101. Retief, F., Fischer, T.B., Alberts, R., Roos, C. and Cilliers, D. 2020. An administrative justice perspective on improving EIA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 151–5. Retief, F., Jones, C. and Jay, S. 2008. The emperor’s new clothes: reflections on SEA practice in South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 504–14.

Does environmental assessment lead to sustainable decisions?  125 Runhaar, H. and Driessen, P.P.J. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision making. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(1): 2–14. Thérivel, R. 1995. Environmental appraisal of development plans: current status. Planning Practice and Research 10(2): 223–34. Thérivel, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2012. Sustainability appraisal in England. UVP Report 26(1): 16–21. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 181–7. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2020. Is SEA worth it? Short-term costs v. long-term benefits of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 83: 106411. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Thérivel, R. and Minas, P. 2002. Measuring SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(2): 81–91. Thompson, J.D. and Tuden, A. 1956. Strategies, structures and processes of organizational decision. In J.D. Thompson (ed.), Comparative Studies in Administration, 195–216. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tshibangu G.M. and Montaño M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 334–43. US government 1970. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, available at https://​ www​.whitehouse​.gov/​sites/​whitehouse​.gov/​files/​ceq/​NEPA​_full​_text​.pdf. Van Eck, M., Scholten, J.J. et al. 1997. Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment, Briefing Paper by the Dutch EIA Commission, Utrecht. Verheem, R. 2005. The challenge of implementing the European SEA Directive in the Netherlands: a personal reflection. In B. Dalal-Clayton and B. Sadler (eds), The Status and Potential of Strategic Environmental Assessment, 65. London: IIED. Wallagh, G. 1988. Tussen wens en werking. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam. Weston, J. 2002. From Poole to Fulham: a changing culture in UK environmental impact decision making? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(3): 425–43.

9. Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries: examples from Asia David Annandale, Thomas B. Fischer, Marcelo Montaño, Caroline Purcell, Jonathan Coles and Thiri Aung

INTRODUCTION More than 60 countries worldwide currently have some basic legal requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in place (see Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021). Many of these are framework based, meaning that they provide a general mandate for SEA by establishing basic procedural principles, but leaving methodological specifics to regulations and guidelines (Montaño and Fischer, 2019). Most countries with legal frameworks are from the developed world, including the 27 EU member states (based on the European SEA Directive; EC, 2001). However, an increasing number of developing countries are also engaging with SEA. These include a range of countries in Latin America (as discussed in a special issue by Fischer and Montaño, 2014; see also Chapters 23 and 24 by Montaño et al., 2021 and Jiliberto, 2021), as well as a number of countries in Asia and Africa (see Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021; Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021; and Chapter 26 by Chanchitpritcha et al., 2021). However, publications reflecting on practices in developing countries have remained limited (Fischer and Onyango, 2012). The contemporary approach to SEA regulations tends to revolve around process and administrative procedures, thereby emphasizing the powers and responsibilities of proponents and regulatory agencies (De Montis et al., 2016). However, the way SEA should be applied in specific contexts (i.e. its specific format and shape) often remains poorly explained (Fischer and Gazzola, 2006). Also, the assumptions of guidelines with regards to the way policies, plans and programmes are prepared and as to how SEA should be integrated into this at times do not reflect real practices (Nielsson and Dalkmann, 2001). This is bound to limit SEA’s potential effectiveness. Finally, guidance has been observed to be frequently outdated, due to a failure to incorporate new evidence and experiences (Montaño and Fischer, 2019), meaning they do not reflect good or best practice. For countries just beginning to develop SEA systems, all of this is problematic, as decision-makers frequently want to see concrete and up-to-date SEA manuals in place (Fischer et al., 2019). This can hold up SEA implementation, as proponents and regulators can use the lack of guidance as a reason for not implementing a particular regulatory framework. There is, therefore, a demand for more detailed guidance. It is in this context that this chapter examines and compares a number of recent SEA guidelines (from 2017 to 2019) in five Asian developing countries and, for comparative purposes, earlier SEA guidance from China (2009), which specified SEA requirements in its 2002 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law (NPC, 2002). 126

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  127

WHAT DO SEA GUIDELINES AIM TO ACHIEVE AND WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE? In most developing countries, SEA is still in its infancy. Many practitioners come to SEA from a background in EIA for projects. However, many of the skills required for undertaking SEA are different. For example, in some of its variations, SEA is akin to policy analysis, therefore demanding skills usually found in the domains of social scientists, such as economists, anthropologists, and political scientists (Fischer, 2007; see also Chapters 4 and 5 by Partidário, 2021 and Marot et al., 2021, respectively). As a consequence, practitioners who are new to SEA can at times feel either unprepared or end up conducting SEA in a manner which is not appropriate to the overall context, making the process ineffective (see Chapter 24 by Jiliberto, 2021). With regard to the scope of SEA guidelines, whilst Tshibangu and Montaño (2019) suggest that even a loosely defined SEA process can enable improved communication amongst stakeholders and better access to relevant information, it is clear that solely considering procedure will only in part support effective SEA, as it represents only one effectiveness dimension. In Chapter 7, Thérivel and González (2021) explain that other dimensions include contextual, pluralist, substantive, normative, knowledge/learning and transactive elements. All of these can and should be considered in SEA guidelines. Furthermore, it has been suggested that a focus on procedure only, and an absence of guidance on desired substantive outcomes (see Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021), may lead to particular outcomes being imposed by, for example, powerful stakeholders (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019). The main aim of SEA guidelines is to support an effective application of SEA. This means supporting the preparation of environmentally sustainable policies, plans and programmes (PPPs) and subsequent actions. To support this aim, it has been suggested by Montaño and Fischer (2019) that guidelines need to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Go beyond basic legislative requirements; Be able to respond to the specific situation of application; Establish a basic standard for SEA; and Be able to stimulate the advancement of quality standards within a tiered approach to SEA (i.e. taking other related policies, plans and programmes into account).

Important elements that need to be acknowledged when engaging in preparing SEA guidelines were introduced by Noble and Nwanekezie (2017). Their ‘foundational principles’ include that SEA must be strategically focused in terms of asking the right questions and being able to influence PPPs. Furthermore, they suggest that SEA must explore strategic options, assessing what is needed to achieve a desirable future and its implications. Because SEA is nested in a larger system of decision-making processes with multiple and mutually influential tiers, there is also a need to aim at influencing other tiers. Finally, SEA needs to be sensitive to the policy and decision-making context in which it is applied, as this will influence the approach to and design of SEA. In a similar spirit, the Netherlands Commission on Environmental Assessment (NCEA, 2014) proposed a systems-approach to SEA, which is based on six functions. These revolve around the regulatory framework for SEA and an awareness and commitment to SEA (including funding). Furthermore, they include a need for SEA-related education and professional training. Advice needs to be available for those who require it on the SEA procedure and practice. Also, monitoring and implementation of SEA needs to happen in a conscious manner and

128  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment professional exchange on SEA should be supported. These functions should be acknowledged by and reflected on in guidelines. In terms of desirable outcomes of SEA, Montaño and Fischer (2019) introduced a framework which was developed based on a review of the existing literature and a consultation exercise with 18 SEA experts. They established that guidelines should: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Set a basic standard for SEA effectiveness; Fill a knowledge gap with regard to how exactly SEA should be conducted; Support the integration of the SEA stages into PPP-making; and Promote learning and adaptive management of the SEA process.

The same authors also introduced aspects that should be considered when aiming at developing and maintaining guidelines in support of effective SEA. These are associated with a range of challenges, including that: 1. Guidelines need to advance beyond a superficial description of methods which could easily be derived from (e.g. textbooks); 2. Guidelines need to focus on what is relevant in a specific situation/context, rather than trying to cover everything that could be remotely relevant; this means scoping in issues that are relevant/significant, and scoping out those that are not (avoidance of ‘paradigm of completeness’); 3. Guidelines need to support a more straightforward (i.e. simpler) application of SEA; 4. Guidelines need to not simply comply with basic requirements, but reflect good or best practice (avoidance of ‘compliance rule’); 5. Guidelines need to be clear about how SEA processes are to be adapted to a specific context (i.e. be precise about how to apply SEA in a particular situation in practice); 6. Guidelines need to ‘stimulate innovation’; and 7. Those in charge of preparing guidelines need to assess, review and update guidelines regularly. These challenges along with the desirable outcomes and the overall aims for guidelines introduced at the beginning of the section will be the basis for evaluating guidelines from six Asian countries. This is further explained below in the methodology.

METHODOLOGY Recent SEA guidelines (from 2017 to 2019) from a sample of developing countries from Asia are evaluated. These were selected based on their availability in English and include guidelines from Bhutan, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos. Furthermore, and for comparative purposes, SEA guidance from China from a decade earlier (2009) was also considered. China was one of the first countries to introduce formal SEA requirements., when it did so in 2002. However, it has been suggested that SEA in China has only been of limited effectiveness (Iranpour et al., 2012). Therefore, considering China’s only existing SEA guidelines may help understand how well the more recent guidelines in the other five countries appear to be positioned to support effective SEA.

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  129 Guidelines were reviewed with regard to the four anticipated outcomes, seven challenges and four aims introduced in the previous section. A few sub-categories were included for challenges, as they were found to be rather broad and, for review purposes, somewhat ambiguous. The comparison of outcomes and challenges is presented in Table 9.1. The review was conducted by three researchers. Two researchers evaluated the guidelines independently with regard to whether outcomes, challenges and aims were fully, partly or not met, before comparing results and seeking consensus. This process was actively supported by a third researcher who moderated associated discussions. This approach to evaluation is derived from established practices in SEA quality report review packages (see e.g. Fischer, 2010; Bonde and Cherp, 2000). In the following sections, the situation with regard to SEA in the six countries is described, including a brief overview of the history of SEA before the guidelines were introduced. The results of the evaluation of the guidelines are presented and discussed, before conclusions are drawn.

INTRODUCING SEA GUIDELINES OF SIX ASIAN COUNTRIES Bhutan SEA practice is still in its infancy in Bhutan, but it has had a long gestation. Its initial mandate was part of the Environmental Assessment Act 1999. It then put SEA regulation in place in 2002 (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2002). This is considered to be wide-ranging, as it requires that any agency that formulates, renews, modifies, or implements a policy, plan or programme including Five Year Development Plans which may have a significant effect on the environment, shall perform a SEA in accordance with this regulation, before the proposal is adopted or submitted to the Royal Government of Bhutan. (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2002, p. 1)

However, due mainly to political considerations, the regulation was not immediately implemented (Annandale and Brown, 2012). This led to a long period of stagnation, although this was interspersed with a small number of pilot SEAs, focused on hydropower development and land-use planning. To provide an impetus to the further development of SEA, a detailed set of guidelines was published in 2017 (Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission Secretariat, 2017). This document was supported by the Asian Development Bank, with technical assistance provided as part of the Bank’s approach to building country safeguard systems capacity. Its development was attached to an SEA of the national roads sector master plan. In line with the SEA regulation, the 2017 guidelines are generic and are intended to support the application of SEA to any PPP. The bulk of the content focuses on procedural aspects – i.e. on what are considered to be the key stages and steps involved in SEA: screening, scoping, assessment, reporting and evaluation. In this sense, the guidelines require that proponents follow a project-EIA approach to the SEA process. Proponents are led, step-by-step, through each stage, in considerable detail, and are provided with guidance on specific techniques and participatory approaches.

130  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Vietnam Vietnam is a front-runner among developing countries in relation to SEA. Development agencies from Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands, as well as international development banks, have played an instrumental role in introducing SEA in Vietnam (Slunge and Tran, 2014). They have financed a large number of ‘pilot SEAs’ and numerous training programmes for staff in governmental agencies, and have provided technical expertise for the development of a legal framework and technical guidance for SEA (Slunge and Tran, 2014). This has been supported by fact-finding visits of government delegations to countries with advanced SEA systems (e.g. to the UK in October 2014). One significant contextual idiosyncrasy in Vietnam is that ministries tend to develop their own sectoral SEA regulations, even though a national environmental law exists which includes an SEA mandate, and the national Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has produced a set of national SEA guidelines (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2014). As a consequence, Vietnamese ministries often produce sector-specific SEA guidelines. These have tended to mirror the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment’s General Technical Guidelines on SEA, the intention being to develop a ‘nested’ set of sector guidelines. Examples include the Ministry of Planning and Investment’s ‘Technical Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment of Socio-Economic Development Strategies, Master Plans and Plans’ (Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2011), and the Ministry of Construction’s ‘Guidelines for SEA for Construction/Urban Planning Projects’ (Ministry of Construction, 2011). The former set of guidelines was drafted in 2008 and underwent a set of trials during 2009 at three different levels of strategic planning: the national socio-economic development strategy, a regional master plan, and a provincial socio-economic development plan. These trials then led to the formal publication of guidelines in 2011. In some Ministries, the production of SEA guidelines has penetrated even further. For example, the Ministry of Construction has produced a separate set dealing specifically with integrating climate change considerations into SEA of urban and construction plans (Dusik et al., 2013). A particular characteristic of Vietnamese guidelines is that they focus on integrating SEA within the process of socio-economic development planning. It is also worth noting that, since amendments were made to the national Planning Law, which regulates how socio-economic development plans are to be designed, SEA is now properly synced with plan development. For example, Article 23 of the Law on Planning (2019) states that: 1. The agencies in charge of the organization of plan formulation hold responsibilities for preparing the SEA report for such plans; 2. The SEA report is a part of the plan and must be made concurrently with the plan formulation process; 3. The content of SEA report for plans is regulated by the Environmental Protection Law; 4. The appraisal of SEA reports is carried out before the plan appraisal.

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  131 Pakistan Until 2010, Pakistan’s environmental law was in the hands of the Federal Government. However, as a result of an amendment of the Constitution (18th Amendment Act) 2010,1 most responsibility for environmental affairs was handed to the provinces. The onus was then placed on provincial environment ministries to develop their own environmental laws and implementing regulations (Pastakia, 2012). Most of these provinces developed laws modelled on a generic template developed by the National Impact Assessment Programme (NIAP), which was financially supported by the Netherlands government, managed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, and ran from 2010 to 2014. The Programme developed a set of draft SEA rules (Government of Pakistan and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2014). These were designed to be a hybrid, between formal regulations and proponent guidelines. An innovation in the Pakistan rules is the presentation of options for how proponents should deal with the outcomes of SEA studies. For example, clause 6.12 offers the following: Option 1: The key findings of the strategic environmental assessment report must be integrated into the draft policy, plan, or programme. Option 2: The proponent must take account of the key findings of the strategic environmental assessment report.

These options appear to have been offered as a result of political compromise, as “integration of SEA findings into the draft PPP” is distinctly different from merely “taking account of SEA findings”. What makes the Pakistani experience unusual is that it was not only guidelines that received attention, but a range of other measures, aimed at developing knowledge and skills for SEA. There was a particular effort on involving universities in the country teaching environmental assessment as part of their curricula. In this context, a ‘standardized’ curriculum and other supporting teaching materials were developed (Fischer and Nadeem, 2014; Fischer, 2014). Furthermore, numerous capacity building events were held, involving hundreds of SEA actors in the country. While SEA in Pakistan has legal backing, the rules/guidelines are still in draft form only, and the country still has relatively little experience with the application of SEA. Less than a handful of pilot SEA studies have been undertaken. According to Ali et al. (2018) these include SEAs for: (1) the Upper Indus River Basin (called ‘Cumulative and Induced Impact Assessment study’); (2) the Gilgit City Master Plan; (3) Azad Jammu and Kashmir hydropower plan; and (4) national trade and transport sector reforms policy. Laos Development of SEA in Laos is at an early stage. The Environmental Protection Law (1999, revised in 2012) provides a mandate for SEA in Article 19. Further SEA regulation is provided in a 2017 Ministerial Decision (Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2017). Pilot SEAs have



1

Act No. X of 2010, dated 19 April 2010.

132  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment been undertaken on the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project, and on development plans for the Nam Ngum River Basin. More recently, the World Bank has funded a Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment of the mining sector (Golder Associates, 2017). Subsequent to the 2017 Ministerial Decision, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment produced guidelines on SEA in 2018 (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2018). The guidelines are focused primarily on influencing the development of what is known as Integrated Strategic Planning, which is socio-economic development planning at the provincial level. While the guidelines do focus on the usual SEA procedural stages, such as screening, scoping, analysis of alternatives, and impact assessment (similarly to the Vietnamese sector guidelines), they also direct proponents to the links between national policies, strategies, programmes, and national socio-economic development plans. They also explain how SEA and EIA relate to each other. Thailand Thailand has practised SEA of plans and programmes for close to 20 years (see also Chapter 26 by Chanchitpricha et al., 2021). In 2005, in response to the interest shown in SEA by government agencies and civil society, an SEA sub-committee was established under the National Environment Board (NEB). Its purpose was to oversee the development of SEA, and to sponsor several pilot studies. In 2009, the Office of Natural Resources, Environmental Policy, and Planning (ONEP) launched Thailand’s first SEA guidelines. The 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007–11) made mention of the need for SEA, and the 12th Plan (2017–21) anticipates legislation to make SEA legally binding. The NEB resolution 3/2009 called for government agencies to apply SEA in their policy and plan processes, where these may have substantial impacts on the environment and society. These initiatives have resulted in more than 30 pilot SEAs being conducted by proponent government agencies and civil society organizations, of which 14 were subsequently reviewed by Chanchitpricha et al. (2019) (Thai National Committee on SEA, 2019). This extensive piloting can be seen as a major learning experience which has provided the basis for a recent phase of accelerated SEA system development. In August 2017, an SEA Subcommittee was established under the National Sustainable Development Committee to spearhead the SEA system development in Thailand. With support from the Asian Development Bank, this subcommittee oversaw the SEA of the Rayong Provincial Development Plan (ICEM, 2019). A set of updated SEA guidelines were produced in parallel (Thai National Subcommittee on SEA, 2019). These guidelines consist of three parts. Part 1 introduces the purpose of SEA, by discussing the overall need for the tool, along with the suggested relationship between SEA and the development of plans and programmes. Part 2 presents the process steps that should be followed by proponents when they undertake SEAs, which, on the whole, follow those required by EIA. Part 3 outlines the administrative arrangements that are required within the Thai regulatory system to ensure that SEA takes place in a systematic fashion. Part 3 also outlines how SEA will be applied over time in the future. During the initial phase of SEA application, SEA will be applied at the level of plan and programme only, and then only in a limited number of circumstances. Eventually, the objective of the Royal Thai Government is to have SEAs conducted systematically as part of strategic-level decision-making and development planning in Thailand.

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  133 Thailand has taken a long-term iterative approach to the introduction of SEA guidelines. This has been based on two decades of pilot studies, and two rounds of guidelines development, with the most recent iteration being developed in concert with a well-funded SEA of a provincial development plan (ICEM, 2019). China In China, SEA has evolved and developed from the project-based EIA system first outlined in the Environmental Protection Law of China enacted in 1979 (Lam et al., 2009). The Chinese EIA system was reformed in 1993 with the promulgation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which aimed at strengthening the environmental management of construction projects, and required regional EIAs (REIA) to be conducted (Zhu and Ru, 2008). The legal status of EIA for plans (i.e. SEA) was affirmed through the enactment of the EIA Law in 2002 (Wu and Xu, 2007). This gave SEA a formal status and led to the ‘Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (PEIA)’ that went into effect on 1 October 2009 (Lam et al., 2009). PEIA is considered a form of SEA because it focuses on plans and programmes (OECD, 2006). No other SEA guidelines have been published since 2009 and therefore the regulations currently serve as guidance for practitioners. The 2002 EIA Law (enacted in 2003) required government proponents to perform EIA for development plans for land use and exploration, utilization and development of river basins, and coastal areas; and plans for industry, agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry, energy, water management, transportation, urban construction, tourism and the development of natural resources (PRC, 2009). A set of trial guidelines that had been introduced in 2003 are no longer available, and there are no indications that they have actually been used in practice. Whilst both plans and programmes are covered by the 2002 EIA Law, policies are not (Lam et al., 2009), and it has been explicitly stated that PEIA cannot be applied to policies (Wu and Xu, 2007). PEIA has been said to potentially play a crucial role, in particular when considering the importance of central planning in China (Lam et al., 2009; Xiu-zhen & Jin-cheng, 2004). PEIA uses an impact approach and starts late, normally after a plan has been drafted. Whilst a 2011 publication by Wu et al. (2011) found that over 200 SEAs had been conducted, SEA has been said to have been only of limited effectiveness (Iranpour, 2012). In this context, it has been suggested that more detailed guidelines are needed to facilitate the systematic analysis of the potential impacts of plans (Lam et al., 2009).

REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES Table 9.1 shows the results of the review of the six national SEA guidelines when compared against the four outcomes and seven challenges (including sub-categories as outlined in the methodology). The results offer insights into the potential of guidelines to contribute to the effectiveness of SEA in each country. They also provide reflections on how the quality of guidelines may be enhanced. This should be of interest not just for the countries reviewed here but also for those currently adopting SEA. It is positive that all six guidelines acknowledge the need for SEA to be conducted early in the plan-making process. Furthermore, all of them avoid the ‘paradigm of completeness’ and the ‘compliance rule’ as the final target of SEA outcomes. It is also encouraging to see that all

134  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment five recent guidelines set a basic standard to SEA effectiveness and fill a gap of information on how SEA should be conducted. Finally, all five recent guidelines ask for an explanation of the relationships between the plan or programme to be assessed and other policies, plans and programmes. Table 9.1

Evaluation of outcomes and challenges of SEA guidelines

Overall, the main focus of the guidelines is on the SEA process, including timing. Furthermore, all recent guidelines elaborate on the content of SEA reports. Encouragingly, guidelines offer more than just a basic set of instructions for the preparation of SEA reports and process. For example, follow-up, learning and adaptive management were considered in half of them. Also, other aspects, such as the need to fit the stages of the SEA process to plan-making and

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  135 the need to adapt SEA to its particular context of application, were considered in three of the six guidelines. A further promising aspect is related to the recognition of SEA guidelines as a dynamic instrument, acknowledging that they need to be systematically assessed, reviewed and updated in the light of new findings in order to raise the standard of SEA effectiveness (fully met by three guidelines). An issue of particular relevance that emerged from a review of the ‘outcomes’ is related to the influence of the level of detail provided by guidelines and the resulting effects on the effectiveness of SEA systems. Overall, whilst the more recent guidelines are able to meet the various evaluation categories to a considerable extent, numerous shortcomings are identified with regard to the 2009 Chinese guidelines (PRC, 2009). The Bhutan 2017 guidelines (Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission Secretariat, 2017) meet all outcomes’ and challenges’ criteria fully and can therefore be seen as an example of best practice in the region. With 178 pages, these are also the second most extensive and comprehensive of the six guidelines. Furthermore, the Vietnamese SEA guidelines (Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2014) meet most criteria, apart from two: (1) the need to review and update guidelines in the light of new experiences and insight is not mentioned; (2) while the need to adapt the SEA process to the context is acknowledged, it does not say how this is supposed to be achieved. The guidelines have 211 pages and are, therefore, the most voluminous set of guidelines in our sample. While the number of pages should not be a sign of quality, our review found that more extensive guidelines are more likely to be comprehensive, thus covering important issues more extensively than those that are short. As explained above, the Chinese guidelines only partially meet the ‘outcomes and challenges’ criteria. These guidelines were promulgated in 2009, and were released as an ordinance of four pages. As a consequence, they are rather vague and are deficient in providing clear explanations to practitioners on many issues. Of the more recent guidelines, Pakistan’s (Government of Pakistan and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2014) currently have the largest number of omissions. However, they are somewhat different from the other guidelines, as they are labelled as draft rules and are only 17 pages long. The other two guidelines from Thailand (Thai National Subcommittee on SEA, 2019) and Laos (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Lao PDR, 2018) are 57 and 42 pages long, respectively, and therefore considerably shorter than the guidelines from Bhutan and Vietnam. Whilst those guidelines that are more voluminous are able to meet more of the outcomes’ and challenges’ criteria, and are therefore able to explain overall performance of guidelines with regard to our evaluation criteria well, we do not believe that this should be understood to mean that longer guidelines are necessarily better. In this context, it may be questioned whether decision-makers would be able to fully comprehend very long documents. In the interest of being able to comprehend those documents, it may be advisable to limit the number of pages. For example, in the recently published international ‘SEA for nuclear power programmes’ guidelines by the International Atomic Energy Agency for Nuclear Power Programmes (IAEA, 2018), a deliberate attempt was made to keep the number of pages below 100. These guidelines were also reviewed by the researchers evaluating the six Asian guidelines for comparative purposes. They were able to meet all criteria with one exception – the need to review and update them in the light of new findings. However, very short guidelines are clearly struggling to meet most of our review criteria. Table 9.2 shows how well aims-related criteria of SEA guidelines are met. The two guidelines that were able to meet all/most of the outcomes and challenges criteria, Bhutan and

136  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Vietnam, are also able to fully meet all four aims-related criteria. Furthermore, Laos’ SEA guidelines were found to meet all aims. The other two guidelines fulfil aims to a lesser extent. Pakistan currently only meets the third aim (“can establish a minimum standard for SEA”), which is the only aim met fully by all guidelines. The Pakistan SEA guidelines do not go beyond basic legislative requirements, and they are not designed for any specific situation of application. Also, currently there is no obvious effort made to stimulate the advancement of quality standards within a tiered approach to SEA. These conclusions are supported by a recent review of SEA in Pakistan, which pointed to a range of challenges, of which a lack of detailed guidelines is only one (Ali et al., 2018). China also only meets the third aim. Again, the Chinese SEA guidelines do not go much beyond basic legislative requirements, are very general and are not aimed at a particular situation of application. They are very short and only explain when SEA should be applied with a very basic idea given on the possible process. Because the Thai guidelines have been based on a combination of domestic SEA practice and international experiences, they have been designed to respond to specific situations of application. It is clear that they also establish a minimum standard for SEA. However, they have not yet been formally adopted, and there is no clear legislative mandate in place. Furthermore, their recent development means that there is no evidence as yet that they are stimulating the advancement of quality standards. It will be interesting to see how the SEA systems in the six countries are going to develop in the future. Based on the quality of guidelines, Bhutan, Vietnam and Laos show great promise. However, it will be necessary to closely monitor these along with the guidelines from other countries in order to learn about the role guidelines are playing as enablers of effective SEA systems. In this context, it is not just the existence of guidelines that is important for achieving effective SEA. It will be important to also take account of the wider context, as explained in many other chapters in this book. Crucially, there is a need to review guidelines regularly, and if found deficient or outdated, adapt them in the light of new knowledge and experiences. Table 9.2

Meeting the aims of SEA guidelines

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  137

CONCLUSIONS There is no question that the introduction of SEA in developing countries has advanced considerably over the last decade. Most countries, at least in Asia, have some form of regulatory backing, and associated experience with piloting SEA studies. In this chapter, five recent guidelines (released from 2017 to 2019) were reviewed, including those from Bhutan, Vietnam, Pakistan, Laos and Thailand. Furthermore, Chinese guidelines from a decade ago were also reviewed for comparative purposes. All six countries discussed in this chapter, except Thailand, have laws that specifically require SEA for selected sectors and PPP types. All have SEA guidelines in place, and three (Bhutan, Laos and Vietnam) meet the four aims-related criteria for guidelines (Montaño and Fischer, 2019) and therefore have the potential to support effective SEA. Compared with the more recent guidelines, the Chinese version from over a decade ago scores poorly. Therefore, we suggest that there is a need to release more up-to-date and comprehensive guidelines here, in particular considering the reported shortcomings of SEA. Our results suggest that all of the more recent guidelines have the potential to effectively support SEA, if they are taken up and if SEA is appropriately conducted in practice. Whether or not this will materialize will need to be established once practice has been consolidated. It will be particularly interesting to see how SEA systems of the best performing guidelines (Bhutan, Vietnam and Laos) will fare in the future. With regard to the timing of SEA guidelines’ development, there are two options: one before SEA is introduced into a system and one afterwards. As already observed by Montaño and Fischer (2019), the former option could help to ‘kick-start’ an SEA system, whereas the latter can consolidate experiences already gained. Looking at the countries assessed in this chapter (in particular Bhutan and Thailand), it seems that introducing SEA guidelines after regulation has been developed and a selection of pilot studies has been undertaken, may be the most effective way to ensure that they are genuinely useful for proponents and regulators.

REFERENCES Ali, F., Khan, I.A., Asghar, W., Liao, Z., Beghum, S., Douven, W. and Khan, K.A. 2018. Legal status of the strategic environmental assessment, practice of application and challenges in Pakistan. International Journal of Waste Resources, 8(2), https://​www​.longdom​.org/​open​-access/​legal​-status​ -of​-the​-strategic​-environmental​-assessment​-sea​-practice​-of​-application​-and​-challenges​-in​-pakistan​ -2252​-5211​-1000341​.pdf. Annandale, D. and Brown, A.L. 2012. Bhutan: strategic environmental assessment and environmental mainstreaming. In Strategic Environmental Assessment in Development Practice: A Review of Recent Experience. OECD, https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​development/​strategic​-environmental​-assessment​ -in​-development​-practice​_9789264166745​-en. Bonde J. and Cherp, A. 2000. Quality review package for strategic environmental assessments of land-use plans, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 8(2): 99–110. Chanchitpricha, C., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Bond, A. 2019. Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4): 356–68. Chanchitpricha, C., Swangjang, K. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2021. Addressing the spectrum of strategic environmental assessment potential: evolving practice in Thailand and its effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 26).

138  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment De Montis, A., Ledda, A. and Caschili, S. 2016. Overcoming implementation barriers: a method for designing Strategic Environmental Assessment guidelines, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61: 78–87. Dusik, J., Cashmore, M.A., Kørnøv, L.and Luu Duc, C. 2013. Guidance for Integrating Climate Change Considerations into the SEA of Urban and Construction Plans in Vietnam. Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment (DCEA), Aalborg University. EC [European Commission] 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal L 197, 21/07/2001 P. 0030–0037, https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​ HTML/​?uri​=​CELEX:​32001L0042​&​from​=​EN. Fischer, T.B. 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach, London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. 2010. Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1): 62–9. Fischer, T.B. (ed.) 2014. EIA Handbook for Pakistan, IUCN, Pakistan, http://​cmsdata​.iucn​.org/​ downloads/​niap​_​_​_eia​_handbook​.pdf. Fischer, T.B. and Gazzola, P. 2006. SEA good practice elements and performance criteria – equally valid in all countries? – the case of Italy, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4): 396–409. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Montaño, M. 2014. Editorial: environmental assessment in Latin America, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 16(2): 1–5. Fischer, T.B. and Nadeem, O. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment Course Curriculum for Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan, IUCN, Pakistan, http://​cmsdata​.iucn​.org/​downloads/​niap​_​_​_eia​ _curriculum​_for​_hei​.pdf. Fischer, T.B. and Onyango, V. 2012. SEA related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Fischer, T.B., Welsch, M. and Jalal, I. 2019. Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment of nuclear power programmes: preparation process, contents and consultation feedback, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(2): 165–78. Golder Associates 2017. Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment. Main Report. Submitted to SESA Working Group. Government of Pakistan and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment Rules (Draft). Islamabad: IUCN Pakistan. ICEM 2019. TA 9204-THA Phase 2: Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Rayong Provincial Development Plan and Revision of the Draft Thai SEA Guidelines. Sustainable Development Pathway Report. Prepared for NESDC and ADB. Hanoi: ICEM. IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Power Programmes – Guidelines, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 74 pages, https://​www​.iaea​.org/​publications/​12251/​strategic​-environmental​-assessment​-for​-nuclear​-power​ -programmes​-guidelines. Iranpour, R., Zhao, Ji, Wang, A., Yang, F. and Li, X. 2012. Studies on strategic environmental assessment in China: implementation and effectiveness, Advanced Materials Research, 518–523: 518–523. Jiliberto, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 24). Lam, K.C., Chen, Y.D. and Wu, J. (2009). Strategic environmental assessment in China: opportunities, issues and challenges, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(4), 369–85, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1142/​S1464333209003415. Lao People’s Democratic Republic 2017. Decision on Strategic Environmental Assessment No. 0483/ MoNRE. 6 February. Malvestio, A.C. and Montaño, M. 2019. From medicine to poison: how flexible strategic environmental assessment may be? Lessons from a non-regulated SEA system, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(5): 437–51.

Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment in developing countries  139 Marot, N., Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Golobič, M., Muthoora, T. and González, A. 2021. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment: Edward Elgar (chapter 5). Ministry of Construction 2011. Circular No. 01/2011/TT-BXD on Guidelines for SEA for Construction/ Urban Planning Projects, Ho-Chi-Minh City. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Lao PDR 2018. Guidelines on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Vientiane. Ministry of Planning and Investment 2011. Technical Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment of Socio-Economic Development Strategies, Master Plans and Plans, Ho-Chi-Minh City. Montaño, M., Tshibangu, G.M. and Malvestio, A.C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 23). Montaño, M, and Fischer, T.B. 2019. Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(2): 97–106. NCEA [Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment] 2014. A Systems Approach to SEA Effectiveness, Utrecht: NCEA. Nielsson, M.N. and Dalkmann, H. 2001. Decision making and strategic environmental assessment, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3): 305–28. Noble, B.F. and Nwanekezie, K. 2017. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: principles, approaches and research directions, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62: 165–73. NPC 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s Congress on 28 October 2002. OECD 2006. Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment, DAC guidelines and reference series, https://​www​.oecd​.org/​environment/​environment​-development/​37353858​.pdf. Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Pastakia, F. 2012. Environmental Protection and the 18th Amendment. National Impact Assessment Programme, Islamabad. PRC [The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China] 2009. Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1037/​0003–066X​.55​.1​.34. Royal Government of Bhutan 2002. Regulation for the Environmental Clearance of Projects and Regulation on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Timphu. Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission Secretariat 2017. National Guidelines for Strategic Environmental Assessment in Bhutan, Timphu. Slunge. D. and Trang, T. H. 2014. Challenges to institutionalizing SEA: the case of Vietnam, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48: 53–61. Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2014. Law on Environmental Protection. No. 55/2014/QH13, Ho-Chi-Minh City. Thai National Subcommittee on SEA 2019. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Guidelines for Thailand, Bangkok. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4): 334–43. Wu, J., Chang, S., Bina, O., Che Lam, K. and Xu, H. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment implementation in China: five-year review and prospects, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(1): 77–84. Wu, J. and Xu, H. (2007). SEA on the 11th five-year plan for national economic and social development of Wuhan City in China, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 18(3), 340–52. Xiu-zhen, C.H.E. and Jin-cheng, S. (2004). Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable development in urbanization process in China, Chinese Geographical Science, 14(2), 148–52. Zhu, D. and Ru, J. (2008). Strategic environmental assessment in China: motivations, politics, and effectiveness, Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4): 615–26.

PART IV PRACTICE

SECTION 1 SECTORAL APPLICATIONS

10. Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans Ainhoa González

INTRODUCTION Spatial planning is represented by systematic and iterative procedures carried out to facilitate informed decision-making for regulating urban and rural land-uses, and for sustainably developing land resources that meet present and future demands (Hall, 2002; Jones et al., 2005). It entails decisions for e.g. new services, infrastructure, housing, tourism and green corridors. It is carried out at different geographical scales and decision levels: from national planning strategies with broad policy goals, through regional and county development plans with specific growth targets and land-use zonings, to detailed policy and design formulations at local or masterplan level. Spatial land-use planning choices, particularly with regard to setting policy goals and determining land suitability, are central for achieving sustainable development. And Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) presents a critical tool to mediate environmental sustainability considerations into land-use planning. Spatial planning SEAs contribute to predicting potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of plan implementation, providing an evidence-base that can better inform and improve planning policies and choices. In this way, they are part of the “wider promotion of the planning system as a tool to help deliver sustainable development” (Jones et al., 2005, p. 7).

LEGAL FRAMEWORK Spatial land-use plans, by their very nature, set a framework for future development consent of projects and are, therefore, most commonly subject to SEA. In Europe, specifically, Article 3 of the SEA Directive sets a mandatory requirement for town and country planning or land-use plans to be subject to SEA (EC, 2001). In some cases, the transposition of the European SEA Directive into member states defines specific thresholds that trigger a land-use plan SEA. In Ireland, for example, national regulations determine that SEA is required for areas with a population of more than 5,000 or where the area covered by the plan is greater than 50 square kilometres, or where the plan is being prepared for a town and its wider environs (Government of Ireland, S.I. No. 201 of 2011). In other member states (e.g. Germany and the Netherlands; see Chapters 2 and 20 by Rehhausen et al., 2021 and Koshkar et al., 2021, respectively), SEA requirements are implemented by directly referring to the EU Directive’s obligations with regard to the nature of plans (e.g. town and country planning), their potential to have significant environmental effects, and the likelihood of affecting the integrity of designated ecological sites under the Natura 2000 network (pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (EC, 1992)). 142

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  143 The inclusion of land-use planning within the scope of the legal mandate for SEA is also common worldwide. For example, in Canada, spatial planning SEA of protected areas is undertaken formally at the federal level, in response to the Cabinet Directive, and administrative bodies in the provinces and territories incorporate SEA elements when developing their land-use plans (Sadler, 2006; see also Chapter 19 by Noble, 2021). In China, the Environmental Protection Law stipulates that any development plan relating to land-utilisation must be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (they are referred to as Plan EIAs or PEIAs (Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) (Tang et al., 2007)). Other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or the USA, have also formal requirements for SEA of land-use plans (Chaker et al., 2006; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004; Fischer, 2007; Jones et al., 2005; Thérivel, 2010; see also Chapters 18 by Burdett and Cameron, 2021; 21 by Morgan and Taylor, 2021; and 22 by Retief et al., 2021).

SEA APPLICATION IN LAND-USE PLANNING Spatial land-use plans are commonly subject to periodic review (i.e. they are updated every few years). As a result, the majority of SEAs prepared globally relate to land-use planning, followed by transport, energy and water management plans. Recent European publications are illustrative of the importance of SEA in this sector. As many as 72% of the SEAs undertaken in Ireland relate to land-use planning (González et al., 2019), with even higher figures reported in Estonia (96% of SEAs between 2005 and 2015 relate to spatial planning (Peterson and Vahtrus, 2019)) or Sweden (85% of municipal plans and their thematic amendments were subject to SEA between 2010 and 2014, in contrast to 19% of the energy plans (Balfors et al., 2018). It has also been reported that the majority of SEA guidance documents relate to land-use planning (Fischer, 2007). Although there is significant variability in the application and, indeed, the performance of SEA in land-use planning worldwide, with a range of formal, informal and experimental approaches (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004; Jones et al., 2005; Noble et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2007), undeniably SEA is most extensively applied as a support tool in the preparation of land-use plans. Because of the large numbers of land-use planning SEAs, and the resulting well-embedded processes, practices and knowledge, a recent review of SEA effectiveness in Europe reveals that SEA is most effective in this sector (EC, 2018), presenting an optimum ground for examining SEA practice. The following sections explore the effects of the planning context on the procedural performance of SEA, the varying methodological frameworks and assessment detail encountered in the sector, and the range of approaches and efforts to engage stakeholders throughout the procedures. All these considerations and variability attest the need for a tailored approach to effectively embed environmental considerations into any planning decision. Contemporary practice is also illustrative of the significant contribution of SEA to participatory planning, to substantive improvements in plan-making and, ultimately, to environmental protection.

144  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

THE INFLUENCE OF PLANNING SYSTEMS ON SEA PROCEDURES It has been widely argued that the effectiveness of SEA depends critically on the context within which SEA legislation and guidelines are understood and implemented, including local planning frameworks (Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Stoeglehner et al., 2009). Different planning contexts inevitably mean different mechanisms of SEA implementation and overall performance. Varying applications and performance can be explained by differing governance conditions. Implementation and effectiveness are also affected, among other things, by fixed timelines and requisites, as well as by long-established conventional approaches in local planning systems. But, most importantly, the non-linear nature of planning decisions significantly influences SEA’s impact on the final plan. Planning decisions are commonly characterised by power struggles, compromises and negotiations. For this reason, as Bina (2008, p. 718) observes, “it is the context within which planning and assessment occur, and especially all the qualities that are commonly recognised under the framework concept of ‘good governance’ that makes the difference”.

THE ‘POLITICS’ OF LAND-USE PLANNING AND THE ‘TEETH’ OF SEA SEA is applied in complex, political decision-making processes (Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Nitz and Brown, 2001; Partidário and Arts, 2005). Spatial land-use planning is, in fact, a highly political and, often, conflicting process due to competing demands, interests and resulting environmental effects (Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Jones et al., 2005). In some cases, elected members may already have housing and infrastructure development targets and identified ‘ideal’ locations that satisfy voters’ needs and/or demands. In other cases, political interests drive decisions which may reflect uneven distributions of costs and benefits. Similarly, planners may have fixed ideas or resolute thinking, which can lead to disputes about land-uses and resources. These political contexts, standpoints and related conflicts can often affect the quality of the SEA procedure, and the impact of SEA in a plan-making process. Arguably, if planners do not take ownership of SEA, the contribution of the assessment to planning outcomes is likely to be limited. Moreover, where SEA results are not binding on decision-makers, it can even become a symbol of the inefficiency of spatial planning (Stoeglehner, 2010). A key indicator of good SEA performance is the integration of assessment findings into the plan. This integration may happen to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the ‘politics’ of planning highlighted above, but also due to SEA’s ‘teeth’. It is recognised that SEA has insufficient legal weight; it does not have enough ‘teeth’ to influence plan-making and many changes to the final version of a plan arise from political reasons rather than the SEA process (González et al., 2019; João and Annandale, 2016). In order to address this apparent weakness, there is a need to ensure ‘buy-in’ from planning authorities (João and Annandale, 2016; SEPA, 2011). Plan-makers play a significant role in determining SEA’s profile within the complex and political nature of land-use planning processes. They can be central to ensuring SEA effectiveness, by fostering proactive integration of environmental considerations in the preparation of plans and, therefore, they have the power to realise its true benefits. Ensuring that SEA adds value to the planning process will require the “development of links between

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  145 the planning and assessment processes such that planners profess, and exercise ownership of, SEA values, processes, techniques and outcomes” (Stoeglehner et al., 2009, p. 118). If undertaken appropriately, given its focus on sustainability and its participative nature, SEA represents a “model for good plan-making” (Thérivel, 2010, p. 25). And it can provide needed rigour and accountability where strategic actions are developed in highly politicized contexts (Fischer and Gazzola, 2006).

SEA ADAPTATION TO PLANNING SYSTEMS There is no one-fits-all SEA approach in land-use planning. And it should not be the case. SEA should be adapted to the political and institutional arrangements of the country to ensure it is effectively implemented and meaningfully considered within existing governance structures (Brown and Thérivel, 2000; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; see also Chapter 27 by Fischer and González, 2021b). Yet, there is an obligation to fulfil legal requirements for SEA, particularly in the context of the EU Directive (EC, 2001). In this context, it has been argued that “the SEA procedures should have obtained a uniform standard through the SEA Directive and must be set out in a similar fashion”, particularly since “likely significant environmental effects’ of the implementation of plans basically throw up similar questions throughout Europe” (Weiland, 2010, p. 216). This calls for a ‘standard-but-flexible’ (i.e. consistent but adaptable) approach when defining SEA methodologies, with the aim of normalising procedures and allowing comparative monitoring of the effectiveness of the implementation of the SEA Directive. Because land-use planning systems are typically long-established, a degree of natural SEA adaptation has happened in the implementation of mandatory SEA requirements. This is particularly the case in Europe, where the discretionary nature of the Directive with regard to, for example, how to transpose the mandatory requirement for public consultation in the member states, has resulted in varying consultation mechanisms and timelines. In the majority of cases, existing planning consultation timeframes have been adopted for SEA. This is done both to facilitate the timely integration of procedures but also to streamline processes. Planning structures also affect other SEA aspects such as the provision of information at decisional stages in the planning process and the related environmental integration at key decision windows (Dalkmann et al., 2004; Partidário, 2015). Periodicity of development plan reviews (e.g. every six years for County Development Plans and Local Area Plans in Ireland, every five years for Local Development Schemes in the UK, approximately every ten years for state and regional development plans in Germany) can also inform SEA monitoring frameworks in order to provide up-to-date information that is relevant to the next planning cycle.

PLANNING LEGACY AND SEA EFFECTIVENESS Despite the (on average) better performance of SEA in the land-use planning sector, mainly due to the greater experience within this sector (EC, 2018), current practice suggests that there is still room for improvement. One key overarching issue relates to timing. While SEA should be undertaken in parallel with plan formulation for it to be effective, planning procedures and cycles often flow unaware of the importance of integrating environmental considerations. It has been repeatedly observed that assessments tend to start too late in plan-making and, as

146  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment a result, SEA seems to be one step behind the planning process (e.g. Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Stoeglehner, 2010). This affects a number of procedural stages, such as the consideration of alternatives. Timely consideration of alternatives in SEA, and subsequently in the planning process, provides the opportunity to identify and explore ways to deliver a plan’s objectives with minimal significant environmental impacts. This means that assessment and comparison of alternatives should be undertaken on a par with plan-making. This would result in potentially better planning outcomes. Nevertheless, given that SEAs more typically than not commence late, the tardy development of alternatives renders them inconsequential (González et al., 2015). Effective consideration of alternatives is further relegated when the politics of land-use planning come into play. It can also be affected by the structure of planning systems. Spatial planning hierarchies (national, regional or local) require coordination and consistency across levels, with lower planning tiers implementing national and regional policies that are eventually materialised through development projects. Therefore, and typically, the lower the planning tier, the more rigid the scope of the plan, as it has to comply with objectives, policies and mitigation measures set at higher planning tiers which affects the extent to which SEA can influence plan-making through the consideration of alternatives. One positive influence of the planning system on SEA is the opportunity for tiering. Because of its hierarchical nature, spatial planning presents a unique setting for tiering across SEAs (i.e. from national to local assessments), as well as SEA-EIA tiering. This not only facilitates efficiency with regard to time and resources (e.g. reuse of collected baseline data, not needing to consider certain alternatives or using mitigation as a starting point in assessments at lower planning tiers), but promotes better environmental integration and, importantly, has the potential to improve project assessments and, ultimately, implementation (Nooteboom, 2000). Similarly, spatial planning provides a unique opportunity to showcase how monitoring can and should be done. The periodic land-use plan reviews provide an untapped opportunity to implement and learn from monitoring: a comparison of the previous plan’s baseline with the updated baseline data can provide invaluable information on environmental changes, which better informs both SEA and plan-making. Planning review cycles also facilitate SEA knowledge brokerage and learning amongst plan-makers, stakeholders and the general public. This enables improved understanding of environmental issues and supports capacity building that ultimately contribute to SEA enhancement throughout time and to more proactive environmental integration in subsequent plans (e.g. Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Fischer, 2007; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Runhaar, 2009).

THE ROLE OF SEA IN PARTICIPATORY PLANNING Spatial planning has a legal mandate for public consultation, providing the right framework for embedding the public participation requirements of the SEA Directive. SEA has the potential to augment planning consultation by consulting environmental authorities, promoting scoping workshops and stakeholder engagement from the onset. In doing this, SEA fulfils its aim “to expand the decision-makers’ focus to include issues that go beyond their main area of concern – sustainability and environmental issues” (Thérivel, 2010, p. 10). The fact that SEA consultation is part of a long-standing requirement for public consultation within land-use

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  147 planning results in stakeholder engagement being more efficient in land-use planning than in other sectors (González et al., 2019). Public consultation in SEA has been criticised as weak (e.g. Bonifazi et al., 2011; Rega and Baldizzone, 2015), but there has been a steady increase in stakeholder engagement and public consultation in spatial land-use planning (Hanusch et al., 2016). This is partially driven by the frequency of consultation processes within the planning system, but also fostered by plan-makers wanting to do SEA better and, therefore, allocating resources for effective consultation; and the fear of legal challenges, which is driving efforts to consult and engage with stakeholders. Participatory planning can improve both SEA and plan-making by providing new insights or alternatives, or by fostering greater ownership of a plan by the public. Even where public participation has limited influence on the SEA process or the plan, it can have wider benefits such as increased public awareness, and enhanced transparency and accountability throughout the procedures which, ultimately, promote learning and a democratisation of decision-making (Bonifazi et al., 2011).

SPATIAL PLANNING HIERARCHIES AND SEA APPROACHES Planning hierarchy typically shapes the SEA approach (Figure 10.1). High-level spatial plans (e.g. national plans) entail larger geographical areas and, thereby, broader and more complex environmental issues, and generally include strategic non-spatial policies and actions. Lower planning tiers (e.g. county and local area plans) consider smaller geographical areas and address more specific aspects, planning in detail the location of different land-uses and enabling a more spatially specific assessment of potential environmental issues. These considerations tend to affect the SEA procedure with regard to analytical frameworks, applicable methodologies, data requirements, focus of public consultation, etc.

Figure 10.1

The effects of planning hierarchy on planning detail and scope of assessment

A recent study indicates that SEA is considered most effective at planning levels where the planned measures/interventions are more defined and thus the effects are easier to anticipate and assess (EC, 2018). However, it is also recognised that SEA has the potential to be more effective at higher planning tiers as it is at that planning level where there is still ‘enough’ room for consideration of environmental (and sustainability) objectives and possible alternatives (EC, 2018; Partidário, 2015).

148  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

SEA FRAMEWORKS There are two distinct methodological SEA frameworks that have emerged in practice, as described in Chapters 1 and 2 (Fischer and González, 2021a; Rehhausen et al., 2021, respectively): policy-based (i.e. strategic) and EIA-based (i.e. operational). Policy-based SEA uses a proactive and iterative approach for actively shaping and formulating strategic initiatives (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004; Dalkmann et al., 2004; Partidário, 2012, 2015). In this approach, SEA is embedded into strategic decision-making processes and drives discussion of alternative options that better recognise environmental and sustainability priorities (Monteiro and Partidario, 2017; see also Box 10.1). Strategic SEA approaches work best where there are no pre-defined objectives, only an overall goal or vision. And in this top-down approach, alternatives can play a significant role in defining sustainable planning objectives and policies (Box 10.2) (see also Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021 for further detail).

BOX 10.1 STRATEGIC THINKING SEA OF SINTRA MUNICIPAL MASTERPLAN 2015, PORTUGAL In 2014, a strategic thinking SEA methodology for the revising the Sintra municipal masterplan of 1999 was approved. Sintra is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and one of the most relevant touristic villages in Portugal. In the revision of the masterplan, the SEA was fully aligned with the planning process. It was agreed at the outset to have a collaborative process and an active engagement of stakeholders, including the population. In an initial workshop, priorities for municipal development were agreed and its strategic focus defined. During the workshop, conflicts of interest and power struggles between political factions were apparent, but the SEA served as a discussion arena to manage different perceptions and opinions. At a second consultation phase, a public inquiry took place to incorporate considerations and understandings from those who live in the municipality and live through its dynamics. In this case, the SEA worked as an empowerment instrument and enabled the integration of a very diverse range of opinions in the planning process. The outcomes of these participative exercises led the plan-making team to redefine the strategic objectives of the masterplan in order to incorporate specific issues that were initially overlooked. The reflexive attitude of the planners, and the new results from the engagement activities, allowed important issues to be incorporated in the decisions (e.g. ecosystem services and their evaluation, and increased cultural emphasis to recognise the unique identity of Sintra), enhancing environmental considerations in the proposal. This change in strategic objectives illustrates the capacity of SEA to influence the plan development, which was only possible because the plan was still being conceived. Take-home Message: Strategic thinking SEA, with its inclusive, creative and adaptive nature, enables engaging governance in understanding the development context, integrating different perspectives, and achieving a high level of consideration of environmental and sustainable issues in the planning process. Thus, policy-based SEA approaches can support good environmental governance and advance sustainable development. Source: Monteiro and Partidario (2017).

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  149

BOX 10.2 SEA OF THE STRUCTURE VISION AMSTERDAM 2040, THE NETHERLANDS The plan sets out a spatial structure vision for the City of Amsterdam. The planning authority experimented with new forms of public involvement during the SEA of the plan. Specific stakeholders and the general public were actively sought out to partake in meetings. Their comments and wishes were translated into pillars/themes and used as the building blocks for the structure vision. These included a focus on the extension of the metropolitan core, sustainable regional transport systems, connectivity between green and blue infrastructure and public space, and climate resilience. The alternatives were formulated on the basis of the previously identified and agreed themes, with an added condition that each alternative had to accommodate the desire to build 70,000 new houses. They differed in where the bulk of urbanisation was to take place: around the current city centre, along the river waterfront (as per map insert) or in the southern flank. Based on the agreed themes, the alternatives also considered public transport locations, design of blue and green areas, and sustainable energy sources.

Figure 10.2

SEA of the structure vision Amsterdam 2040, The Netherlands

Take-home Message: Proactively engaging stakeholders and the public at early planning and SEA stages, and ongoing interaction between SEA and plan-making can provide the foundation for a joint vision that supports the development of a more sustainable and socially acceptable alternative. Source: EPA (2015).

The operational approach, which is broadly an EIA-based approach, is most widely applied in practice. Typically, it assesses alternative planning objectives and goals after they have been, at least partially, defined. It has been argued to be a reactive and rationalist approach to decision-making, which dilutes the full potential of SEA (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004; Partidário, 2015). However, if effectively carried out (even better, if undertaken in-house), it can still inform choices around most sustainable alternatives (Box 10.3), as well as provide clear information to back up a planning recommendation if challenged by decision-makers (Box 10.4).

150  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

BOX 10.3 S EA OF THE SHEPWAY CORE STRATEGY 2013, KENT, UK The Core Strategy is a 20-year plan for development in Shepway District (Kent, UK) which aims to identify, amongst other things, suitable locations for future housing. The Strategy was developed by exploring a number of tiered and correlated alternatives for accommodating future population growth. The first level of alternatives considered was ‘growth quantums’ of 850, 550, 400 and 290 dwellings per year. 400 per year was chosen on the basis that the market would not be able to bring forward the level of housing and employment associated with the higher options. Based on this choice, broad spatial approaches to accommodating growth were considered – focusing on main settlements (using an inventory of available brownfield sites) and/or additional greenfield. A combination of both was chosen to further explore brownfield/greenfield opportunities and impacts. Seven broad locations were then considered and site-specific impacts examined. Of these, three were chosen as preferred alternatives. For each of the three, different combinations of housing numbers, employment and infrastructure were considered. The SEA also considered three approaches to providing green infrastructure. The selection of the alternative brought forward into the plan was based on its capacity to meet housing needs, while mitigating environmental effects (i.e. greenfield sites outside the urban settlement were not brought into the plan), delivering urban regeneration and addressing social problems of rural isolation. Take-home Message: While a plan objective may be set and planners may have a pre-defined vision as to where development should be located, the environmental assessment process can bring a systematic approach to ruling out/recommending land-use zoning options. Source: EPA (2015).

BOX 10.4 SEA OF THE CLARE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2017–23, IRELAND The Clare County Development Plan (CDP) 2017–23 sets out the overall strategy for the planning and sustainable development within County Clare over a six-year period. The SEA of the CDP was undertaken in-house. This was crucial in the overall success of meaningfully integrating environmental considerations into the plan-making process. A strong interaction between departments resulted in positive changes to the plan. The SEA information was effectively used to inform plan-making by suggesting alternatives and mitigation, which ultimately altered the vision of plan-makers and their readiness to better reflect environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, the SEA findings and recommendations did not always transcend into decision-makers altering their vision. There was an underlying political agenda in the decision-making culture within the county, particularly with regard to the allocation of land-use zoning. As a result, there was an

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  151 instance where decision-makers did not take environmental and planning considerations on board, over-ruling them in relation to a particular site. However, following Ministerial Direction, these changes were corrected, returning the plan to its original alignment with the SEA findings and planning advice. Take-home Message: Despite the inevitable role of politics in land-use planning, there is a growing acceptance that SEA is part and parcel of the plan-making process. As a result, planners tend to be very receptive to new environmental information. Moreover, SEA often provides the ‘back-up’ information necessary to support a plan recommendation if challenged by decision-makers. Source: https://​www​.clarecoco​.ie/​services/​planning/​clare​-county​-development​-plan​-2017–2023/​.

Any SEA approach must seek a compromise that ensures the balance between the necessary flexibility to address the local decision-making framework and the coherency and responsiveness of the SEA process. In practice, this is often done by providing a methodology adjusted to existing planning requirements and time-frames that ensure comprehensive and systematic provision of relevant information – particularly at key decision stages during the plan-making process.

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND ASSESSMENT DETAIL The differing context, scope and level of detail of spatial land-use plans (i.e. from broad strategic policies to detailed zoning specifications) call for flexibility not only in SEA frameworks, but also in assessment methods applied. The level of assessment detail within a given SEA method also needs to be adjusted across planning hierarchies. Although SEA methods are often influenced by local decision-making practices and the experience of practitioners undertaking it, broadly speaking, there are a limited number commonly applied in practice (Table 10.1). Most of these are drawn from other areas of environmental management and provide both quantitative and qualitative data to the assessment. The more specific the plan, the more specific the assessment method. Where planning objectives are ambiguous (e.g. strategic non-spatial national or regional policies) or when there is lack of data (e.g. detailed health data), carrying out an SEA can be challenging. In such cases, adopting a participative approach that enables stakeholder dialogue can expand and enrich the information available to the assessment, as well as foster the inclusion of a wide range of sustainability considerations into plan- and decision-making (Azcárate and Balfors, 2009; Monteiro and Partidario, 2017). Because of their typically strategic nature, high-level plans are generally assessed using participative objectives-led expert-judgments that are often combined with matrix-based qualitative methods. Nevertheless, recent methodological developments are showing a growing reliance on geographical data across all SEAs, mainly due to their improved availability and accessibility (Boxes 10.5 and 10.6). The fact that spatial planning is intrinsically spatial and, therefore, should be informed by spatial data must not be understated. Geographic information systems (GIS) are central to examining spatial datasets and, as a result, the use of GIS as a support tool for environmental assessment and planning is receiving increased attention (Gonzalez, 2012; Hanusch et al., 2016). This

152  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment development partially addresses the claim for more systematic and quantitative methods that add rigour to assessments (Noble et al., 2012). According to European legislation, SEA is to take “into account current knowledge and methods of assessment (…) and the level of detail in the plan or programme (…) in order to avoid duplication” (Article 5.2 (EC, 2001)). Because of this, SEAs worldwide typically rely on existing available data; there is no new information gathering, as such, in most assessments. There are a number of spatial datasets collated or modelled at a national level (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, air quality) or created at small scale through national initiatives (i.e. at a low resolution covering large geographical areas, such as geology or landscape characterisation). There are also a number of relevant SEA-themes that benefit from the reporting requirements of other environmental legislation. This is the case for the Water Framework Directive or the Habitats Directive in Europe, which require regular and site-specific monitoring of the quality of water bodies and of the conservation status of habitats and species respectively. The growing availability of spatial data makes more (geographically, quantitatively and qualitatively) detailed information available for SEA. The above has implications for GIS-based SEAs, as there is better information available for some themes (e.g. water and biodiversity, flora and fauna), while other relevant data are missing (e.g. landscape sensitivity or soils capacity (González, 2017)). Also, local plans (i.e. lower planning hierarchies) render themselves to more location-specific evaluations, benefiting from GIS-based methods. However, high-resolution detailed data are often missing affecting accuracy of localised GIS-based assessments. Engaging with local experts may be thus required to gather insights that help address data availability and quality limitations. Similarly, combining GIS with modelling can address existing data gaps, as well as simulate future environmental changes and ‘what if’ scenarios and, in this way, render new insights. Other methods such as cost–benefit analysis and systems modelling are also used, but these are more common in research than in practice. In all cases, SEA and impact assessments in general benefit from adopting a multi-method approach that provides a comprehensive account of current available knowledge and thorough assessment and consideration of potential impacts (see Box 10.7).

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  153

BOX 10.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY MAPPING TO SUPPORT SEA OF LAND-USE PLANS A simple GIS-based multi-criteria overlay analysis using publicly available SEA-relevant data forms the basis of an online decision support tool developed in Ireland.1 The premise behind the tool is that the higher the natural or acquired sensitivity of the receiving environment, the less capable it is of coping with human-induced change. The tool enables a rapid and replicable spatial examination of plan-specific environmental sensitivities and potential for land-use conflicts. It does this by allowing the user to select the assessment criteria and incorporate any user-defined weights to these, in order to capture public concerns. The output maps (see example for County Clare development plan, in south-west Ireland) provide a critical starting-point for sectoral planning discussions. Moreover, they provide spatially specific information for developing plan/programme alternatives that avoid or minimise potentially incompatible or unsustainable zonings, helping steer development to suitable locations. They promote consistency and transparency in impact assessment, and support informed planning decisions.

Figure 10.3

Environmental sensitivity mapping to support SEA of land-use plans

Take-home Message: A systematic and participative foundational analysis of the receiving environment's capacity to absorb development, and hence to cope with potential impacts, can benefit SEA. This sensitivity mapping, in particular, enables transparent and comparable exploration of the environmental features and attributes that may make an area inherently susceptible or resilient to changes from plan/programme implementation. Source: González (2017).



1

See www​.enviromap​.ie.

154  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 10.1

Common methods in Strategic Environmental Assessment of spatial land-use plans

Technique

Benefits

Constraints

Participative approaches

Easy to implement through consultation (e.g. round tables, focused workshops, etc.). Expert judgments and information readily available where detailed data are not available. Applicable to all SEA stages.

There is a degree of subjectivity, mostly Qualitative related to the scientific background and standpoints of those involved in the assessment. Fail to address spatio-temporal dimensions common to environmental and planning issues.

Common

Matrices

Most widely applied. Allow easy identification of conflicts and trade-off between plans and environmental objectives.

There is a degree of subjectivity and Qualitative they are mostly prepared based on expert opinion and qualifiers. Fail to address spatio-temporal dimensions common to environmental and planning issues.

Common

Multi-criteria analysis

Allow systematic consideration of multiple variables and opinions. Enables exploring trade-offs.

There is a degree of complexity in some of Qualitative and the methods applied (some more common quantitative than others, e.g. AHP). Fail to address spatial dimension common to environmental and planning issues. Mostly applicable at scoping and impact assessment stages.

Common

GIS mapping and overlays

Enable identifying of spatial and temporal variability amongst impacts. Enhanced information delivery through visual and geographically specific outputs. Applicable to all SEA stages.

Data availability and accessibility Qualitative and limitations. quantitative Data quality (e.g. scale, completeness and currency) affecting assessment outputs. Difficulties in appraising non-spatial policies.

Common

Modelling

Allows exploring future and ‘what if’ scenarios. Enables filling data gaps through simulation and interpolation, and addressing uncertainties.

High demand on data and technical skills. Quantitative Time and resource intensive. Complexity of models, lack of data and modelling assumptions can affect model outputs and accountability.

Rare

Risk assessment Ability to deal with unplanned incidents. Possibility to undertake it qualitatively where quantitative data not available.

Expertise requirements. Inability to deal with uncertainties not uncommon in SEA (more suitable at EIA level).

Quantitative and qualitative

Rare

Systems Enables capturing all interactions modelling (e.g. (e.g. between plan/programme DPSIR) actions and environmental resources) and inter-relationships between factors.

Time and resource intensive (e.g. large volumes of detailed data are commonly required). Mostly applicable at impact assessment stage.

Quantitative

Rare

Cost–benefit analysis

Difficulties in monetising certain impacts Quantitative due to lack of understanding or knowledge, and to changing public and economic values. Mostly applicable at impact assessment stage.

Rare

Places monetary value on potential impacts, which is supported by natural capital valuation and ecosystem services considerations.

Type of Data

Application

Notes: AHP: Analytical Hierarchical Process is a multi-criteria analysis method that enables integration and examination of competing views. DPSIR: Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response is a systems modelling approach that itemises the elements effecting environmental change. Source: Adapted from Noble et al. (2012).

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  155

BOX 10.6 INTEGRATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT INTO SEA OF LAND-USE PLANS A method has been developed to predict the effects of land-use decisions on ecosystem services as part of SEA in order to inform spatial planning. The method uses modelling tools to assess and explore the effects of land-use scenarios on the provision of the selected ecosystem services (see sample maps for one of two of the scenarios for the Araucanía region in Chile below). A set of metrics enables comparing the results of the land-use scenarios and trade-offs in the provision of different ecosystem services.

Figure 10.4

Integrating ecosystem services assessment into SEA of land-use plans

Take-home Message: Systematic analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs associated with planning choices can enhance SEA of spatial plans. Comparison of alternative land-use zoning policies and their potential effects provides valuable information to the assessment process by unveiling what could happen, which ultimately informs spatial planning by narrowing the scope of potential decisions. Source: Geneletti (2013).

Spatial decision support tools are increasingly available (as per the examples in Boxes 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8). However, many such advancements are undertaken in research settings and, as a result, their practical implementation remains limited. This is mainly due to a number of bottlenecks relating to a general lack of awareness of the availability of these tools, but also a lack of experience using them, which leads to potential users being unaware of the benefits of applying them (Vonk et al., 2005). In all cases, application of systematic and user-friendly approaches, entailing one or various methods that enable consideration of multiple environmental issues and exploration of possible future scenarios, can be of significant benefit to SEA (Bragagnolo and Geneletti, 2013; González, 2012, 2017) and, by extension, to land-use planning.

156  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

BOX 10.7 SEA OF THE SHANNON INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK PLAN, IRELAND The Shannon Integrated Framework Plan (SIFP) is a land and marine framework plan to guide the future development and management of the Shannon Estuary. The SEA aimed to identify environmentally robust onshore and offshore strategic sites for future development (industry, housing, infrastructure, etc.). Approximately 100 sites were considered, which were subsequently reduced to 21 strategic sites informed by the assessment.

Figure 10.5

SEA of the Shannon integrated framework plan, Ireland

Preferred development types were then identified for each of the 21 sites in consultation with local stakeholders. These development types were assessed against the sensitivities of the receiving environment (e.g. bird sites, dolphin sightings), using mapping and a multi-criteria assessment and scoring approach as illustrated below. Impact significance and the need for mitigation for each of the environmental receptors in each site were accordingly identified, supported by scientific commentary. Cumulative effects across the estuary from the various development types at various locations were also examined.

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  157

Figure 10.6

SEA of the Shannon integrated framework plan, Ireland

Take-home Message: A multi-method approach to the assessment that combines quantitative and qualitative data, can facilitate a more comprehensive account of potential impacts. This is particularly relevant where data gaps and uncertainties exist, as it makes all possible considerations available to decision-makers. Source: http://​www​.shannonestuarysifp​.ie/​resources.

158  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Spatial land-use plans involve a wide range of decisions, spanning a wide range of areas: from where to concentrate economic growth to how to transition to a low carbon society; from measures to enhance connectivity to measures to improve access to education or healthcare; from where to develop new housing to where to plant trees. All these decisions can have positive or negative, direct or indirect, and, indeed, cumulative effects on one or various natural resources and associated ecosystem services. And because of the range of potential interventions and the geographical scope of spatial plans, cumulative effects assessment is particularly relevant in land-use planning. Although it has been argued that SEA provides a better framework for assessing cumulative effects, there is limited empirical research in this area, and the literature available suggests that there is significant room for improvement (e.g. Bidstrup et al., 2016; Gunn and Noble, 2011). Approaches to effects aggregation vary widely, and mostly focus on either the cumulative stress posed by the collective implementation of plans or individual developments (i.e. stressors) or on the cumulative stress on and the capacity of the receiving environment (i.e. receptors). A systems perspective is commonly missing when assessing cumulative effects (González, 2017; Gunn and Noble, 2011). This is, among other things, because a system’s interactions and adaptive capacity are complex and often difficult to measure, clouding assessments with uncertainties. However, experimental attempts have been made to advance cumulative effects assessment in spatial planning (e.g. Box 10.8). Arguably, an approach that combines plan implementation scenarios, computes accumulated environmental change (across a series of relevant indicators) for each scenario, and considers these in light of the overall (or cumulative) intrinsic sensitivity of the receiving environment, can provide a robust framework for better consideration of cumulative effects not only in spatial land-use planning, but in any other SEA-relevant sector. Rather than making exact predictions, the goal of such an approach should be to provide an array of possible futures and potential impacts to help dealing with uncertainty (Bragagnolo and Geneletti, 2013).

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  159

BOX 10.8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT IN THE LOMBARDIA REGION, ITALY

Figure 10.7

Cumulative effects assessment in the Lombardia Region, Italy

A cumulative effects assessment method was used to compare the environmental performance of land-use transformations in a peri-urban region of Milan. The method examines changes in a core set of spatially explicit environmental indicators for alternative scenarios; these are developed by simulating the implementation of zoning options under different futures. The core set of indicators relate to surface run-off and thermal emissivity, evapotranspiration and landscape fragmentation (see sample output map for one of the scenarios). Their combined consideration enables analysis of the cumulative consequences of multiple decisions. The indicators can (and should) be expanded to incorporate other SEA-relevant environmental considerations, and the method is transferable across regions. It enables systematic anticipation of environmental consequences deriving from different levels of implementation of spatial and sectoral decisions. This, in turn, facilitates consideration of uncertainties to support SEA for spatial planning Take-home Message: Adopting a systematic approach to examining possible futures with regards to the ‘on-the-ground’ implementation of spatial plans provides insights that can improve decision-makers’ understanding of how future land-uses will be influenced by different decisions, and the environmental consequences of such land-use changes. Source: Bragagnolo and Geneletti (2013).

160  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS SEA has been most extensively applied internationally to the spatial land-use planning sector. Because of this, this sector represents an optimum ground for examining SEA practice and, to a certain extent, its evolution. For example, initial SEAs were mostly EIA-based, a legacy of previous impact assessment experience. These were often carried out using matrix-based expert judgments, and were contested on the grounds that such approaches defeated SEA’s very purpose. This led to new forms of SEA (e.g. strategic) and more systematic approaches (e.g. GIS), which are widely applied in current practice. The growing knowledge base is also augmenting the information available both for defining the baseline and for assessing potential effects of land-use plan scenarios. Similarly, SEA procedures in land-use plans are moving away from ‘ghost’ alternatives (where planners thought they knew what they were doing and SEA was just an afterthought) to their proactive consideration, which substantially improves planning options and final decisions. The accumulated SEA experience in the sector has resulted in increased environmental awareness amongst plan-makers, leading to better SEA integration into plan-making, and plan-makers wanting to do SEA better. Spatial land-use plans present a unique opportunity to address current monitoring limitations (e.g. changes in the SEA baseline between plan reviews can unveil trends and better inform subsequent plans). They also provide an instrumental framework to facilitate and continue to improve participatory planning. And because of the range of interventions, issues and complexities, they represent an ideal ground for trialling and refining (cumulative) impact assessment methods. While the extent to which different land-use planning decisions will cope with their environmental consequences and broader future changes remains uncertain. Nevertheless, given the important role that SEA plays in spatial planning, the sector provides invaluable opportunities to learn and advance practice.

REFERENCES Acharibasam, J.B. and Noble, B.F. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(3): 177–87. Azcárate, J. and Balfors, B. 2009. Participative SEA approach for data collection and objective formulation. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(2): 189–211. Balfors, B., Wallström, J., Lundberg, K., Söderqvist, T., Hörnberg, C. and Högström, J. 2018. Strategic environmental assessment in Swedish municipal planning: trends and challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 73: 152–63. Bidstrup, M., Kørnøv, L. and Partidário, M.R. 2016. Cumulative effects in strategic environmental assessment: the influence of plan boundaries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 57: 151–8. Bina, O. 2008. Context and systems: thinking more broadly about effectiveness in strategic environmental assessment in China. Environmental Management, 42: 717–33. Bonifazi, A., Rega, C. and Gazzola, P. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment and the democratisation of spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(1): 9–37. Bragagnolo, C. and Geneletti, D. 2013. Dealing with land use decisions in uncertain contexts: a method to support Strategic Environmental Assessment of spatial plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57: 50–77. Brown, A.L. and Thérivel, R. 2000. Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodology. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3): 183–9.

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  161 Burdett, T. and Cameron, C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 18). Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L. and Hatjain, B. 2006. A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1): 15–56. Dalal-Clayton, D.B. and Sadler, B. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide on International Experience. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. Available at https://​pubs​.iied​.org/​pdfs/​G02193​.pdf. Dalkmann, H., Herrera, R.J. and Bongardt, D. 2004. Analytical strategic environmental assessment (ANSEA) developing a new approach to SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24: 385–402. EC [European Commission] 1992. Directive 92/43/EEC, of the 21st May, on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora. Brussels: European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union, L206/7, 22.7.1992. EC [European Commission] 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. Brussels: European Commission. Official Journal of the European Union, L197/30, 21.7.2001. EC [European Commission] 2018. Study to Support the REFIT Evaluation of Directive 2001/42/EC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment (SEA Directive). Emerging findings for the SEA evaluation workshop, 6 December 2018, Brussels: European Commission. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] 2015. Developing and assessing alternatives in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Prepared by A. González, R. Thérivel, J. Fry and W. Foley for the Environmental Protection Agency: Ireland. Available at http://​www​.epa​.ie/​pubs/​advice/​ea/​SEA​ -Alternatives​-157​-Published​_web​.pdf. Fischer, T.B. 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. and Gazzola, P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria—equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4): 396–409. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021a. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021b. Towards the development of a strategic environmental assessment theory, in: Fischer, T.B. and Gonzalez, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 27). Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1): 15–24. Geneletti, D. 2013. Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40: 25–35. González, A. 2012. GIS in environmental assessment: a review of current issues and future needs. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14: 1–23. González, A. 2017. Mapping environmental sensitivity: a systematic online approach to support environmental assessment and planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66: 86–98. González, A., Bullock, C., Gaughran, A. and Watkin-Bourne, K. 2019. Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4): 233–43. González, A., Thérivel, R., Fry, J. and Foley, W. 2015. Advancing practice relating to SEA alternatives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 53: 52–63. Government of Ireland. 2011. Statutory Instrument S.I. No. 201/2011 – Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011. Available at http://​ www​ .irishstatutebook​.ie/​eli/​2011/​si/​201/​made/​en/​print. Gunn, J. and Noble, B. 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2): 154–60. Hall, P. 2002. Urban and Regional Planning, 4th edn. London: Routledge. Hanusch, M., Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Geneletti, D., Hrabar, M., Jurkeviciute, A. and Gardner, R. 2016. Sector-specific SEA: are we getting it right? In B. Sadler and J. Dusík (eds), European and

162  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, pp. 202–24. Abingdon: Routledge. João, E. and Annandale, D. 2016. SEA procedures and methods: the importance of baseline, political and pragmatic contexts, in: B. Sadler and J. Dusík, (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, pp. 225–43. Abingdon: Routledge. Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. and Wood, C. (eds) 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: An International Evaluation. London: Earthscan. Kørnøv, L. and Thissen, W.A.H. 2000. Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3): 191–200. Koshkar, S., Uttam, K., Balfors, B., Hörnberg, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Towards advancing strategic environmental assessment practice: learning from experiences of eight European countries, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, (chapter 20). Monteiro, M.B. and Partidário, M.R. 2017. Governance in Strategic Environmental Assessment: lessons from the Portuguese practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 125–38. Morgan, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 21). Nitz, T. and Brown, A.L. 2001. SEA must learn how policy-making works. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3): 329–42. Noble, B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Canada, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 19). Noble, B., Gibson, R., White, L., Blakley, J., Croal, P., Nwanekezie, K. and Doelle, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4), 344–55. Noble, B., Gunn, J. and Martin, J. 2012. Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(3): 139–47. Nooteboom, S. 2000. Environmental assessments of strategic decisions and project decisions: interactions and benefits. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2): 151–60. Partidário, M.R. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide: A Methodological Guidance for Strategic Thinking in SEA. Amadora: APA and REN. Available at http://​ec​.europa​.eu/​ environment/​eia/​pdf/​2012​%20SEA​_Guidance​_Portugal​.pdf. Partidário, M.R. 2015. A strategic advocacy role in SEA for sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17(1), 1550015 (8 pages). Partidário, M.R. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Partidário, M.R. and Arts, J. 2005. Exploring the concept of SEA follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3): 246–57. Peterson, K. and Vahtrus, S. 2019. Factors affecting SEA effectiveness in Estonia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4): 210–18. Rega, C. and Baldizzone, G. 2015. Public participation in Strategic Environmental Assessment: a practitioners’ perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50: 105–15. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Retief, F., Steenkamp, C. and Alberts, R. 2020. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa: ‘The road not taken’, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 22). Runhaar, H. 2009. Putting SEA in context: a discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29: 200–209. Sadler, B. 2006. Canada, in: C. Jones, M. Baker, J. Carter, S. Jay, M. Short and C. Wood (eds), Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: An International Evaluation [eBook]. SEPA [Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 2011. The Scottish Strategic Environmental Assessment Review. Stirling: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Available at https://​www​

Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans  163 .webarchive​.org​.uk/​wayback/​archive/​20180516104523mp​_/​http://​www​.gov​.scot/​Resource/​Doc/​921/​ 0119892​.pdf. Stoeglehner, G. 2010. Enhancing SEA effectiveness: lessons learnt from Austrian experiences in spatial planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(3): 217–31. Stoeglehner, G., Brown, A.L. and Kørnøv, L.B. 2009. SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2): 111–20. Tang, T., Zhu, T. and Xu, H. 2007. Integrating environment into land-use planning through strategic environmental assessment in China: towards legal frameworks and operational procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(3): 243–65. Thérivel, R. 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, 2nd edn. London: Routledge, Earthscan [eBook]. Vonk, G., Geertman, S. and Schot, P. 2005. Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environmental Planning A, 37: 909–24. Weiland, U. 2010. Strategic environmental assessment in Germany: practice and open questions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30: 211–17.

11. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning Charlotta Faith-Ell and Thomas B. Fischer

INTRODUCTION Transport planning is changing throughout the world. Whilst it is still fulfilling its traditional role in (uni-modal) planning for and providing society with specific types of infrastructures (mainly road and rail), in many countries transport planning is increasingly also acting as a facilitator for change towards sustainable development at national, regional, local and community levels, in particular through shifts towards a consideration of multi-modal solutions. This involves e.g. aiming at giving preference to walking and cycling as well as public transport over individual road-based motorised transport. Furthermore, automatisation and digitalisation of planning processes and self-driving vehicles are likely to dramatically change transport planning (Council of the European Union, 2017; Lithman, 2020). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can potentially play a key role in assessing associated impacts (Dusik et al., 2018). The UN 2030 Agenda makes explicit reference to the development and operation of transport planning in its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Here, SD 9.1 talks about the necessity to develop ‘sustainable and resilient [transport] infrastructure […] with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all’. Furthermore, SDG 11.2 states that ‘by 2020, [we should] provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons’. These statements support the transformation of transport planning from a simple project implementation tool of different transport modes to a policy instrument for the implementation of sustainability policies, including those that are climate change related. The role of SEA in transport planning has changed over the years. The 1980s and 1990s saw some widespread experimentation with transport policies and plans that came with integrated assessments of environmental impacts of different policy options in countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Sweden and Belgium (see e.g. Brokking et al., 2004; Fischer, 1999; Kaljonen, 2000). These fulfilled many important SEA objectives and elements and were aimed at managing transport rather than just meeting perceived demands. However, these progressive attempts subsequently mostly disappeared post-2000 (Fischer, 2004). In the early 2000s the main role of SEA in transport planning was observed to be mainly on assessing different infrastructure development initiatives at local, regional and national levels, helping to determine overall transport aims and assessing cumulative effects of parallel developments (see Malvestio et al., 2018; Wende et al., 2004). In Europe, when SEA became a formal requirement in 2004 through the SEA Directive, in most EU member states, transport planning SEAs had a lot of similarities with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Fischer, 2006). For many years this remained largely unchanged and only recently has the role of SEA started 164

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  165 to change, shifting towards attempts to integrate wider sustainability issues from e.g. the SDGs (Fischer, 2006).

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND SEA: CONCEPTUAL OBSERVATIONS In order to be able to apply SEA effectively in transport planning, it is important to have a good understanding of what transport decisions are made when, where, for what purpose and by whom. Associated key features have been said to include (Fischer et al., 2010): ●● the organisation of and responsibilities for different transport modes (administrative units at e.g. national, regional and local levels); ●● the systematic decision tier (policies, plans, programmes, projects); ●● stakeholders involved in transport planning (e.g. passenger and freight associations, professions, investors and the public); ●● time horizons (from long to short); and ●● formal requirements (e.g. laws and guidelines). Transport planning consists of a cyclical policy process and of a process for the development and implementation of transport infrastructure/public transport measures. Its cyclical nature means that, in most countries, planning processes rarely start from scratch. Instead, decisions made in previous planning cycles or by other planning parties influence a specific initiative (Malvestio et al., 2018). Furthermore, strategic planning initiatives in the transport sector often contain both, strategy/policy elements as well as more concrete implementation and spatial elements (Fischer, 2004), therefore combining the two main SEA approaches (see Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021). The tiered nature of transport planning means that there are links between strategic planning initiatives/decisions at different administrative levels and local development projects. Linking of initiatives means that several players are involved in defining the agenda for transport planning, such as regions, municipalities and businesses. This can result in some very complex processes. Figures 11.1a and 11.1b provide an example of what the complex nature of transport planning typically looks like in practice, giving a schematic overview of the Swedish formal transport infrastructure planning process and the integration of SEA. Important authorities and other players, as well as plans, policies and other decisions at supranational, national, regional and local levels of decision-making are depicted. This shows binding as well as non-binding relationships between different plans/policies/other decisions, some of which involve SEA (national transport plan, regional transport plans, and municipal comprehensive and detailed plans), whilst others do not (national environmental quality goals, regional development strategies, traffic strategies, and plans as well as area regulations and building permits). There are also some plans that are subject to project EIA (corridor feasibility studies and detailed plans, as well as water permits). In the mid-1990s, a similar review was conducted for those policies, plans and programmes that were of importance for transport planning and environmental assessment in three European regions; North-West England in the UK, Noord-Holland in the Netherlands and Brandenburg-Berlin in Germany. Here, very similar complexities were identified. These complexities are not just present in developed countries, as was shown for Brazil (Malvestio et al., 2018), where 21 transport policies, plans and programmes, prepared at national, provincial and local levels were found to be relevant for the city of Sao Paulo.

166  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Figure 11.1a Schematic overview of the Swedish formal decision-making process of transport infrastructure based on the agencies, plans and decisions that play a central role in the process Source: Adapted from Smidfeldt-Rosqvist and Wennberg (2012).

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  167

Figure 11.1b Schematic overview of the Swedish formal decision-making process of transport infrastructure based on the agencies, plans and decisions that play a central role in the process Source: Adapted from Smidfeldt-Rosqvist and Wennberg (2012).

168  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

TIERED APPROACH TO SEA AND EIA IN TRANSPORT PLANNING A tiered approach to SEA and EIA was first discussed by Lee and Wood (1978). Subsequently, evidence for the existence of policies, plans and programmes that include assessments of environmental impacts, representing a tiered system, was identified by Fischer (1999) for the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. Based on further observations, a systems-based SEA framework was subsequently designed, in which the focus of assessment was based on the Table 11.1

Focus of and tasks for SEA as well as types of impacts to be considered and the role of different administrative levels in a systematically tiered SEA framework

Source: Fischer (2006, p. 189).

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  169 different tiers of decision making (types of alternatives to be covered, tasks for the assessment, types of impacts to be considered and potential roles of different administrative levels) (Fischer, 2006). This is shown in Table 11.1. This framework was recently adopted within transport SEA guidelines by the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (Bundesminisiterium für Verkehr, 2018). Awareness of the complexities of transport planning and of an associated perceived slow speed of planning consent procedures and decisions has led to many countries attempting to streamline transport planning. In the Netherlands, an associated initiative was called ‘Faster and better’ (Sneller en beter) (see e.g. Eleverding Commissie Versneling Besluitvorming Infrastructurele Projecten, 2008). Furthermore, in e.g. Germany and Switzerland, laws for faster transport development consent processes were released as early as 19911 and 1998,2 respectively, and in the UK, a specific approach is applied to what are called Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), following the Planning Act of 2008, which was introduced to streamline the decision-making process for major infrastructure projects. Due to the existence of a multitude of policies, plans and programmes in transport planning, it is usually not possible to identify one single SEA process that would be sufficient to cover all important strategic questions (including coverage of all essential alternatives). This is similar to what has been observed and described in various other sectors, including e.g. spatial planning (Barker and Fischer, 2003) and energy planning (Fischer et al., 2019; Marshall and Fischer, 2006). An important observation of those studies looking into transport systems of various countries is that whilst various elements of a tiered framework are represented in many of those systems, there are gaps literally in every system, with certain tiers missing. This means that certain important tasks remain unaddressed or are not addressed where, from a systems point of view, they should be addressed (Fischer, 2007).

SHAPING AND ASSESSING TRANSPORT PLANS AND POLICIES: RECENT EXAMPLES FROM SWEDEN AND ESTONIA When the transport planners in the County of Dalarna in Sweden were asked to describe their regional transport policy, they put an emphasis on words such as corridors, alignments and infrastructure measures (Levin et al., 2016). Their perception of transport policy, therefore, was one of a conglomerate of individual infrastructure projects rather than that of a standalone policy which aims at developing responses to mobility challenges and land-use development in the county. This perception does not appear to be an exception, but rather the rule, not just in Sweden, but internationally, as experiences with national transport plans in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden and Brazil show (Fischer, 1999; Jansson, 2000; Malvestio et al., 2018). Whilst there are examples of genuine strategic approaches to transport policies and plans and associated assessments, in particular from the 1990s, as was shown by Fischer (2004) for e.g. the city regions of Amsterdam, Berlin, Hamburg and Liverpool (Merseyside), these tended to have similar issues with regard to insufficient linkages with implementation 1 Verkehswegeplanungsbeschleunigungsgesetz; see https://​www​.gesetze​-im​-internet​.de/​verkpbg/​ BJNR021740991​.html. 2 Bundesgesetz über die Koordination und Vereinfachung der Plangenehmigungsverfahren; see https://​www​.admin​.ch/​opc/​de/​federal​-gazette/​1998/​2591​.pdf.

170  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment plans and programmes. Clear tiering between different levels, therefore, should be a priority in transport planning. In this context, SEA can assist and steer the shaping of the plan or policy through the development of aims, objectives and appropriate options/alternatives, and therefore through the integration of environmental considerations in the planning process. In Sweden, the transport planning system was consolidated and revised in 2013, conglomerating the various planning phases into one single process (Swedish Transport Infrastructure Committee, 2010). This has led to SEA being carried out for national and regional transport policies while projects, regardless of their size, are assessed according to the EIA Directive. Voluntary SEA has been introduced in corridor planning (e.g. the Swedish High-Speed Rail (HSR)) system introduced below). This makes Swedish practice different from many other countries, for example the Netherlands, where big infrastructure projects have been approached with a strategic approach since the 1990s through EIA. Also, here so-called ‘big project SEA’ can replace the need for any further EIA. Examples include e.g. the development of Amsterdam Schiphol airport and surrounding areas, and Amsterdam city extension Nieuw Oost (Fischer, 2002). Acting in the same spirit, in the Estonian HSR project called Rail Baltic, the Estonian transport ministry decided to carry out the SEA and EIA processes in parallel in the hope of reaching the finishing line faster (Figure 11.2). An important implication of this particular approach is that preferred alternatives cannot be developed through SEA, but that the same alternatives have to be considered in both processes, which is, however, contrary to SEA and EIA conceptual thinking (Fischer, 2006). Also, a recent review found that this approach might not have been as effective as was hoped (Faith-Ell et al., 2020). Thus, due to the complexity of the HSR planning system in Estonia, some of the early decisions in the rail plan had to be revised due to later results of the SEA at the County level. In this context, and with hindsight, the planning officers stated that if they were going to set up the planning scheme now, they would be more patient and wait to initiate the plan until the results of the SEA were available (Faith-Ell et al., 2020).

Figure 11.2

The planning processes of Rail Baltic Estonia

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  171 An example of how two spatial scales can be combined in one SEA is provided by the Saaremaa Fixed Link in Estonia (connecting Estonia’s biggest island with the mainland). This is a combined transport policy (strategic level) and plan (detailed level; see Figure 11.3). Problems arising for the associated SEA included the existence of different aims at policy and plan levels. Furthermore, there was no clear distinction between strategic choices and spatial alternatives. This meant that much of the initial focus was spent on specific solutions (bridge or tunnel), resulting in detailed discussions on impacts on specific topics (commissioning of several detailed studies) rather than a discussion on what problems a fixed link between the mainland and Saaremaa could actually solve.

Figure 11.3

The two spatial scales of the Saaremaa Fixed Link transport strategy

Source: Adapted from Maanteeamet (2011).

AIMS AND STRATEGIC CHOICES It is not difficult to get very excited about realising linear infrastructure objects in transport planning. This does not just apply to planners, but to others, too, including e.g. politicians as well as (parts of) the general public. However, jumping straight into a solution, preferred by some vocal advocates, to a perceived problem, without considering and assessing different options, may mean that the chosen solution is not the best way to tackle the problem. It may even be a poor way to do so. In this context, an important role of SEA is to assist in the formulation of a clear aim for a strategy or plan to start with, in particular as strategic choices or alternatives can only be assessed in the presence of an aim. At the same time, it is important to recognise that all relevant strategic choices or alternatives should be developed through the SEA process. In this context, the initial key question needs to be ‘what problem is it that we need to solve’? The HSR system of Sweden provides a good example for the implications of the cyclical nature of transport planning on the aim of a policy or plan. HSR in Sweden has now been

172  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment discussed for two decades. Most of the time, discourse focused on individual projects (which would be subject to EIA) rather than the overall HSR system. As a consequence, there were several aims rather than one overall for HSR in Sweden until 2015, varying across individual projects. In 2015, Sweden initiated two parallel rail corridor studies (Linköping–Borås and Jönköping–Malmö; see Figure 11.4).3 The length of each rail corridor was about 220–250 km and both studies were subject to a ‘voluntary’ SEA. During the initial phases of both SEAs, the aims of the two were discussed. These two corridor studies constitute the main part of the Swedish HSR system and an initial concern was that that there was no overall aim for the system and a common aim was developed for both corridors. As a result, in 2016, the National Transport Administration decided to also use that aim for the whole HSR system. However, this is problematic, as this is a corridor SEA aim, not an HSR systems aim. A problem subsequently arising was that the main focus was on the question ‘what’ rather than ‘why’ (which is the most important question to ask at the systems level, including ‘why do we need an HSR system in Sweden?’; see Table 11.1). Acknowledging this problem, the Transport Administration started a process of developing an overall HSR system aim which was agreed on 4 December 2019, together with goals and targets (Faith-Ell and Ericson, 2019). The process included various stakeholders, such as regions and municipalities. This example shows that a particular strength of SEA is the identification of shortcomings and gaps. Furthermore, it helps in developing options for how to address them. Figure 11.5 shows the evolution of the aim of the HSR system in Sweden over time.

Figure 11.4

Map of the different parts of the HSR system of Sweden

Note: The marked parts constitute the Strategic Choice of Measures studies between Linköping and Borås, and Jönköping and Malmö.

An intermodal voluntary corridor study pilot, including an assessment of impacts, had already been conducted for assessing improving Jönköping–Gothenburg connectivity in the second half of the 1990s (Fischer and Nadeem, 2014). 3

The evolution of the aim of the HSR system in Sweden over time

Source: After Faith-Ell and Ericson (2019).

Figure 11.5

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  173

174  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Another case showing benefits of SEA is the (above introduced) Saaremaa Fixed Link transport strategy (Maanteeamet, 2011). In this case, the main aim was to improve the connectivity of the island of Saaremaa with mainland Estonia. Currently, there is only a ferry connection. The planning team went straight into considering solutions revolving around construction of a bridge or a tunnel. However, based on the aim of the underlying transport strategy (to reduce the population decline in Saare County through improved accessibility to the mainland), the SEA team identified two main options at the initial strategic phase: a slow connection (the existing ferry) and a fast connection (not focusing, yet, on any particular type of project; see Figure 11.6).

Figure 11.6

Example of the relationship between aim, strategic choices and alternatives in the SEA of the Saaremaa Fixed Link transport policy

Subsequently, three strategic choices were identified based on the two main options, including (a) the existing ferry connection; (b) improved ferry services; and (c) the construction of a fixed link. These three strategic choices answered the question ‘why’ at the policy level (corresponding to the ‘vision and policy’ level in Table 11.1). Thereafter, the SEA assessed the impacts of those three alternatives, answering the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’ (corresponding to ‘corridor plans’ in Table 11.1). The differences in characteristics between strategic choices and alternatives meant that two different types of assessments had to be carried out (one for the underlying policy with two main options, and one for the plan with three main alternatives). Strategic choices and alternatives vary, depending on whether it is a policy or a (network or corridor) plan that is being assessed (as laid out in Table 11.1). At the policy level, alternatives include combinations of policy measures, for example, traffic safety measures and strategic scenarios, such as climate scenarios. These are compared with business as usual and trend scenarios. One example is the Swedish National Transport Plan 2018–29 (Trafikverket, 2016). In the planning process, four scenarios were developed by the Swedish Transport Administration aimed at reducing CO2 until 2030 by 60% or 80% compared with 2010. Four scenarios (that can be considered strategic choices) were devised (Table 11.2). These included policy measures that would be needed in order to achieve CO2 reduction goals. The reason for choosing

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  175 the four scenarios was to reflect on uncertainties with regard to future development. Measures included in scenarios were energy efficiency electrification and a significant increase in use of bio fuel as well as changes in land-use planning. In the assessment of the four scenarios, the Transport Administration was able to show impacts on climate (carbon emissions), costs, the wider environment and on Sweden’s population of the different strategic choices. The conclusion was that a reduction of CO2 by 80% was too expensive. Therefore, associated strategic alternatives revolved around the 60% scenario. However, the SEA also showed that those choices would not lead to meeting national climate change goals for 2030. Table 11.2

Climate scenarios in the Swedish National Transport Plan 2018–29 Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

60%

80%

80%

80%

Question to be

Can we reach the target of

Can we reach the target

Can we reach the target

Can we reach the target

addressed

a 60% reduction through

of 80% reduction through

of 80% reduction without

of 80% reduction without

technical measures [aiming technical measures [aiming a large amount of bio fuel

a large amount of bio fuel

Reduction goal of CO2 by 2030

Strategic choice

at energy efficiency] and

at energy efficiency] and

[which in this scenario is

[which in this scenario is

cheap bio fuel?

a large-scale shift to cheap

assumed to be expensive]

assumed to be expensive]

bio fuel?

through large changes

or large infrastructure

in land use structure

investments and instead

with large infrastructure

accept less passenger and

investments [especially in

freight transport than in

rail] in order to maintain

the baseline prognosis?

a high accessibility? No large additional changes No large additional changes Technical measures [aiming Technical measures in transport infrastructure

in transport infrastructure

at energy efficiency] are

are included in the scenario. are included in the scenario. included in this scenario.

[aiming at energy efficiency] are included in this scenario.

OBJECTIVES-LED AND BASELINE-ORIENTED SEA Depending on the character of the policy or plan, an objectives-led or a baseline-oriented approach or a combination of both can be used in SEA. On the one hand, objectives-led SEA assesses whether a strategic action can help meet overall SEA objectives. This means the objectives act as an independent ‘environmental yardstick’ against which a strategic action can be tested (Thérivel, 2004). In contrast, a baseline-oriented SEA starts from an existing environmental baseline and makes predictions about how the strategic action will change this baseline (Thérivel, 2004). These two approaches are not exclusive but can be and are often applied together (Thérivel and Fischer, 2012). Baseline-oriented SEA often uses environmental quality norms or other guiding values. In an objectives-led SEA, on the other hand, it is up to the SEA team to decide on the level of ambition as well as what constitutes fulfilment of an environmental objective. This means that the SEA team has to negotiate between various environmental experts on what constitutes fulfilment of an objective.

176  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment In the SEA of the Saaremaa Fixed Link plan, both objectives-led and baseline-oriented SEA were applied. Whilst the former was used at the strategic level, the latter was used at the detailed plan level (see Figures 11.3 and 11.6). This means that strategic choices were assessed, based on overall objectives, whilst the fixed link (bridge and tunnel) alternatives were assessed in a baseline-oriented manner. A key challenge for the use of an objectives-led approach to SEA is that, in many countries, there are no clearly defined goals and objectives that correspond to the environmental aspects specified in the SEA Directive. As a consequence, generic goals and objectives are used frequently, based on international treaties and strategies (e.g. Kyoto/Paris, EU Biodiversity Strategy). In the SEA of Rail Baltic Estonia, a high-speed rail project crossing all of Estonia, SEA objectives were designed based on an operationalisation of EU and UN environmental goals in documents such as the Landscape Convention and the IPPC Climate Change report (Faith-Ell et al., 2020) (Figure 11.7). Looking into the future, the introduction of the 2030 Agenda and the associated sustainable development goals (SDGs) provide a suitable framework for the generation of SEA objectives. As the SDGs can be operationalised within SEA objectives in transport planning, they should be used in the scoping of SEA.

INTERCONNECTED PROCESSES FOR SHAPING PLANS AND POLICIES As explained above, SEA can play a key role in shaping plans and policies, in particular through the elaboration of aims and strategic choices and through the associated assessment of impacts. This means that SEA teams need to work closely with planning teams. There are different ways of organising this. One example of the importance of a close working relationship between planning and SEA teams is provided by the Swedish National Transport Plan 2018–29. Initially, when starting to work on the National Transport Plan, the Swedish Transport Administration had been heavily criticised for the quality of their SEA work. On reflection, the main reason was that the process had been under-staffed and had been carried out in a separate and isolated manner with little interaction with the national transport planning team. Therefore, when the subsequent SEA for the National Transport Plan for the period 2018–29 was initiated, it was decided that: 1. An SEA management team should be created and experts for all significant environmental aspects should be tied to the management team. 2. The team leader of the SEA team should be one of the permanent members of the management team of the national transport plan. 3. The SEA team should be given the authority to ask for information and studies from other planning teams, such as the traffic prognosis team; also, information from the SEA should be utilised by other teams. 4. All managers in the planning team should receive a one-day course on SEA. 5. All environmental experts should be provided with an introduction to SEA, a framework for how they were going to plan their work, and repeated feedback on the results that they have delivered. 6. The SEA should be involved in the formulation of the aim of the National Transport Plan and the strategic choices. 7. The SEA should be objectives-led.

Figure 11.7

The relationship between the SEA objectives and European/International legislation or regulation and Estonian legislation or regulation respectively in the SEA for Rail Baltic

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  177

178  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment All of these objectives were met and, subsequently, the comments in the review phase focused much more on the actual content of the SEA and the plan, rather than the quality of the SEA. Furthermore, it was decided that based on the results of the assessment, the SEA team should propose measures to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the policy or plan. A second example for how interconnectivity between the SEA and the plan can be enhanced is provided by the Swedish HSR plan introduced above. Here, a landscape character analysis (LCA) became the main lever for better interconnectivity. In the two strategic plans (corridor studies) for HSR between Jönköping and Malmö, and Linköping and Borås (Figure 11.4), it was decided that an LCA was needed. Early on it became clear that the LCA could facilitate integration of environmental perspectives of the SEA team with the work carried out by the engineering and planning teams. By using LCA as the facilitator for integration, a shared understanding for the environment was reached amongst all teams (client and consultant teams working on HSR planning, rail engineers, cost–benefit analysis, construction cost, landscape architects and environmental experts). Furthermore, SEA created an arena for discussion of different perspectives and views on the interrelationships of biophysical, social and economic aspects. This meant that the various teams felt that the iteration of the assessment process came with fewer conflicts than usual. Finally, the stepwise process of the LCA fitted the rationale of the SEA process at the corridor level (Faith-Ell et al., 2020). At the same time, a balance between SEA and plan- or policy-making needs to be found. In the Saaremaa fixed link policy, the SEA team suggested that the bus station located in the main town in the middle of the island should be moved to the eastern side of town, i.e. towards the road connecting the island with the mainland (Figure 11.8). The main reason for this suggestion was that it would improve the effectiveness of the public transport system, reducing travel time for people living close to the ferry/fixed link. This was suggested during the planning process but not included in the policy before public consultation was conducted. The main argument was that this alternative was outside the scope of the transport policy. However, the alternative ended up being included in the SEA as a mitigation measure. This, together with some other issues led to the review comment from the County of Saaremaa that the SEA had more similarities with a policy than the actual transport policy it assessed. A general challenge, which is associated with all cases discussed in this chapter, is that the amount of data available at the strategic level tends to be considerably less than at the more detailed levels (i.e. project level). This means that there is a risk of SEAs becoming biased towards the more detailed levels. This, in turn, might influence the assessment of significance of individual aspects. The SEA would then have the task of translating experiences from lower to higher tiers.

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  179

Figure 11.8

Alternative bus network proposed in the SEA of Saaremaa fixed link

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK In this chapter, we have provided an overview of past and current practices of SEA in transport planning. Based on examples from Sweden and Estonia, and taking into account experiences in other countries, key benefits of an effective application of SEA were identified and discussed. These key benefits include a capability of SEA to: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●

develop policy aims and objectives next to aims and objectives at lower tiers; provide for a logical framework for identifying and addressing perceived problems; support a critical reflection on perceived problems and on suitable solutions; help identify solutions to specific problems; provide a platform for debate between different disciplines and sectors.

Looking at the ongoing shift in transport policy and plans towards the consideration and assessment of multi-modal solutions, as well as towards an encouragement to shift from cars to public transport and cycling, automatisation and digitalisation of planning processes as well as of vehicles, there should be a continued (or in some cases re-emerging) demand for using SEA of transport policies and plans. However, SEAs will need to become better in proactively asking critical questions, which at the policy level, for example, would include questions on future technology and social implications. Also, the introduction of the 2030 Agenda with the associated SDGs is – arguably – making SEA more relevant than ever as SEA has an established model for operationalising goals. SEA can therefore serve as the facilitator for the integration of the SDGs into transport planning.

180  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The clear hierarchy of transport planning, and thereby tiering, means that SEA in transport planning has a high potential to deliver environmentally sustainable solutions effectively in the transport sector. In order to improve transport SEA, more focus needs to be paid on what issues should be addressed and what alternatives should be considered in particular situations of application. It is here where a tiered approach should be followed. Currently, in literally all transport systems, whilst some issues and alternatives are addressed and assessed, others are not and, as a consequence, there are gaps in systematically addressing all important issues. A starting point can be guidelines such as those recently released in Austria (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, 2018).

REFERENCES Barker, A. and Fischer, T. B. 2003. English regionalism and sustainability: towards the development of an integrated approach to SEA. European Planning Studies, 11: 697–716. Brokking, P., Crona, J. S., Eriksson, I.-M. and Balfors, B. 2004. SEA in Swedish transportation policy making and planning - political ambitions and practice. European Environment Journal, 14: 94–104. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, I. U. T. 2018. Strategische Prüfung im Verkehrsbereich, Leitfaden. Vienna. Council of the European Union 2017. Council Conclusions on the Digitalisation of Transport (adopted 5 December 2017). Brussels. Dusik, J., Fischer, T. B., Sadler, B., Thérivel, R. and Saric, I. 2018. Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment of Automation: Scoping Working Paper; https://​ www​ .researchgate​ .net/​ publication/​ 326461326​_Strategic​_Environmental​_and​_Social​_Assessment​_of​_Automation​_Scoping​_Working​ _Paper. Eleverding Commissie Versneling Besluitvorming Infrastrukturele Projecten 2008. Sneller en Better, Advies Commissie verselling beslutvorming infrastructurele projecten, The Hague. Faith-Ell, C. and Ericson, J. 2019. Nya stambanor – syfte och övergripande mål, Slutrapport Målarbete 2.0. Swedish Transport Administration Rapport 2019:211, Borlänge. Faith-Ell, C., Pädam, S. and Marchenko, E. 2020. An objectives-led approach to strategic environmental assessment in high speed rail planning. Manuscript. Fischer, T. B. 1999. Benefits from SEA application: a comparative review of North-West England, Noord-Holland and EVR Brandenburg-Berlin. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19: 143–73. Fischer, T. B. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land-use Planning. London. Fischer, T. B. 2004. Transport policy-SEA in Liverpool, Amsterdam and Berlin, 1997 and 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24: 319–36. Fischer, T. B. 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24, 183–97. Fischer, T. B. 2007. Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment – towards a more systematic approach. London. Fischer, T. B., Dalkmann, H., Lowry, M. and Tennøy, A. 2010. The dimensions and context of transport decision making, in: R. Joumard and H. Gudmundsson (eds), Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport. Paris. Fischer, T. B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T. B. and Nadeem, O. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment Course Curriculum for Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan, IUCN, Pakistan, http://​cmsdata​.iucn​.org/​downloads/​niap​_​_​_eia​ _curriculum​_for​_hei​.pdf. Fischer, T. B., Welsch, M. and Jalal, I. 2019. Reflecting on the preparation of guidelines for strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of nuclear power programmes. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(2): 165–78. Jansson, A. H. H. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment for transport in four Nordic countries, in: H. Bjarnadóttir (ed.), Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries, pp. 81–8. Stockholm.

Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning  181 Kaljonen, M. 2000. The role of SEA in planning and decision making: the case of the Helsinki Area Transport System Plan 1998, in: H. Bjarnadóttir (ed.), Environmental Assessment in the Nordic Countries, pp. 107–16. Stockholm. Lee, N. and Wood, C. 1978. EIA – A European perspective. Built Environment, 4: 101–10. Levin, L., Faith-Ell, C., Scholten, C., Aretun, Å., Halling, J. and Thoresson, K. 2016. Att integrera jämställdhet i länstransportplanering – Slutredovisning av forskningsprojektet Implementering av metod för jämställdhetskonsekvensbedömning (JKB) i svensk transportinfrastrukturplanering. K2 Research 2016:1, Lund. Lithman, T. 2020. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Maanteeamet 2011. Sõitjate ja veoste üle Suure väina veo perspektiivse korraldamise kava – Keskkonnamõju strateegilise hindamise aruanne, Tallinn. https://​www​.mnt​.ee/​sites/​default/​files/​ elfinder/​article​_files/​suur​_vain​_ksh​_aruanne​_heakskiitmiseks​_est​_2011–05–31​.pdf. Malvestio, A. C., Fischer, T. B. and Montaño, M. 2018. The consideration of environmental and social issues in transport policy, plan and programme making in Brazil: a systems analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179: 674–89. Marshall, R. and Fischer, T. B. 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and tiered SEA in the UK: the case of Scottish Power. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49: 279–99. Smidfeldt-Rosqvist, L. and Wennberg, H. 2012. Harmonizing the planning process with the national visions and plans on sustainable transport: the case of Sweden. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2374–84. Swedish Transport Infrastructure Committee 2010. Effektivare planering av vägar och järnvägar. Swedish State Public Report (SOU 2010:57). Thérivel, R. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London. Thérivel, R. and Fischer, T. B. 2012. Sustainability appraisal in England. UVP Report, 26: 16–21. Trafikverket 2016. Åtgärder för att minska transportsektorns utsläpp av växthusgaser – ett regeringsuppdrag. Swedish Transport Administration Rapport 2016:111, Borlänge. Wende, W., Hanusch, M., Gassner, E., Günnewig, D., Köppel, J., Lambrecht, H., Langenheld, A., Peters, W. and Röttke-Habeck, P. 2004. Requirements of the SEA directive and the German federal transport infrastructure plan. Environmental Policy and Governance, 14: 105–22.

12. Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector Gesa Geißler, Marie Dahmen and Johann Köppel

INTRODUCTION The energy sector, including generation, distribution as well as energy consumption, is of central importance for societies and national economies and is often associated with significant environmental issues. Energy is provided via a variety of fossil (oil, gas, coal, uranium) or renewable (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, wave/tidal) sources. Currently, oil is still the energy source with the largest share worldwide, accounting for 31.9% of energy consumption (IEA, 2018). Second is coal with 27.1%, followed by natural gas (22.1%) (Figure 12.1). Over the last few years, energy generation has been dominated by discussions on climate change and the transition to low-carbon or carbon-neutral energy generation (Stirling, 2014). At the same time, energy security has top priority in national discussions throughout the world and geopolitical issues are highly relevant in decisions about future energy generation in times of rising energy demand (e.g. Bradshaw, 2009; Correljé & van der Linde, 2006). As “(sustainable) energy transformations” have become increasingly relevant over the last decade (Stirling, 2014), they are accompanied by calls for a closer consideration of social and environmental dimensions in energy policy-making and energy research (e.g. Sovacool et al., 2014).

Figure 12.1

Structure of worldwide energy generation in 2017

Source: Data from IEA (2019).

182

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  183 Closely intertwined with energy generation is the distribution of resources and electricity via pipelines, vessels and power grids. With an intensifying globalization of the energy sector (Overland, 2016), transport of energy resources and distribution of electricity (e.g. between countries) is becoming more and more important and requires strategic planning in a highly politicized climate. Here, strategic planning and decision-making happen at all governance levels from international to local. The primary aim of energy policy and energy planning has been to accurately estimate demand and decide on the types of energy sources to meet it (Viviana & Castillo, 2019). More recently, other goals such as minimizing the cost of energy while meeting environmental goals (e.g. greenhouse gas reduction) have been incorporated (Álvarez & Sánchez, 2004). According to Viviana and Castillo (2019), despite these new challenges, energy planning and policy has mainly remained a technical exercise and broader environmental and social factors relevant to developing models for meeting future energy demands have been neglected. In this context, the authors talked about the “depoliticized concept of energy” (Viviana & Castillo, 2019, p. 1134) and related this to the dominant economic perspective of energy. In contrast to this, authors have developed the concept of socio-energy systems in energy planning (Marathe et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2015; Miller & Richter, 2014). Miller et al. (2015) criticized current technology- and cost-focused practices of energy planning and argued that “energy systems are deeply enmeshed in broad patterns of social, economic, and political life and organization” (Miller et al., 2015, p. 1). Following this perspective of socio-energy systems, energy planning requires consideration of social, political, ecological, and cultural aspects and associated effects of energy transitions need to be taken into account in addition to technological and economic aspects (Farrell, 2012). Energy justice is regarded as a goal for modern energy planning and is used to support energy decision-making (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015; Sovacool et al., 2017). The energy sector is therefore an important field for strategic environmental assessments (SEA) application. SEA can facilitate the consideration of social and environmental implications in decision-making, help integrate an environmental justice perspective, and support a transformation of the energy sector towards sustainable development. Furthermore, the energy sector is an important area for SEA application due to its central importance for society, national economy, and its significant environmental implications (Dincer, 1999). The application of SEAs in the energy sector is in some jurisdictions defined by national law or is a condition for financial aid by international development agencies. In Europe, energy plans are explicitly listed in Article 3, 2 (b) of the SEA Directive. And while until the late 2000s, relatively few SEAs had been prepared for energy development plans, infrastructure, grid system or associated plans (Jay, 2010; EC, 2009), practice is increasing as indicated by recent publications (Geißler, 2013; Geißler et al., 2013; Köppel & Fischer, 2013; Köppel et al., 2018; Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015; Rehhausen et al., 2018; White & Noble, 2013; see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021). In low- and middle-income countries, energy is, next to transport, the most important sector in which SEAs are prepared (Tshibangu & Montaño, 2016; see also Chapter 23 by Montaño et al., 2021). In this chapter, we will provide an account of the current state of research on SEA in the energy sector based on a structured literature review. We are thus able to characterize the existing knowledge as well as research gaps. In a second step, we will summarize SEA practice in the energy sector to understand for what technologies (e.g. renewable energy, non-renewable energy, energy infrastructure) and regions, and on what governance levels (local, regional,

184  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment national, supranational) SEAs have been applied. We will discuss consideration of alternatives in a sample of energy SEAs in more detail and will link this to the different SEA approaches described in Chapter 1 (Fischer and González, 2021).

RESEARCH ON SEA IN THE ENERGY SECTOR As stated above, SEA is increasingly applied to energy plans, programmes and policies (PPP) and associated with this there is growing academic discourse. In order to systematically evaluate academic activities around SEAs for the energy sector, we conducted a structured literature review. Drawing on Fischer and Onyango (2012) we searched the Scopus database, using the term “Strategic Environmental Assessment” in combination with the following keywords: “Energy”, “Electricity”, “Power”, “Transmission”, as well as “Oil”, “Gas”, “Nuclear”, “Atomic”, “Radioactive”, “Geothermal”, “Wave”, “Solar”, “Photovoltaic”, “Wind”, “Biomass”, and “Hydro”. Our search captured the state of research as of August 2019. After an initial screening for relevance in title, keywords and abstract, 62 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2002 and July 2019 were established for detailed analysis. In this sample, we excluded articles focusing on other impact assessment instruments, e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), when they just mentioned the need for having SEA in their conclusions and thus did not have a clear focus on SEA.

Figure 12.2

Number of papers on SEA in the energy sector published per year (n=62)

Since 2011, a rise in publications is observed which peaked in 2013 with 12 articles that year. This surge is associated with the Special Conference on SEA in 2011 in Prague, including several energy-related sessions, and the 2012 IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) Conference on “Energy Future: the role of Impact Assessment”, in Portugal.

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  185 Furthermore, in 2013, the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management published a special issue on “EA in the context of renewable energy development” with six out of eight papers having an SEA focus (Köppel & Fischer, 2013). Out of the 62 articles in our sample, almost half had a focus on evaluating and assessing SEA practice in the energy sector (28 papers). This is in line with general trends of published articles on SEA as outlined by Fischer and Onyango (2012). The first article of this group was published in 2002 (Noble, 2002) with the bulk of papers appearing after 2011. While several papers have an explicit focus on energy (e.g. De Montis, 2014; Fidler & Noble, 2012; Geißler, 2013; Lamorgese et al., 2015; Malvestio & Montaño, 2013; Marshall & Fischer, 2006; Montañez-Cartaxo, 2014; Noble, 2002; Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015; Tshibangu & Montaño, 2016; White & Noble, 2013; Wu & Ma, 2018), others evaluate energy sector SEAs as part of larger sets of SEAs from various sectors (e.g. Eales & Sheate, 2011; Kis Madrid et al., 2011; Rehhausen et al., 2018). With regard to the content of SEA, the assessment of alternatives is widely accepted as a key element of SEA for finding the most sustainable planning option from a multitude of possible actions (cf. Fidler & Nobel, 2012; González et al., 2015; Thérivel, 2010). For a meaningful comparison, a reasonable range of alternatives should be developed and assessed, all meeting underlying planning targets, but offering different development strategies (cf. Dahmen 2017). Several of the papers focusing on energy SEAs found limited reach of the assessment of alternatives and room for improvement (e.g. Fidler & Noble, 2012; Fischer, 2012; Geißler, 2013; Lamorgese et al., 2015; Malvestio & Montaño, 2013; Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015; Tshibangu & Montaño, 2016). Lamorgese et al. (2015) reviewed 11 SEAs in the oil and gas sector worldwide and found that only in one case were genuine alternatives in terms of other development options considered. In the other cases, option alternatives, such as location and degree of exploitation/intensity were assessed. The zero alternative was considered in three cases, and in two cases no alternatives were considered at all. Fidler and Noble (2012) reviewed SEAs for offshore oil and gas in Canada, the United Kingdom and Norway, and found that the assessment of alternatives was “inherently restrictive when compared to academic expectations, but was consistent with the context and intended purposes of SEA” (p. 18). SEAs were constrained by the tier within the planning system, the existing energy system, and the narrow mandate of planners. If alternatives were considered, they were limited to project-type alternatives, such as spatial modifications (Fidler & Noble, 2012). The reviewed papers revealed similar difficulties (cf. Dahmen, 2017); an often restricted set of alternatives due to narrow objectives, a late consideration of alternatives and the exclusion of most alternatives because they are regarded as ‘unreasonable’ (De Montis, 2014; Lamorgese et al., 2015). Almost without exception, plan alternatives instead of strategic alternatives are developed and assessed in practice. There is also a lack of experience and uncertainty about the appropriate assessment of reasonable alternatives (see González et al., 2015). A second group of papers (20 in total) focused on conceptualizing application of SEA in specific jurisdictions or to specific technologies (e.g. Elvin & Fraser, 2012; Esterhuyse, 2018; Fidler & Noble, 2012; Finnan et al., 2012; King & Smith, 2016; Noble et al., 2013; Yap, 2016). These papers did not evaluate any practice, but discussed the potential for using SEA in these jurisdictions and sectors. Esterhuyse (2018), for example, made the case for SEA as an appropriate management tool to identify the risks and opportunities of unconventional oil and gas extraction and stressed the role for SEA in addressing cumulative effects of this development. Fidler and Noble (2012) evaluated the potential and challenges for using Regional

186  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada’s western Arctic. Similarly, Noble et al. (2013) evaluated opportunities and risks of the application of SEAs in Arctic offshore energy planning. The findings were based on stakeholder perceptions and amongst other aspects also pointed to the importance of accounting for cumulative impacts from various offshore lease sales and hydrocarbon development projects (Noble et al., 2013). Focusing on Canada’s offshore energy development, Elvin and Fraser (2012) stressed the role of SEA in addressing cumulative effects on the marine environment and called for a national SEA to be applied to all of Canada’s marine territories. The authors acknowledged previous SEAs conducted for parts of the Canadian waters but saw weaknesses in SEA for certain sub-regions. These included a too narrow scope and too little independence of the responsible agencies for being successful (Elvin & Fraser, 2012). Köppel et al. (2019), in turn, pointed to a co-evolution of marine spatial planning and the emerging offshore wind energy and grid connections, with a mutual and noticeable learning curve. King and Smith (2016), while focusing on a different region and technology, namely hydropower development in Nepal, also saw the assessment of cumulative effects of many individual hydropower projects, together with the evaluation of different alternatives as prime reasons for applying SEA. Thirteen articles in our sample focused on the development or testing of methodologies for use in SEAs (e.g. Björklund, 2012; Cattafi et al., 2011; Diez-Rodríguez et al., 2019; Josimović & Pucar, 2010; Kuldna et al., 2015; Nilsson et al., 2005; Pang et al., 2014). In this group the use of life cycle assessments (LCA) for supporting SEA for energy PPPs was the focus of two articles (Björklund, 2012; Wu & Ma, 2018). Others developed specific decision-support systems (e.g. Diez-Rodríguez et al., 2019) or described (spatial) modelling approaches (e.g. Cattafi et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2014).

Figure 12.3

Energy sources covered by articles on SEA in the energy sector

Note: One article might cover more than one technology.

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  187 Only two papers were identified as having a more theoretical focus. Nevertheless, these used energy-related SEAs only as cases to test or develop theoretical concepts, but without a particular focus on possible specifics of SEA in the energy sector (Cape et al., 2018; Pope et al., 2018). Regarding the technological focus, many papers were focusing on SEAs for PPPs for the energy system as a whole without a specific technological focus (Figure 12.3). Although we included “geothermal” and “solar/photovoltaic” as keywords in our search, no papers were found matching those. In our sample, we identified 11 papers focusing on SEA for offshore development and six that included both onshore and offshore energy SEA case studies. Thus, 27% of the papers had some relation to marine areas.

Figure 12.4

Distribution of countries covered by the papers reviewed

Note: One paper might cover more than one country.

Most academic publications were dealing with countries in the global north, and only a few focused on the global south (Figure 12.4). Biehl et al. (2019) pointed out that interest in SEA systems of countries of the global south has only recently been increasing. An exception is Brazil, which is covered by five papers in our review, which is interesting as the country is missing a legislative framework for SEA at the federal level (Biehl et al., 2019; Montaño et al., 2013; see also Chapter 23 by Montaño et al., 2021). From these papers, three are discussing the potential of applying SEA (Andrade & Santos, 2015; Athayde et al., 2019; Carvalho, 2011) while two evaluate SEA application in the energy sector (Malvestio & Montaño, 2013; Westin et al., 2014). In our search for SEA cases in the energy sector, however, no Brazilian SEAs were identified (see Figure 12.5), potentially due to the fact that our search was focusing on English-speaking contributions and Brazilian cases were being missed that way.

188  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

SEA PRACTICE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR For the analysis of SEA practice in the energy sector, we decided to firstly provide an overview and secondly to evaluate a subset of cases in more detail to highlight specificities of energy SEAs. For the first task, we searched the Internet, using the Google search engine for available environmental reports and websites providing information on SEAs in the energy sector. We used the search terms “Strategic Environmental Assessment”, “Environmental Report”, and “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” in combination with the keywords used in the search for SEA papers described above. In addition, we also included SEA cases reported on in the literature. Due to language restrictions, our search focused on cases where information was available in English and we added some additional cases from Germany due to the authors’ experience and knowledge. Thus, the result does not claim to portray a complete picture of SEA practice in the energy sector but provides an impression of activities. Our final list comprises 83 SEAs from 28 countries with environmental reports (ERs) published between 2001 and 2019 for which access to the ER or at least to the non-technical summary was given. It is possible that earlier SEAs were not found as they might no longer be available online or never have been made available online in the first place. Table 12.1

List of case studies considered for detailed analysis

Level

Country

Activity

SEA Document

Policy

South-East

Transnational Power

Comparing Alternative Scenarios for Power Planning in the Greater 2015

Year

Asia

Development.

Mekong Subregion.

Peru

Strategic Plan for

Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica de la Nueva Matriz Energética

2012

Sustainable Energy and Sostenible (SEA for the New Sustainable Energy Matrix); SEA, Slovenia

Bioenergy.

integrated in plan document).

Objectives &

Environmental Report for the Comprehensive Assessment of

2011

Guidelines for National Environmental Impacts for the National Energy Programme Plan

Uganda

Energy System.

(2010–2030).

National Oil and Gas

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of oil and gas activities 2013

Development.

in the Albertine Graben, Uganda.

United

Leasing/Licensing for

OESEA3 Environmental Report. Future Leasing/Licensing for

Kingdom

Offshore Energy.

Offshore Renewable Energy, Offshore Oil & Gas, Hydrocarbon

South Africa

Shale Gas Development Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo. A Scientific

2016

Gas and Carbon Dioxide Storage and Associated Infrastructure.

Program

Australia

Denmark

in the Central Karoo.

Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks.

Development of the

Strategic assessment of the Browse Basin liquefied natural gas

Browse Liquefied

precinct. Report and recommendations of the Environmental

Natural Gas Precinct.

Protection Authority.

Licensing of offshore

SEA in connection with licensing rounds west of 6° 15´ E in the

2016 2010

2012

areas for the exploration Danish part of the North Sea for exploration and production of and production of oil

hydrocarbons.

and gas. United States

Oil and Gas Lease Sale Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

Source: Dahmen (2017).

(FSEIS).

2015

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  189 For our detailed analysis of a subset of the energy SEAs, we focused on the question of how alternatives were assessed and considered as this is a good indicator for the quality of a SEA process (cf. Dahmen, 2017). As explained above, our literature review revealed that the assessment of alternatives was often found to exhibit shortcomings. The focus in our evaluation is on SEAs from the oil and gas sector as many SEAs were identified for these technologies, covering a large number of countries from almost all continents. Focusing on SEAs only from the oil and gas sector allows for comparability. Also, the potential for alternative considerations in the light of climate change is higher for fossil energy sources. For the policy level, however, no cases focusing exclusively on oil and gas were identified and therefore those cases were chosen that deal with multiple energy sources, including oil or gas. We selected three cases per SEA tier (policy, plan, and programme; Table 12.1). Criteria for the selection of the cases were language (English or German), international representativeness, timeliness, completeness, access to background information and to planning documents, as well as an (almost) accurate allocation to a tier. This categorization was based on the definition of planning levels by Arts et al. (2011). A general course and guidance on (national) energy generation or distribution was classified as a policy; a strategy for a spatial or sectoral planning section (e.g. a specific energy source) as a plan; and a schedule of activities in a specific (regional) area was addressed as a programme. The aim was to explain a phenomenon, not to investigate a particularly large number of randomly selected studies. We focused our detailed analysis of these SEA cases on the way in which alternatives were assessed and considered in the process. Our review criteria included the number and types of alternatives, the level of detail and methods used for comparison, as well as the evaluation and justification of the preferred alternative. Review of SEA Cases in the Energy Sector Our review of SEA cases in the energy sector found SEAs developed by mostly national/ federal governments (71) and just some under the responsibility of state (8),1 local (3), and supranational governments (1). All local-level SEAs originated from Ireland and were developed in the context of county-level renewable or wind energy strategies. This low number of local, regional, and state level SEAs might be explained by the fact that independent sectoral energy planning in many countries does not exist but is included as a topic in spatial or land use plans (e.g. in Germany), as also pointed out by Jay (2010). Many of the SEAs developed under federal/national jurisdiction in our sample were focused on parts of the territory of a country. For example, SEAs focused on offshore areas only, or onshore areas only, or on specific regions of a country (e.g. SEA for “Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo” in South Africa or the programmatic environmental impact statements (PEIS) for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” in the US). Besides the jurisdiction under which the SEAs were developed, we also established if the SEA was conducted in-house or with support from external consultants. In the literature, both in-house and externally developed SEAs have been discussed, and pros and cons considered (e.g. Fischer, 2010). In our review, we found most SEAs being supported by external consult1 Included here are, for example, Canadian provinces and territories, Australian states and territories, and UK nations.

190  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment ants (54). Only eight SEAs were developed completely in-house, all from Germany and the UK. In 21 cases, the author of the environmental report was not mentioned explicitly. Often, agencies work with specific consultancies on several SEAs, in particular when reiterations of planning processes take place (e.g. in UK Offshore SEAs under the lead of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change). In contrast, all SEAs for the German offshore areas have been developed in-house by the German Maritime and Hydrographic Agency. Regarding technology, the analysis reveals that the majority of SEAs are developed for plans, programmes, and policies dealing with non-renewable energy generation (Figure 12.5). Oil and gas exploration and production have been the focus of many SEAs in the past with cases found from countries all over the world (e.g. Australia, Bolivia, Canada, USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Montenegro, Israel, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Mauritania and Uganda). Several of these SEAs were developed for plans for oil and gas lease/concession sales, as for example in the United Kingdom, the USA, Montenegro, Croatia and Denmark. In addition, we identified eight SEAs dealing with nuclear energy (Figure 12.5) – most focusing on nuclear waste management (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, USA) and one on nuclear energy development (Poland). Despite discussions revolving around climate change and sustainable energy system transformations and some clear associated objectives (deriving from e.g. the Paris agreement), an emphasis of SEAs for PPPs dealing with the energy system as a whole was not found. This was not surprising though, as in most countries overarching policies and strategies are not subject to SEA, even if they exist, e.g. for the National Energy and Climate Plans in European Union member states. The need to assess such policies and making them subject to SEA, however, has been raised in several instances and by several authors (e.g. Geißler, 2013; IAEA, 2018). Most PPPs in our sample are sectoral, with a focus on one or few energy technologies and not on the energy system overall. These characteristics of the PPPs have implications for the types of alternatives that are considered, given a narrow scope of those PPPs. This will be discussed in more detail below. Although in the European Union, as a measure to implement the Paris agreement, all member states were required to develop holistic National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) by the end of 2019 (EC, 2018), we did find only a few of these. These plans are supposed to set national objectives, corresponding policies, and measures for implementation of objectives over a period of ten years. In our search we only identified the Italian and Spanish NECPs that are developed with a supporting SEA. Other countries have abstained from conducting a SEA for the NECP, including the UK (DBEIS, 2019) and Germany (BMWi, 2019a), the latter arguing that no frame for projects subject to an EIA will be set by the NECP (BMWi, 2019b, personal comm.). Renewable energy has only been covered by 23 PPPs for which we found SEAs (Figure 12.5). Since 2012, SEAs focusing on energy distribution have been carried out. Here, several cases from Germany were found. Many of those are being reiterated regularly (every two years). While most of the SEAs (45%) are targeting onshore developments, 39% have been developed for plans and programmes focused on offshore areas. Out of the offshore cases, 13 (19%) are concerned with oil and gas, six (9%) are dealing with energy transmission, three (4%) with multiple technologies and only four (6%) focus exclusively on renewable energy. In our analysis we deliberately excluded SEAs developed for marine or maritime spatial plans following the definition by the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (Ehler

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  191 & Douvere, 2009), although many have a strong focus on offshore energy planning (e.g. the German marine spatial plans for the North and Baltic Seas or the more recent Washington State marine spatial plan; Köppel et al., 2019). SEA in spatial planning is covered in Chapter 10 (González, 2021) and we excluded this topic here.

Figure 12.5

Energy sources-related SEA cases

Note: One case can count for more than one technology.

Several cases were concerned with identifying suitable sites or corridors for certain developments, be it offshore wind development sites or cable corridors (e.g. SEA for the German Flächenentwicklungsplan, 2019), or sites for nuclear waste repositories (e.g. SEA for the Plan for the establishment of a permanent repository for Danish low and intermediate level radioactive waste, 2014). These cases often referred to subsequent EIAs for specific projects and gave respective recommendations. Another type of SEA in our sample was not focused on a specific PPP, but aimed at providing an evidence base for future decision-making. One example was the SEA for the Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo in South Africa, focusing on providing “Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks” (Scholes et al., 2016). This SEA resulted in a report of 1,400 pages written by 146 independent authors and peer-reviewed by 75 national and international experts (Scholes et al., 2016). Also, several Canadian SEAs have been developed without a specific strategic action as the target of the SEA but as a process of developing an information basis for subsequent decision-making, for tidal/wave development as well as offshore oil and gas activities (e.g. Nova Scotia Department of Energy, 2014; Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB, 2003, 2014)). Overall, the figures show that more than half of the SEAs were developed in European countries (39 SEAs), with 12 being from North America, eight from Africa, three from Asia, two from Latin America and one from Australia (Figure 12.6). This resonates with other

192  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment findings by other authors regarding SEA activities, which are more prominent so far in Europe and North America than in other parts of the world (Fischer & Onyango, 2012). Several SEAs from Europe have been related to plans or programmes directly or indirectly triggered by EU regulations. We found SEAs relating to national programmes for the safe storage of nuclear waste (EU Directive 2011/70/Euratom), for transmission network development plans (Directive 2009/72/EC) and for the above-mentioned NECPs. In SEAs developed in countries of the global south, we found a majority having some involvement of multilateral development banks, which is in line with the findings by Tshibangu and Montaño (2016) and Biehl et al. (2019).

Figure 12.6

Distribution of SEA cases country-wise (n=66)

Detailed Review of Alternatives in SEAs The overview on the various energy sources and energy issues dealt with in SEA is complemented by a detailed analysis of a subset of energy SEAs which allows us to gain a deeper insight into practice. As discussed in e.g. Chapter 11 (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021), every planning tier tends to focus on specific alternatives, from more strategic alternatives at policy level to the specific and locational alternatives at programme and project levels. For an analysis on how strategic the assessed alternatives are, expectations and evaluation scale must be calibrated according to the tier of decision-making. Table 12.2 provides an overview of meaningful energy alternatives from policy to programme levels (see also Dahmen, 2017).

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  193 Table 12.2

Planning levels and energy alternatives

Level

Characteristic

Alternatives

Policy

General course and

System alternatives; Alternative energy concepts;

Energy alternatives

Broad-brush, qualitative, e.g.

guidance.

strategic options.

scenario models.

variations in energy mix;

Methodology

renewable sources; distribution options. Plan

Programme

Strategy for a spatial

Development

Energy supply strategies; broad

Quantitative and qualitative

or sectoral planning

strategies within

spatial alternatives; degree of

methods, e.g. impact

section.

the sector; plan

exploitation, infrastructure

matrices.

variations.

options.

Schedule of activities

Alternatives of

Site alternatives (bundle of

Quantitative, e.g. MCA,

in a specific area.

proposed action

projects); degree of exploitation;

CBA.

(site, scope, mode).

restriction options.

Source: own compilation using information from Arts et al. (2011).

Table 12.2 shows differences between tiers and how they are linked to the choice of alternatives and the assessment methodology. The openness for alternatives depends on the way objectives are formulated. They might be very clear on what to achieve by when and how. Such considerations have also been incorporated in current guidelines by emphasizing the importance of ensuring sufficient space for the identification of alternatives (IAEA, 2018). As the types of alternatives differ according to the planning level, the most strategic questions should be asked at policy level (Thérivel, 2010). Can the need or demand for a certain resource be met in more sustainable ways? Are there other than the usual plan solutions? What is the core problem? One of the shortcomings of SEAs is a focus on option alternatives (plan alternatives) rather than alternative options in the plan (González et al., 2015; Noble, 2000). In SEAs of the energy sector, alternatives to energy supply should be openly examined at policy level and alternative paths can be modelled (e.g. qualitatively in scenarios). At plan level, various development strategies are examined, such as large-scale alternatives to energy generation. A regional programme, e.g. for the development of wind energy, shows concrete areas and time targets.

RESULTS The detailed case review shows that the assessed alternatives are strongly plan- and context-dependent and become “less strategic” with each tier of administrative decision-making (cf. Dahmen, 2017). There are few universal alternatives, such as the zero alternative, which is at the same time the most common alternative. At the policy level, alternatives cover various energy sources, in particular renewables, but also energy saving options or distribution alternatives. Fundamentally new options are examined in parts, but domestic resources, existing power plants and electricity grids determine the options considered. Strategic alternatives were mainly examined through scenario comparisons. The three analysed cases are very similar in their scope, as they consider nationwide/ transnational energy scenarios. The cases at the policy level are rather abstract and, comparatively speaking, strategic. They are not following a strict assessment scheme and extend legal

194  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment obligations, which can be explained by requirements of international agencies or development banks that initiated the SEAs in Southeast Asia and Peru. Only the Slovenian SEA is an assessment required by national SEA law. In all three cases, far-reaching and strategic alternatives, so called alternative options, were assessed. The options include renewable energy sources, energy mix options, and partly also energy efficiency and distribution options (Table 12.3). At the plan level, alternatives were predominantly variations of the preferred development, such as spatial alternatives or different modes of operation. Development strategies within the sector are only partially examined. Alternatives differ little and lead in the same direction. The analysed cases cover upcoming energy issues that need a comprehensive development strategy. The political intent is to promote the development of energy resources. Discoveries of oil in Uganda and shale gas in South Africa pin high hopes on shared benefits for the local communities and the overall economic upturn. The context for the UK plan is an energy policy that aims at increasing the offshore energy production while reaching the CO2 emission reduction required by the climate change act. All cases consider option alternatives, such as alternatives in plant size and the degree of exploitation (Table 12.3), but these are only variations of the proposed development. The assessment scope is quite narrow in terms of which energy sources should be promoted, so the SEAs describe development paths that depend on the actual resource potential and industry interests. At plan-level, the alternatives reflect the national policy objectives, while leaving much to be assessed at the project-level. At the programme level, simple location or design options are assessed and alternatives are only slightly more strategic than at the project level. The analysed SEA cases have a narrow scope and the future action is already set. These actions can rather be characterized as a bundle of projects for the oil and gas sector than a strategic plan. The starting points are not political decisions, but pragmatic answers to industry requests (Denmark and Australia) or simply a continuation of the planning scheme (United States). Although the programmes cover large areas and/or infrastructure issues, the assessment is close to the project-level. Small-scale location alternatives are assessed and degree of exploitation, i.e. restrictions to the proposed action (Table 12.3). In the Danish case, no reasonable alternatives were assessed at this planning stage because no other than the proposed plan was regarded as reasonable, and impacts, measures, and technical alternatives will be assessed in detail by project-level EIAs. Table 12.3 shows the assessed alternatives in descending order, according to their strategic content. Linked to the SEA levels, this gives a clear picture of the correlation between “strategic-level and strategic alternatives” (cf. Dahmen, 2017).

Australia

Denmark

USA

UK

Uganda

South Africa

Peru

Source: Dahmen (2017).

Programme

Plan

Slovenia

Policy

Asia

Case study

3

1

4

3

4

4

6

5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

zero

alternatives

8

Baseline/

No. of

X

X

X

options

Energy mix

X

X

X

sources

energy

Renewable

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

infrastructure options

efficiency

Plant size

Distribution/

Energy

Comparison of types of alternatives in the analysed case studies

Planning level

Table 12.3

X

X

X

locations

Different

X

X

X

restrictions

Spatial

X

options

Layout

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  195

196  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The alternatives assessed in the case studies are highly context-dependent, but can be divided into different categories of alternatives. There is a strong distinction between levels and their respective alternatives. Only a few types of alternatives are “universal” and the baseline/zero alternative has been considered in almost every case. Certain alternatives are characteristic for each tier; the most strategic alternatives are assessed at policy level and they become less ambitious with each tier downwards, which is consistent with the assessment of other authors (Arts et al., 2011; Bidstrup & Hansen, 2014; Desmond, 2007; Fischer, 2000; Fischer & Seaton, 2002; González et al., 2015; Thérivel, 2010). At programme level, simple site and layout options are considered as alternatives. Some alternatives might be of the same type, but the specific design is different, e.g. infrastructure options can be very strategic but also pragmatic project variations (cf. Dahmen, 2017). ●● Policy level: Assessed alternatives include different energy source options, especially renewable energy sources, as well as energy efficiency measures and distribution options. Fundamentally new options were partly assessed, but domestic resources, existing power plants, and associated infrastructure set the agenda. Strategic alternatives are mainly assessed through scenario comparisons. ●● Plan level: Main alternatives are variations of the proposed development, such as different production levels, spatial alternatives, infrastructure, or processing options. The benchmark for plan-SEAs to assess “development strategies within the sector” is only partly reached, because the alternatives do not vary much, lead in the same direction, or the development depends completely on industry proposals. ●● Programme level: Alternatives are just above project level. Modifications of the proposed action and spatial or temporal restrictions were considered in the analysed case studies.

DISCUSSION Given the still rising energy demand and ongoing discussions about energy system transformations, strategic decisions that set the directions for future development are being made. As calls for a better consideration of social, political, ecological, and cultural aspects of energy transitions are voiced, SEAs provide a valuable framework of support. Thus, relevance for applying SEAs in energy-related policy-, plan- or programme-making matters. This is also acknowledged in SEA regulations (e.g. in the EU SEA Directive). Our analysis has revealed that practice of and research on SEA in the energy sector has been growing over the last decade. Overall, SEAs for energy PPPs are regarded as necessary and helpful for sustainable development (e.g. Esterhuyze, 2018; Finnan et al., 2012; Jay, 2010; Noble et al., 2013). The hopes authors have for SEA application in energy policy-, plan- or programme-making do not appear to be duly met by SEA practice. Based on our literature review, SEAs in the energy sector are found to exhibit the same shortcomings as those from other sectors, in particular when it comes to the assessment of alternatives (Fidler & Noble, 2012; Geißler, 2013; Lamorgese et al., 2015; Malvestio & Montaño, 2013; Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015; Tshibangu & Montaño, 2016) and the consideration of cumulative effects (e.g. Geißler, 2013; Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015; Rehhausen et al., 2018; Tshibangu & Montaño, 2016).

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  197 While SEAs for oil and gas exploration as well as renewable energy developments were found, we noted that nuclear energy development and nuclear waste disposal was covered only rarely in the literature. With several countries being in the process of finding nuclear waste disposal sites (Brunnengräber, 2019b), an often long-lasting and difficult process, identified as a “wicked-problem” (Brunnengräber, 2019b; Di Nucci & Brunnengräber, 2017), the contribution of SEA is worthy of more attention. With many of the characteristics identified, such as conflicting actors, systemic risks or boundaries of science and a “plurality of truths” (Brunnengräber, 2019b), the appropriate design and implementation of SEAs could be addressed in future research. Most of the SEA cases that we were able to identify were within the responsibility of national/federal governments. As we searched only for online available cases and were limited to English keywords in our search, we might have missed SEAs on lower government tiers. While we identified a number of SEA cases, we were not able to evaluate systematically if energy planning and energy policy-making is covered by SEAs to a large extent or if major strategic decisions are still made without SEA. For Germany at least, we can state that several energy-related decisions, in particular at the policy level, are made without SEA (also described by Geißler et al., 2019). As Köppel et al. (2018) revealed, there are several plans and policies at the national level for which no SEAs have been conducted. This includes the German National Energy and Climate Plan as well as the gas network development plan, the national action plan energy efficiency, or the integrated energy and climate protection programme. For all these PPPs, the screening criteria as established by the European SEA directive do not lead to the requirement of conducting an SEA. This situation was already pointed out by Jay (2010) who stated that the Directive focuses on the assessment of official public sector plans and programmes. The privatization of energy systems in many countries is leading to fewer public energy-sector plans and programmes that would (at least in Europe) fall under SEA requirements (Jay, 2010). This is not the case everywhere, as, for example, in Ireland at the county level, renewable or wind energy strategies are being prepared and subject to SEA (González et al., 2016). In Germany, however, the criticism by Jay (2010) applies to the case of the national gas network development plan, which is being developed by the 16 long-distance gas network providers and is only confirmed by the Federal Network Agency (FNB Gas, n.d.) and thus is not subject to a SEA. For the consideration of social and environmental dimensions in energy policy-making (e.g. Sovacool et al., 2014) this reluctance to use SEA as a flexible framework, supporting decision-making, must be seen as a weakness. At the same time, there is currently no trend in conducting voluntary SEAs without regulatory pressure although good-practice examples exist as pointed out by Jay (2010), Noble (2020) and Marshall and Fischer (2006). In these cases, the benefits of a SEA process have been acknowledged and voluntary SEAs were conducted. SEA research could focus more on the specifics of the energy sector and particularly socio-technical challenges of energy transitions as for the legacy of past fossil-nuclear energy systems (Brunnengräber, 2019a). As our literature review showed, there is little consideration given to SEA’s role in (sustainable) energy transitions so far. It would also be relevant to consider how far SEA practice already incorporates social and environmental justice aspects in order to be a relevant contribution towards a “justice-aware energy policy” (Sovacool et al. 2017).

198  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

CONCLUSIONS The energy sector, including generation, distribution as well as energy consumption, is of central importance for societies and national economies and is often associated with significant environmental effects. Over the last few years, energy generation has been dominated by discussions on climate change and the transition to low-carbon or carbon-neutral energy generation. At the same time, energy security has top priority in national discussions throughout the world, and geopolitical issues are highly relevant in decisions about future energy generation. Considering these characteristics and discussions, the energy sector is an important field for SEA application. SEA can facilitate the consideration of social and environmental implications in decision-making, help integrate an environmental justice perspective, and support a transformation of the energy sector towards sustainable development. Our analysis has revealed that practice of and research on SEA in the energy sector has been growing over the last decade. SEA research has been found to evaluate SEA practice, focusing on similar findings as general SEA research, for example, on the consideration of alternatives and cumulative effects assessment. SEA practice in the energy sector as identified by our review was focused on but not limited to national/federal levels in European and North American countries. As our search was limited to English keywords we may have missed SEAs from other countries and governance levels. Keeping these shortcomings in mind, we were able to show that there is a breadth of SEA activity in the energy sector, which warrants more focused research on the role of SEA in sustainable energy sector transformation in the future.

REFERENCES Álvarez, P. and Sánchez, J. 2004. Modelo de Planificación Energética orientado al Desarrollo Sostenible. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Andrade, A. de Lima and Santos, M.A. dos 2015. Hydroelectric plants environmental viability: Strategic environmental assessment application in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52: 1413–23. Arts, J., Tomlinson, P. and Voogd, H. 2011. Planning in tiers? Tiering as a way of linking SEA and EIA, in: Sadler, B., Dusik, J., Fischer, T., Partidário, M., Verheem, R. and Aschemann, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, 415–33. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Athayde, S., Duarte, C.G., Gallardo, A.L.C.F., Moretto, E.M., Sangoi, L.A., Dibo, A.P.A., Siqueira-Gay, J. and Sánchez, L.E. 2019. Improving policies and instruments to address cumulative impacts of small hydropower in the Amazon. Energy Policy 132: 265–71. Bidstrup, M. and Hansen, A.M. 2014. The paradox of strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 47: 29–35. Biehl, J., Köppel, J., Rodorff, V., Huesca Pérez, M.E., Zimmermann, A., Geißler, G. and Rehhausen, A. 2019. Implementing strategic environmental assessment in countries of the global South: An analysis within the Peruvian context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 77: 23–39. Björklund, A. 2012. Life cycle assessment as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment: Lessons learned from a case study on municipal energy planning in Sweden. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32(1): 82–7. Bradshaw, M.J. 2009. The geopolitics of global energy security. Geography Compass 3(5): 1920–37. Brunnengräber, A. 2019a. Ewigkeitslasten. Die “Endlagerung” radioaktiver Abfälle als soziales, politisches und wissenschaftliches Projekt (2nd edition). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  199 Brunnengräber, A. 2019b. The wicked problem of long term radioactive waste governance ten characteristics of a complex technical and societal challenge, in: Brunnengräber, A. and Di Nucci, R.M. (eds), Conflicts, Participation and Acceptability in Nuclear Waste Governance: An International Comparison, Volume III, 335–55. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. BMWi [Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie] 2019a. Draft of the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan. Available at https://​www​.bmwi​.de/​Redaktion/​EN/​Downloads/​E/​draft​ -of​-the​-integrated​-national​-energy​-and​-climate​-plan​.pdf​?​_​_blob​=​publicationFile​&​v​=​5 [accessed 31.05.2020]. BMWi [Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie] 2019b. Written communication via e-mail, 28.11.2019. Cape, L., Retief, F., Lochner, P., Fischer, T. and Bond, A. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 69: 32–41. Carvalho, C. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable expansion of palm oil biofuels in Brazilian north region. Energy & Environment 22(5): 565–72. Cattafi, M., Gavanelli, M., Milano, M. and Cagnoli, P. 2011. Sustainable biomass power plant location in the Italian Emilia-Romagna region. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2(4): 33. C-NLOPB [Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board] 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment Labrador Shelf Offshore Area. Available at https://​www​.cnlopb​.ca/​sea/​ labrador/​[accessed 15.05.2020]. C-NLOPB [Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board] 2003. Orphan Basin Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at https://​www​.cnlopb​.ca/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ob​_ea​ .pdf [accessed 15.05.2020]. C-NLOPB [Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board] 2014. Eastern Newfoundland Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at https://​www​.cnlopb​.ca/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​enlsea/​ch1–3​.pdf [accessed 15.05.2020]. Correljé, A. and van der Linde, C. 2006. Energy supply security and geopolitics: A European perspective. Energy Policy 34(5): 532–43. Dahmen, M. 2017. Alternatives in Energy SEAs. Master’s thesis. Technische Universität Berlin. Davies, I.M., Watret, R. and Gubbins, M. 2014. Spatial planning for sustainable marine renewable energy developments in Scotland. Ocean & Coastal Management 99: 72–81. DBEIS [UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy] 2019. The UK’s draft integrated National Energy and Climate Plan. Available at https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​publications/​uk​ -national​-energy​-and​-climate​-plan​-necp [accessed 31.05.2020]. De Montis, A. 2014. Strategic environmental assessment of energy planning tools: A study of Italian regions and provinces. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 46: 32–42. Desmond, M. 2007. Decision criteria for the identification of alternatives in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25(4): 259–69. Di Nucci, M.R. and Brunnengräber, A. 2017. In whose backyard? The wicked problem of siting nuclear waste repositories. European Policy Analysis 3(2): 296–323. Diez-Rodríguez, J.J., Fischer, T.B. and Di Zio, S. 2019. Introducing a group spatial decision support system for use in strategic environmental assessment of onshore wind farm development in Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production 220: 1239–54. Dincer, I. 1999. Environmental impacts of energy. Energy Policy 27: 845–54. Eales, R.P. and Sheate, W.R. 2011. Effectiveness of policy level environmental and sustainability assessment: Challenges and lessons from recent practice. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(1): 39–65. EC [European Commission] 2018. Regulation on the governance of the energy union and climate action ((EU)2018/1999). EC [European Commission] 2009. Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC. Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-By-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-Based Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO.

200  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Elvin, S.S. and Fraser, G.S. 2012. Advancing a national strategic environmental assessment for the Canadian offshore oil and gas industry with special emphasis on cumulative effects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14(3): 1250015. Esterhuyse, S. 2018. Identifying the risks and opportunities of unconventional oil and gas extraction using the strategic environmental assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 3: 33–9. Farrell, C. 2012. A just transition: Lessons learned from the environmental justice movement. Duke Forum. Law Society and Change 4: 45–63. Fidler, C. and Noble, B. 2012. Advancing strategic environmental assessment in the offshore oil and gas sector: Lessons from Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 34: 12–21. Finnan, J., Styles, D., Fitzgerald, J., Connolly, J. and Donnelly, A. 2012. Using a Strategic Environmental Assessment framework to quantify the environmental impact of bioenergy plans. GCB Bioenergy 4(3): 311–29. Fischer, T.B. 2000. Die strategische Umweltprüfung in England, den Niederlanden und Deutschland (SEA in England, Netherlands & Germany). UVP-Report 4: 221–5. Fischer, T.B. 2010. Reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessment reports for English spatial plan core strategies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30: 62–9. Fischer, T.B. 2012. Identifying shortcomings in SEA practice. Town and Country Planning 81(6): 281–6. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Onyango, V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: An overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B. and Seaton, K. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment – effective planning instrument or lost concept? Planning Practice and Research 17(1): 31–44. FNB Gas [Vereinigung der Fernleitungsnetzbetreiber Gas e.V.] (n.d.). Netzentwicklungsplan. Available at https://​www​.fnb​-gas​.de/​netzentwicklungsplan/​ [accessed 12.10.2019]. Geißler, G. 2013. Strategic environmental assessments for renewable energy development—comparing the United States and Germany. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(2): 1340003. Geißler, G., Köppel, J. and Gunther, P. 2013. Wind energy and environmental assessments: A hard look at two forerunners’ approaches: Germany and the United States. Renewable Energy 51: 71–8. Geißler, G., Rehhausen, A., Fischer, T. and Hanusch, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Germany? Meta-review of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 219–32. González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment of spatial land-use plans, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 10). González, A., Daly, G. and Gleeson, J. 2016. Congested spaces, contested scales: A review of spatial planning for wind energy in Ireland. Landscape and Urban Planning 145: 12–20. González, A., Thérivel, R., Fry, J. and Foley, W. 2015. Advancing practice relating to SEA alternatives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 53: 52–63. IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Power Programmes – Guidelines. Available at www​-pub​.iaea​.org/​MTCD/​Publications/​PDF/​P1815​ _web​.pdf [accessed 15.05.2020]. IEA [International Energy Agency] 2018. Verteilung der weltweiten Energieerzeugung nach Energieträger im Jahr 2016. Statista. Statista GmbH. Available at https://​de​.statista​.com/​statistik/​ daten/​studie/​167998/​umfrage/​weltweiter​-energiemix​-nach​-energietraeger/​ [accessed 12.09.2019]. IEA [International Energy Agency] 2019. Key World Energy Statistics. Available at https://​www​.iea​.org/​ events/​key​-world​-energy​-statistics​-2019. Jay, S. 2010. Strategic environmental assessment for energy production. Energy Policy 38(7): 3489–97. Josimović, B. and Pucar, M. 2010. The strategic environmental impact assessment of electric wind energy plants: Case study ‘Bavanište’ (Serbia). Renewable Energy 35(7): 1509–19.

Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector  201 King, H. and Smith, L. 2016. Many rivers to cross: Evaluating the benefits and limitations of Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Koshi River Basin. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 18(2): 1650011. Kis Madrid, C., Hickey, G.M. and Bouchard, M.A. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness and the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA): A multiple case review. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(4): 515–40. Köppel, J., Geißler, G., Rehhausen, A., Wende, W., Albrecht, J., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Scholles, F., Putschky, M., Hoppenstedt, A., Stemmer, B. 2018. Strategische Umweltprüfung und (neuartige) Pläne und Programme auf Bundesebene – Methoden, Verfahren und Rechtsgrundlagen. Available at https://​www​.umweltbundesamt​.de/​sites/​default/​files/​medien/​1410/​publikationen/​2018​-10​-18​_texte​ _81​-2018​_sup​-bundesplanung​.pdf. Köppel, J., Biehl, J., Dahmen, M., Geißler, G. and Portman, M.E. 2019. Perspectives on marine spatial planning, in: Perrow, M.R. (eds.). Wildlife and Wind Farms: Conflicts and Solutions, volume 4, 281–317. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing. Köppel, J. and Fischer, T.B. 2013. Editorial: Special issue on environmental assessment in the context of renewable energy deployment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(2): 1302001. Kuldna, P., Peterson, K. and Kuhi-Thalfeldt, R. 2015. Knowledge brokering on emissions modelling in Strategic Environmental Assessment of Estonian energy policy with special reference to the LEAP model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54: 55–60. Lamorgese, L., Geneletti, D. and Partidário, M.R. 2015. Reviewing Strategic Environmental Assessment Practice in the oil and gas sector. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17(2): 1550017. Malvestio, A.C. and Montaño, M. 2013. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment applied to renewable energy in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(2): 1340007. Marathe, A., Marathe, M. and Anil Kumar, V.S. 2011. Towards a pervasive enabled modelling environment for integrated coevolving energy systems. IEEE EPU–CRIS International Conference on Science and Technology. Available at https://​ieeexplore​.ieee​.org/​document/​6126655. Marshall, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and tiered SEA in the UK – the case of Scottish Power. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(2): 279–99. Miller, C.A. and Richter, J. 2014. Social planning for energy transitions. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 1(3): 77–84. Miller, C.A., Richter, J. and O’Leary, J. 2015. Socio-energy systems design: A policy framework for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science 6: 29–40. Montañez-Cartaxo, L.E. 2014. Strategic environmental assessment in the Mexican electricity sector. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(2): 1450012. Montaño, M., Malvestio, A.C. and Oppermann, P. 2013. Institutional learning by SEA practice in Brazil. UVP-report 27(4–5): 201–6. Montaño, M., Tshibangu, G.M. and Malvestio, A.C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species?, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 23). Nilsson, M., Björklund, A., Finnveden, G. and Johansson, J. 2005. Testing a SEA methodology for the energy sector: A waste incineration tax proposal. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(1): 1–32. Noble, B.F. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: What is it? & what makes it strategic? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2(2): 203–24. Noble, B.F. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment of Canadian energy policy. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(3): 177–88. Noble, B.F. 2020. Transforming IA from the outside in: Capacity and levers for strategic assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 122–5. Noble, B., Ketilson, S., Aitken, A. and Poelzer, G. 2013. Strategic environmental assessment opportunities and risks for Arctic offshore energy planning and development. Marine Policy 39: 296–302. Nova Scotia Department of Energy 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Cape Breton Coastal Region, inclusive of the Bras D’Or Lakes. Available at https://​energy​.novascotia​.ca/​sites/​ default/​files/​13​-41693​-64107​%20Tidal​%20Industry​%20Report​%20Document​%20​%282​%29​.pdf.

202  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Overland, I. 2016. Energy: The missing link in globalization. Energy Research & Social Science 14: 122–30. Pang, X., Mörtberg, U. and Brown, N. 2014. Energy models from a strategic environmental assessment perspective in an EU context: What is missing concerning renewables? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 33: 353–62. Phylip-Jones J. and Fischer, T.B. 2015. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: Lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 203–12. Pope, J., Bond, A., Cameron, C., Retief, F. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70: 34–44. Rehhausen, A., Köppel, J., Scholles, F., Stemmer, B., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Geißler, G. and Wende, W. 2018. Quality of federal level strategic environmental assessment: A case study analysis for transport, transmission grid and maritime spatial planning in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 73: 41–59. Scholes, R., Lochner, P., Schreiner, G., Snyman-Van der Walt, L. and de Jager, M. (eds) 2016. Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo: A Scientific Assessment of the Opportunities and Risks. Pretoria: South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Sovacool, B.K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C.K. and Wlokas, H. 2017. New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy 105: 677–91. Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M.H. 2015. Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Applied Energy 142: 435–44. Sovacool, B.K., Ryan, S.E., Stern, P.C., Janda, K., Rochlin, G., Spreng, D., Pasqualetti, M.J., Wilhite, H. and Lutzenhiser, L. 2014. Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science 6: 95–9. Stirling, A. 2014. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science 1: 83–95. Thérivel, R. 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Routledge. Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2016. Energy related strategic environmental assessment applied by multilateral development agencies: An analysis based on good practice criteria. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61: 27–37. Viviana, M. and Castillo, O.L. 2019. Colombian energy planning: Neither for energy, nor for Colombia. Energy Policy 129: 1132–42. Westin, F., Santos, M.A. dos and Duran Martins, I. 2014. Hydropower expansion and analysis of the use of strategic and integrated environmental assessment tools in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37: 750–61. White, L.N. and Noble, B.F. 2013. Strategic environmental assessment best practice process elements and outcomes in the international electricity sector. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(2): 1340001. Wu, Y. and Ma, H. 2018. Analysis of strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan energy policy and potential for integration with life cycle assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 71: 1–11. Yap, N.T. 2016. Unconventional shale gas development: Challenges for environmental policy and EA practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 34(2): 97–109.

13. Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector Stephen Eric Mustow

THE WATER ENVIRONMENT Water is necessary for the health and survival of habitats, ecosystems and human populations. It supports wetland and aquatic habitats and species, human activity including industries such as aquaculture and power generation, and provides drinking water (SEPA, 2018). In many countries, freshwater is increasingly a limited natural resource, constraining its use in the production of food, energy and other goods and services (Wiek & Larson, 2012). As well as ongoing problems from pollution sources such as sewage and oil, new forms of pollution are being identified including micro-pollutants and plastic. Land-use changes, such as deforestation and conversion of land to agricultural use result in impacts, including increased flooding and pollution from agricultural chemicals. Over-fishing continues to be a global problem and invasive non-native species are disrupting aquatic habitats in many countries. The damming of rivers as part of hydroelectricity and water supply schemes continues to cause impacts, such as obstructing fish migration routes and altering natural flow and sedimentation patterns. Climate change is having a range of adverse effects such as increased drought, increased flooding and reduced ice cover. Climate change also tends to exacerbate the other pressures acting on the water environment.

WATER IN SEA Water requires some level of consideration by most Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs), and in many cases it will be one of the main topic areas assessed, given its importance and sensitivity and also due to the legal requirements of SEA where water is one of the key themes. The EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) is particularly relevant to water environment related SEAs carried out in Europe. A policy, plan or programme (PPP) may require WFD assessment to show whether it will cause or contribute to a deterioration of the WFD status of a water body or jeopardise the water body achieving good status. For certain types of PPPs, such as those relating to hydropower (e.g. IFC, 2018), offshore energy (e.g. AECOM, 2014; Environ, 2015) and fisheries management (e.g. NMFS, 2004), the water environment is likely to be the key issue. Standard SEA guidance therefore routinely references the water environment (e.g. ODPM, 2005). However, a number of guidance documents relate specifically to SEA of the water environment, or to SEA for activities that have greatest potential to impact the water environment, including those outlined in Table 13.1.

203

204  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 13.1

Guidance documents relating to SEA of the water environment (examples)

Title

Author/ Date

Scope

Guidance on consideration of water in

Scottish

Provides details of existing environmental problems relating to

strategic environmental assessment.

Environmental

water, their potential causes and examples of likely significant

Protection Agency

effects. Also provides examples of SEA water objectives and

(SEPA) (2018).

assessment questions, signposts sources of baseline information, programmes and strategies relevant to water, and advises on mitigation and enhancement, monitoring, and assessment of cumulative effects. Guidance for water companies undertaking SEA and Habitats

Strategic environmental assessment

UK Water Industry

and habitats regulations assessment –

Research (UKWIR) Regulations assessment (HRA) of their water resources

guidance for water resources management (2012).

management plans and drought plans.

plans and drought plans. Aims to help World Bank water resources and environment

Strategic environmental assessment:

Hirji & Davis

improving water resources governance

(2009) for the World professionals use SEAs to implement the principles of integrated

and decision-making.

Bank.

water resources management (IWRM). Includes case studies and a framework for enhancing the use of SEAs in IWRM.

A number of authors have demonstrated the value of SEA in relation to the water sector and water environment, and key references are outlined in Table 13.2. Table 13.2 Title

Outline of key studies that consider the use of SEA for the water sector and water environment Author/ Date

Strategic environmental Slootweg assessment (SEA) for

(2018a)

wetlands: overview

Scope

Key Recommendations/Proposals

Provides an overview of SEA for wetlands

Provides an example of tiering for flood

and notes that SEA generally consists of

management planning in the Netherlands,

the following phases: (1) visioning and

whereby SEA was conducted for the

objective setting; (2) technical assessment;

national plan ‘space for rivers’ and

(3) analysis and decision-making; and (4)

environmental impact assessments

monitoring and evaluation.

(EIAs) were conducted for the design of interventions (e.g. for the River Meuse). Proposes that such tiering allows SEA to

Identifies three main factors that signal

help streamline EIA processes. Proposes a conceptual framework for

strategic environmental (2018b)

the need for special attention to wetlands

wetland triggers in SEA and a process

assessment

in SEA. These include ecosystem services

for identifying potential wetland impacts

provided by the affected area; activities

through wetland triggers.

Wetland triggers for

Slootweg

that may be direct drivers of change in ecosystem services; and indirect drivers of change. Strategic environmental Jones (2018)

Provides a description of resilience theory,

Highlights the need to recognise that

assessment for

the resilience assessment process, and

wetlands are complex adaptive systems.

wetlands: resilience

consideration of resilience in relation to the Proposes that resilience assessment,

thinking

use of wetlands.

adaptive management, and social learning are appropriate tools for incorporation into an improved SEA process.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  205 Title

Author/ Date

Scope

Strategic environmental Phylip-Jones & Eighteen SEAs for the wind sector are

Key Recommendations/Proposals Environmental baseline information from

reviewed, including six for offshore wind.

EIA studies should be made greater use of,

wind energy planning:

Two of the four UK offshore wind SEAs

particularly in marine SEAs where it was

lessons from the United

are deemed to be unsatisfactory for reasons observed that the large volumes of data

Kingdom and Germany

such as a lack of detail and a qualitative and were little used.

assessment (SEA) for

Fischer (2015)

Advancing strategic

subjective approach. Fidler & Noble Examines how the use of SEA could be

environmental

(2012)

Concludes that SEA can help improve

advanced in the offshore oil and gas sector, project-based assessment in the offshore

assessment in the

through lessons from the UK, Canada and

sector, but notes that stronger coordination

offshore oil and gas

Norway.

between higher and lower tiers is required

sector: lessons from

to improve the ability of SEA to influence

Norway, Canada, and

decisions in a broader context.

the United Kingdom Water and environment Dijk (2008)

Compares methods for water assessment,

Recommends the following for improving

in decision-making

EIA and SEA in relation to water and the

EIA and SEA practice: better utilising trust

environment in Dutch planning.

and dialogue; making decision-makers aware when there is ambiguity or multiple perceptions of environmental consequences; and accounting adequately for the use of

Summarises the existing methodology

political power. Proposes a number of solutions to identified

implementation of SEA

and context for water resource project

challenges within a revised water impact

– learning from EIA for

EIA studies within the energy sector

assessment (WIA) module incorporated

water resources

and identifies some of the challenges in

within project EIA, and strategic water

applying EIA procedures, with particular

assessment (SWA) methodologies

reference to examples from the former

integrated within SEA.

Towards the

Lawler (2005)

Soviet Union republics. Strategic environmental Gardiner (1992) One of the first authors to recommend

Argues that the adoption of SEA would

assessment and the

the use of SEA for the water environment

assist the preparation of both catchment

water environment

in the UK, in advance of SEA becoming

management plans and land-use plans.

a regulatory requirement through the European SEA Directive. Illustrates the potential benefits of SEA by reference to a number of flood alleviation studies.

SEA OF PPPS FOR SECTORS CLOSELY LINKED TO THE WATER ENVIRONMENT This section examines the use of SEA in the following sectors that are closely linked to the water environment, because of the level of potential impact to that environment and, in some cases, because the PPPs relate directly to management of the water environment: 1. Marine spatial planning: covers a range of developments and resource uses that take place within the marine environment, from fishing to oil and gas extraction. These have the potential to produce a variety of impacts that are frequently cumulative. 2. Offshore marine renewable schemes: include wind, wave, and various tidal energy technologies. They have potential to impact the water environment in various ways, for example, through marine wildlife being affected by noise and vibration, and collision with moving parts.

206  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment 3. Fisheries and aquaculture: impacts from fisheries may arise, for example, through over-fishing, bycatch of sensitive species and damage to benthic habitats through bottom trawling. Aquaculture may cause impacts through mechanisms such as pollution by nutrients and treatment chemicals, accidental release of farmed organisms into the wild and the destruction of mangrove forests to create shrimp farms. 4. Extractive industries: involve removing minerals, metals and aggregates from the earth, and include operations such as mining, oil and gas extraction, quarrying and the dredging of aggregates. Where these activities occur in marine and coastal areas it is particularly likely that impacts will arise in the aquatic environment. However, land-based extractive industries can also significantly impact the aquatic environment, for example due to water abstraction and tailings deposition from mining operations. 5. Water resources management: PPPs for the water supply and sanitation sectors are frequently subject to SEA due to their scale and because the individual projects falling under them often require EIA. 6. Hydropower: SEA is increasingly used to assess PPPs for hydropower schemes due to the potential for cumulative impacts to arise when multiple projects are proposed within river basins. These include, for example, changing natural flow patterns and blocking access to migratory animals. 7. Agriculture: the agricultural sector has close linkages to the water environment due to its reliance on water resources and the potential for impacts to arise from agricultural activities. The latter include, for example, abstraction of water from water bodies and runoff of pollutants from agricultural land. 8. Flood protection: PPPs often cover a range of projects spread over a relatively wide geographical area, frequently in ecologically sensitive locations. Individual schemes can range from hard engineering to natural flood control measures and are aimed at controlling a range of flooding types, such as river, surface water and coastal. Such PPPs therefore benefit from SEA and are frequently covered by statutory requirements for SEA.

WATER SECTOR CASE STUDIES Case studies are presented below for each of the eight water-related sectors described above. The purpose of the case studies is to provide an overview of the diverse use of SEA in the wider water sector, including consideration of the types of SEA employed and the range of water environment-related sectors to which SEA has been applied. The case studies were selected from a range of countries to illustrate a range of approaches to SEA, from those practised in Europe in line with the SEA Directive to those followed in Australia and the USA in line with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. The SEAs carried out in Myanmar and Canada were primarily undertaken to meet the non-statutory requirements of the Government of Myanmar and the Nova Scotia Department of Energy, respectively. For each case study, background is provided to the PPP, the approach to the SEA is described and comments are made on notable issues.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  207 Table 13.3 categorises the eight case studies on the basis of classifications reported in the literature that were considered relevant, including: ●● Category of action: policy, plan or programme (Lee & Wood, 1978, provide examples of these categories).1 ●● Level of government: national/federal, regional/state, sub-regional and local (as proposed by Lee & Wood, 1978). ●● Level of integration of SEA/PPP: parallel, integrated and merged (as described by Slootweg 2018a). ●● Aspects covered: whether the SEA covers only environmental aspects, or a combination of environmental and socioeconomic aspects (Fischer et al., 2002 report that a number of authors have categorised SEAs in this way). The author’s professional judgement was required when assigning the categories in Table 13.3 when an SEA was on the boundary between two categories. Table 13.3 Case study

Classification of the case studies Country

Sector

Category of

Level of

Level of

action

government

integration of

Plan

Regional/

Aspects covered

SEA/PPP 1. Shetland Islands Scotland

Marine spatial

regional marine

planning

Integrated

state

Environmental & socioeconomic

plan 2. Fundy tidal

Canada

energy 3. Alaska

Marine renewable

Plan

energy USA

Fisheries and

Merged

state Policy

aquaculture

groundfish

Regional/ National/

Environmental & socioeconomic

Integrated

federal

Environmental & socioeconomic

fisheries 4. Offshore

Ireland

Extractive

Policy

industries

petroleum

National/

Parallel

federal

Environmental & socioeconomic

activities 5. Water resources England

Water resources

management plan

management

6. Hydropower

Myanmar

Hydropower

Plan Policy

National/

Agriculture

Programme

scheme

Regional/

Environmental & socioeconomic

Merged

federal

7. Midlands water Australia

management

Integrated

federal

sector framework

8. Flood risk

National/

Environmental & socioeconomic

Parallel

Environmental

Integrated

Environmental &

state Scotland

Flood protection

Policy

National/ federal

socioeconomic

strategies

For the purpose of this chapter, no systematic allocation of PPPs was pursued (as suggested by e.g. Fischer, 2006). Instead, the terms as used by the proponents were used, or if no corresponding term was used by the proponent a category was assigned by the author based on professional judgement. Therefore, in terms of coverage and approach, there might not be any systematic differences between e.g. what is called a policy or plan. 1

208  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment 1.

Shetland Islands Regional Marine Plan, Scotland, UK

A sustainability appraisal (NAFC Marine Centre, 2019) was undertaken for the Shetland Islands regional marine plan (SIRMP) 2019 draft (Shetland Islands Marine Planning Partnership, 2019). The SIRMP covers all aspects of marine and coastal resource use, including fishing, aquaculture, oil and gas, marine renewables, transportation and shipping, culture and heritage, sport and recreation, education and the environment. The policy framework within the SIRMP is stated to be in line with Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) (Scottish Government, 2015). The SIRMP will be used to assess marine development applications in the period from 2019 to 2024 for an area out to 12 nautical miles. A combined SEA and sustainability appraisal (SA) was undertaken to give greater consideration to social, cultural and economic services provided by the ecosystem, thus following an ecosystem services approach. This process was designed to align with the objectives of the UK Marine Policy Statement (HM Government, 2011), NMP objectives and policies, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Scottish Government’s guidance on integrating an ecosystems approach into SEA (Scottish Government, 2016). The SIRMP illustrates the wide range of marine resource uses that need to be covered within marine spatial planning. Taking an ecosystems services approach in SEA is not mandatory (Scottish Government, 2016), but it is particularly relevant to SEA of marine spatial plans, which relate in large part to services and resources provided by ecosystems. The combined approach covering SEA, SA and ecosystems services allowed integrated assessment of the full range of environmental, social, cultural and economic issues, some of which might otherwise have been missed or inadequately covered. 2.

Fundy Tidal Energy, Canada

The Fundy tidal energy SEA (OEER, 2008; AECOM, 2014) was not applied to a particular PPP but to a number of high-level development scenarios, focusing on tidal devices (OEER, 2008). The SEA was initiated by a 2007 request from the Nova Scotia Department of Energy to the Offshore Energy Environment Research (OEER) Association. Through the SEA process the Department wished to be advised on pilot projects, ongoing research and monitoring requirements and other steps required to determine whether, where and how commercial projects should be developed, regulated and managed. The scenarios considered in the 2008 Phase 1 SEA report were updated in the Phase 2 SEA report published in 2014 (AECOM, 2014). The SEA was undertaken in two phases, the first completed by OEER in 2008 and the second completed by AECOM in 2014. The second phase was undertaken due to the tidal energy industry having evolved since 2008. The Phase 1 SEA made 29 recommendations to guide a strategic approach to the development of marine renewable energy. The Phase 2 SEA reviewed progress with these recommendations and concluded that all but three had been implemented. Both phases of the SEA involved extensive consultation with local communities and other stakeholders. The SEA related to high-level development scenarios rather than PPPs. One of the non-implemented recommendations from the Phase 1 SEA was for the Province of Nova Scotia to develop an integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) policy for the Bay of Fundy. Had this recommendation been actioned, the Phase 2 SEA could have been applied to the policy, which may have provided more official weight. Noble et al. (2019) previously noted

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  209 that ‘a key success of the SEA was that it engaged those affected and interested early and throughout the process’. Doelle (2015) observed that the Phase 1 study was limited by time and resources, although some of the knowledge gaps were filled by the Phase 2 study. 3.

Alaska Groundfish Fisheries, USA

The programmatic supplementary environmental impact statement (PSEIS) for the Alaska groundfish fisheries (NMFS, 2004) was produced for the fishery management plan for the groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI FMP) and the fishery management plan for the groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP), both as amended. References for the latest versions of these FMPs are NPFMC (2018) and NPFMC (2019), respectively. The ‘federal action’ assessed by the PSEIS was defined as the management of groundfish fisheries and the authorisation of groundfish fisheries activities off Alaska pursuant to the FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the National Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and had been amended many times since their creation more than 20 years previously. The NPFMC and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) prepared environmental impact statements (EISs) for the original FMPs in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 2004 PSEIS was prepared to produce a new baseline of information, bringing the federally managed groundfish fisheries into compliance with NEPA. On the basis of the PSEIS analysis, the NPFMC adopted a management approach statement and nine policy goal statements with 45 accompanying objectives. In 2015, the NPFMC and NMFS produced a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) (NMFS, 2015) to the 2004 PSEIS. When an EIS addresses a PPP in the USA, it is called a programmatic EIS or PEIS (NMFS, 2015). The 2004 PSEIS thus provides a good example of the use of an assessment method equivalent to SEA in the USA. It also provides a demonstration of the way that NEPA requires ongoing review and updating of the outcomes of EIS/PEIS. This was shown by the way that the original EISs were required to be supplemented by the 2004 PSEIS, followed by the SIR review in 2015, which concluded that the 2004 PSEIS was still valid at that point. 4.

Offshore Petroleum Activities, Ireland

The SEA of licensing and permitting of offshore petroleum activities (IOSEA 5) (Environ, 2015) did not relate to a separate PPP document. Instead the plan assessed was ‘to proceed with licensing and permitting of petroleum activities up to the maximum levels specified, subject to modifications to the regulatory regime which may derive from the SEA process’ (Environ, 2015). The draft plan comprised the award of petroleum exploration and production authorisations for geophysical seismic survey of subsea geological formations and drilling in specified basins offshore of Ireland, during the period 2015–20. Maximum numbers were assumed for seismic and drilling activity. Two alternative options for the plan were assessed. Option 1 allowed for conducting the exploration and production activities as proposed, subject to existing regulatory requirements. Option 2 allowed for conducting the activities subject to modifications to the regulatory regime which might derive from the SEA process.

210  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Irish offshore strategic environmental assessment (IOSEA) 5 was the fifth offshore SEA of a series to be carried out on plans to issue exploration licences and production authorisations for the entire offshore area under Irish jurisdiction. The objectives of the SEA were stated as being to inform the government of specific environmental considerations and to provide exploration companies with an operational baseline against which they could conduct their work and ensure the protection of the marine environment. IOSEA 5 was undertaken as a baseline-led assessment and involved a qualitative approach. No specific PPP document was assessed in the SEA and instead the assessment related to potential maximum levels of proposed activities. The approach to the assessment of options had the advantage of ensuring that the outcomes of the SEA were incorporated into the PPP. However, no genuine alternative options were considered. So, for example, it was simply stated that renewable energy was not considered to be a viable alternative to the plan. Consideration of climate change mitigation was also specifically excluded, a significant gap given the potential scale of greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed activities. 5.

Water Resources Management Plan, England, UK

The SEA (Ricardo Energy & Environment, 2018) related to Yorkshire Water’s revised draft water resources management plan, September 2018 (Yorkshire Water Services Ltd, 2018). In the UK, water companies are required to produce a water resources management plan (WRMP) every five years. Yorkshire Water’s WRMP sets out plans to maintain a balance between supply and demand from 2020 to 2045. The plan considers how issues such as population growth and climate change may alter future demand for water, as well as the supplies that are available. The methodology employed in the SEA was based on the UK Government’s generic SEA guidance (ODPM, 2005) as well as specific guidance for undertaking SEA and HRA of WRMPs (UKWIR, 2012; Environment Agency & Natural Resources Wales, 2016). The SEA assessed a range of options within the categories of customer, distribution, production and resource management. SEA of WRMPs and Drought Management Plans is an established practice for water companies in the UK, with associated guidance. The Yorkshire Water WRMP and its associated SEA took an integrated approach which was coordinated with a separate Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment, taking into account the objectives in the Humber river basin district river basin management plan (RBMP) (Environment Agency, 2015). 6.

Hydropower Sector Framework, Myanmar

The SEA of the Myanmar hydropower sector related to its sustainable development framework (SDF), which formed part of the SEA report (IFC, 2018). The SDF aimed to balance hydropower development with the retention and protection of important environmental and social functions and values. An SDF implementation plan was developed to implement and periodically update the SDF. Integrated hydropower planning was recommended at three levels, including site screening against the SDF basin zoning plans for all projects of 10 MW or greater; cumulative impact assessment (CIA) for new or additional projects in a sub-basin or watershed; and EIA for larger projects or initial environmental examination (IEE) for smaller projects.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  211 The SEA and SDF development processes were merged and the SEA report and SDF were published as a single document. The SDF was only developed in detail once scoping, preparation of a geographic information system (GIS) database of hydropower projects, evaluation of sub-basin environmental and socioeconomic baselines, and hydropower ‘business-as-usual’ sustainability analysis had been undertaken. Extensive consultation was undertaken throughout, including with a SEA advisory group, technical expert groups and a wide range of stakeholders. The merged approach to conducting the SEA and developing the SDF was important as the purpose of the framework was to facilitate sustainable hydropower development. This was against a background of currently proposed projects that together were considered to be unsustainable, and sensitive environmental, social and economic conditions (e.g. biodiversity and ethnic conflicts). The tiered approach laid out in the SDF, provided for site screening, CIA, EIA and IEE of different types of projects. This was important for ensuring further assessment at a sub-SEA level. 7.

Midlands Water Scheme, Australia

A strategic impact assessment (SIA) (DPIPWE, 2010a, 2010b) was undertaken for the Midlands water scheme (MWS) water access programme, Tasmania (DPIPWE, 2011). The MWS aimed to deliver up to 47,500 million litres of irrigation water to 490 farms annually from two water sources. Each of the irrigation schemes was to use pipelines and, in part, river sections for the transmission and supply of the irrigation water. The programme had three components: planning and assessment processes for infrastructure development (construction); water management planning, licensing and allocation (operation); and the systems and processes to meet legal requirements and enable sustainable on-farm use of irrigation water (the water access system). The SIA was carried out as a requirement of the EPBC Act. This focuses Australian Commonwealth Government interests on protection of matters of national environmental significance (MNES). The terms of reference required consideration of the following MNES in the assessment: national heritage places, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and ecological communities, and migratory species. A draft SIA report was published in September 2010 (DPIPWE, 2010a), followed by public consultation and publication of a supplementary report (DPIPWE, 2010b). The SIA was essentially equivalent to a SEA process although it had a relatively narrow focus on MNES, due to the requirements of the EPBC Act. This allowed the scope of the assessment to be clearly determined and the potential receptors to be clearly identified. However, this approach could lead to important environmental topics not directly linked to MNES being excluded from consideration. These might include, for example, impacts to human populations from noise, air emissions and traffic disruption during construction. 8.

Flood Risk Management Strategies, Scotland, UK

The SEA (SEPA, 2015a, SEPA 2015b) related to flood risk management strategies for 14 local plan districts created for flood risk management purposes (e.g. SEPA, 2015c). SEPA, in collaboration with partners, produced 14 flood risk management strategies to set out the future direction and priorities for managing flooding. These strategies comprised a national flood

212  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment risk management plan for Scotland as required by the European Union Floods Directive and the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The strategies identified the hazards and risk of flooding from rivers, the sea and surface water; set objectives for managing flood risk; selected the most appropriate combination of actions to meet the objectives; and prioritised the delivery of actions. SEPA undertook a SEA as part of the preparation of the flood risk management strategies as required by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. It was proposed that further environmental assessment (SEA or EIA) would take place if required in relation to the more detailed flood risk management plans and projects that would sit below the strategies. The main environmental report made a national assessment across all 14 flood risk management strategies. This was built from individual assessments for each local plan district, which were provided as appendices. The environmental report noted that ‘by their very nature flood risk management actions will influence ecosystem structure and ecosystem processes, as well as affecting the provision of ecosystem services’. As a result of this, the SEA adopted an ecosystems services approach. This presented a number of advantages, for example assisting with identifying cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects. A consultation exercise was undertaken on the environmental report leading to a post-adoption statement (SEPA, 2015b). However, only five responses were received, the majority from statutory consultees, suggesting that a greater level of community engagement would have been beneficial.

DISCUSSION When selecting case studies, it was apparent that SEA was used more commonly in some water-related sectors than others, with relatively few examples being identified for the aquaculture/fisheries and agriculture sectors. The reasons for this are unclear, although it could reflect fewer PPPs being produced for these sectors or fewer requirements to subject such PPPs to SEA. This is worth further study, given that these sectors are associated with a range of impacts to the water environment. All of the SEAs related to PPPs at either national/federal or regional/state level. The majority of the PPPs were called policies or plans, with the exception of the Midlands water scheme which was called a programme, and the SEA for which did not consider socioeconomic impacts. The planning and SEA processes for the tidal energy and hydropower case studies could be considered ‘merged’ in line with the definition used by Slootweg (2018a), who regards the merged process as ideal as ‘the assessment work continually informs the planning process’. However, Slootweg (2018a) also notes that with a merged process ‘it is also more difficult to regulate, to apply checks and balances that ensure a minimum assessment level’. The latter point was potentially illustrated by the two merged SEA case studies following different tailored approaches. According to Slootweg’s (2018a) definition, the other SEAs would be classified as either ‘integrated’, or in the case of the Midlands water scheme and offshore petroleum SEAs, ‘parallel’ (i.e. ‘applied as a stand-alone series of activities, in parallel to planning’). The parallel case study SEAs assessed PPPs that were already substantially fixed, thus limiting their ability to develop and compare options and to influence the development of the PPPs from the outset.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  213 The majority of the case study SEAs had a relatively narrow focus, for example, on irrigation or flood control, whereas the marine spatial planning SEA had a broader focus, covering all aspects of marine and coastal resource use (in the terrestrial context SEAs for river basin management plans (RBMPs) have a similarly broad focus). As the water environment is an interconnected and complex system, and the use of one resource tends to conflict with the use of other resources, it may be advantageous for PPPs with strong links to the water environment to cover as broad a range of activities as practicable. This is an approach promoted by the World Bank who, for example, support integrated water resources management (Hirji and Davis, 2009) and integrated coastal zone management (Post & Lundin, 1996). An example of marine-related PPPs moving in a broader direction in the UK, is that renewable and fossil fuel developments were originally considered separately (e.g. DTI 2002; BMT Cordah 2003), but are now considered together (e.g. DECC 2009, 2016). A disconnect between SEA and EIA has been highlighted in relation to hydropower (Erlewein, 2013; Xu et al., 2013; Annandale & Nabi Afridi, 2014; Andrade & dos Santos, 2015), marine renewable energy (Phylip-Jones & Fischer, 2015), marine spatial planning (Shi et al., 2001), and extractive industries (Fidler & Noble, 2012). Slootweg (2018a) described how a tiered system was used in the Netherlands to address this problem in relation to flood management planning. This follows Fischer (2006) who proposed a generic framework for SEA and transport planning, which included the following tiers (see also Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell & Fischer, 2021): transport policy-related SEA, transport network plan-related SEA, transport corridor plan-related SEA, transport (investment) programme-related SEA, and transport project-related EIA. Several of the case study SEAs referenced how they fitted into a tiered system that included EIA at lower levels (e.g. the hydropower and flood strategies SEAs), therefore this does not appear to be a problem in all cases. The Canadian and US SEAs demonstrated good practice in relation to regular review and updating of SEA outcomes. The Canadian SEA was updated to reflect changes in the marine renewable energy sector in the intervening period. The US fisheries SEA was reviewed but it was determined that an update was not required, avoiding unnecessary expenditure. With the exception of the Midlands water scheme SEA in Australia, the other case studies were recent and therefore not yet likely to require updating. However, the Midlands water scheme SEA might have benefitted from such an update, had any details of the scheme changed during implementation. Yorkshire Water’s water resources management plan (WRMP) was subject to a WFD compliance assessment (Ricardo Environment & Energy, 2018). Gullón (2005) considered the links between the WFD and SEA, and recommended that RBMPs, required under the WFD, should be subject to SEA. SEA has subsequently been carried out for RBMPs and the Environment Agency, for example, conducts SEAs of all of the RBMPs in England (e.g. Environment Agency, 2015). Carter and Howe (2006) explored the linkages between the SEA Directive and the WFD Directive, highlighting advantages such as resource savings, a more holistic approach to water resource management and more sustainable forms of development. Consultation was undertaken as part of the SEA process in all of the case studies. However, the level of public consultation varied, with the Canadian tidal energy and Myanmar hydropower SEAs paying particular attention to public engagement due to the presence of local indigenous groups. Larson et al. (2013) and Noble et al. (2019) have highlighted the need for effective public consultation as part of the SEA process for water-related PPPs.

214  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The two Scottish SEAs adopted an ecosystems services-led approach, reflecting the importance of ecosystems services associated with the water environment, such as fisheries, flood control and water supply. Kumar et al. (2013), for example, have argued that ‘ecosystem services can be an appropriate indicator to weight developmental policies, programs and plans to ensure the consideration of environmental balancing at the policy level’. Slootweg (2018b) highlighted ecosystems services as being intrinsically linked to key factors, signalling the need for special attention to wetlands in SEAs (see also Chapter 17 by Slootweg, 2021). Biodiversity was a topic covered by all the case study SEAs. For SEAs carried out in Europe, there is frequently a parallel requirement for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA; following the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) to be conducted, as illustrated by the UK and Irish case study examples, all being subject to separate HRA (or so-called Natura Impact Assessment for Natura 2000 protected areas) procedures (see also Chapter 15 by Scott, 2021). Consideration of ‘critical habitat’ was an important factor in the Myanmar hydropower SEA and the Australian irrigation SEA focused on matters of national environmental significance, the majority of which were linked to biodiversity. The Canadian and US marine SEAs both included consideration of a range of marine habitats and species. All of the eight case study SEAs considered the need for climate change resilience and adaptation (see also Chapter 16 by O’Mahony, 2021). Seven considered adaptation of the baseline in relation to climate change. The exception was the Myanmar hydropower SEA, which is surprising as the changing climate is likely to have a significant effect on river flows in Myanmar. Only four of the SEAs considered climate change mitigation in any detail (SEAs for the regional marine plan, tidal energy development, flood risk management strategies and WRMP). This is a significant gap given the scale of the climate change threat, the vulnerability of the water environment to it and because climate change mitigation is ideally planned at a strategic level. Larsen and Kørnøv (2009) looked specifically at how climate change can be addressed within SEAs of RBMPs, using Denmark as an example. The majority of their case study SEAs did not comply with one of their key observations, which is that SEAs should cover mitigation of climate change, adaptation to climate change and adaptation of the baseline. Analysis of the current cases studies reflects that observation, particularly in relation to climate change mitigation.

CONCLUSION The wider water-related sector involves a range of activities that have particular potential to affect the water environment. This chapter has shown that a diverse range of PPPs exist to manage and control these activities, which themselves are subject to multiple types of SEA. Qualitative analysis of the case studies suggests that the following represents general good practice in SEA: ●● Using a merged or highly integrated process for developing the PPP and SEA, so that the assessment work continually informs the policy, plan or programme preparation process. ●● Adopting a tiered approach so that the SEA and EIA processes are interconnected. ●● Including as broad a range of activities as practicable within the scope of the PPP and SEA. ●● Regularly reviewing and updating the SEA so that any changes to the activities and environmental baseline can be reassessed.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  215 ●● ●● ●● ●●

Including comprehensive assessment of biodiversity impacts. Adopting an ecosystems services led approach. Undertaking effective public consultation as part of the SEA process. Providing adequate consideration of climate change.

Of the above, the following are particularly relevant to the water sector: 1. Ecosystem services – given the range and importance of ecosystem services associated with the water environment, adopting an ecosystem services led approach ensures that they are given adequate weight, as well as providing a logical structure for the assessment. An ecosystems services approach may also assist in the identification of cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects. 2. Biodiversity – important to consider because the water environment often includes highly biodiverse ecosystems, such as coral reefs, and the nature of the water environment means that there are multiple pathways through which they may be impacted. 3. Climate change – climate change will have a large impact on both the water sector and the water environment, therefore it should be a key consideration in water sector SEA, including both adaptation and mitigation. 4. Range of activities covered – it is important to cover as broad a range of activities as reasonably possible in the PPP/SEA, as there is particular potential for conflicts to arise in the use of aquatic resources, given their varied, complex and interrelated nature.

REFERENCES AECOM. 2014. Tidal Energy: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Update for the Bay of Fundy. Halifax, NS: AECOM Canada Ltd. Andrade, A. de L. and dos Santos, M.A. 2015. Hydroelectric plants environmental viability: Strategic environmental assessment application in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, pp. 1413–23. Annandale, D. and Nabi Afridi, Z. 2014. Strategic environmental assessment of hydropower development in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in: Fischer, T.B., ed., Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook for Pakistan. Islamabad: IUCN Pakistan, pp. 120–28. BMT Cordah Ltd. 2003. Offshore Wind Energy Generation: Phase 1 Proposals and Environmental Report. Penicuik: BMT Cordah Ltd. Carter, J. and Howe, J. 2006. The water framework directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(3), pp. 287–300. DECC. 2009. UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment, Future Leasing for Offshore Wind Farms and Licensing for Offshore Oil & Gas and Gas Storage, Non-Technical Summary. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change. DECC. 2016. UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment, OESEA3 Environmental Report, Future Leasing/Licensing for Offshore Renewable Energy, Offshore Oil & Gas, Hydrocarbon Gas and Carbon Dioxide Storage and Associated Infrastructure. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change. Dijk, van, J.M. 2008. Water and environment in decision-making: Water assessment, environmental impact assessment, and strategic environmental assessment in Dutch planning, a comparison. PhD thesis, Wageningen University. Doelle, M. 2015. Offshore renewable energy governance in Nova Scotia: A case study of tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy. Ocean Yearbook, 29(1), pp. 271–98.

216  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment DPIPWE. 2010a. Draft Strategic Assessment for the Water Access Program, Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania – Strategic Impact Assessment. Hobart: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. DPIPWE. 2010b. Strategic Assessment for the Water Access Program, Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania – Supplementary Report. Hobart: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. DPIPWE. 2011. Strategic Assessment for the Water Access Program, Midlands Water Scheme, Tasmania – Program Report. Hobart: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. DTI. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Central and Southern North Sea, SEA 3, Background Pamphlet. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Environ. 2015. Irish Offshore Strategic Environmental Assessment (IOSEA) 5 Environmental Report. London: Environ UK. Environment Agency. 2015. Part 1: Humber River Basin District River Basin Management Plan. Bristol: Environment Agency. Environment Agency & Natural Resources Wales. 2016. Final Water Resources Planning Guideline. Bristol: Environment Agency. Erlewein, A. 2013. Disappearing rivers: The limits of environmental assessment for hydropower in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, pp. 135–43. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fidler, C. and Noble, B. 2012. Advancing strategic environmental assessment in the offshore oil and gas sector: Lessons from Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34, pp. 12–21. Fischer, T.B. 2006. SEA and transport planning: Towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(3), pp. 183–97. Fischer, T.B., Wood, C. and Jones, C. 2002. Policy, plan, and programme environmental assessment in England, the Netherlands, and Germany: Practice and prospects. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, pp. 159–72. Gardiner, J. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment and the water environment. Project Appraisal, 7(3), pp. 165–9. Gullón, N. 2005. Links between the Water Framework Directive and SEA, in: Schmidt, M., João E. and Albrecht E., eds, Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Protection in the European Union, vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 513–22. Hirji, R. and Davis, R. 2009. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Improving Water Resources, Governance and Decision Making, Main Report, Water Sector Board Discussion Paper Series, paper no. 12. Washington, DC: The World Bank. HM Government. 2011. UK Marine Policy Statement. London: The Stationery Office. IFC, 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Myanmar Hydropower Sector, Final Report. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation. Jones, M. 2018. Strategic environmental assessment for wetlands: Resilience thinking, in: Finlayson, C.M., Everard, M., Irvine, K., McInnes, R.J., Middleton, B.A., van Dam, A.A. and Davidson, N.C., eds, The Wetland Book. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2105–15. Kumar, P., Esen, S.E. and Yashiro, M. 2013. Linking ecosystem services to strategic environmental assessment in development policies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, pp. 75–81. Larsen, S.V. and Kørnøv, L. 2009. SEA of river basin management plans: Incorporating climate change. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(4), pp. 291–9. Larson, K.L., Wiek, A. and Keeler, L.W. 2013. A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of water governance in Phoenix, AZ. Journal of Environmental Management, 116, pp. 58–71. Lawler, D. 2005. Towards the implementation of SEA: Learning from EIA for water resources, in: Schmidt, M., João, E. and Albrecht, E., eds, Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Protection in the European Union, vol. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 495–511. Lee, N. and Wood, C. 1978. EIA: A European perspective. Built Environment, 4, pp. 101–10. NAFC Marine Centre. 2019. Sustainability Appraisal: Environmental Report, Shetland Islands Regional Marine Plan (SIRMP). Port Arthur, Shetland: NAFC Marine Centre UHI.

Strategic environmental assessment in the water sector  217 NMFS. 2004. Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Final Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, AK: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. NMFS. 2015. Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Supplemental Information Report. Juneau, AK: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. Noble, B., Gibson, R., White, L., Blakley, J., Croal, P., Nwanekezie, K. and Doelle, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 37(3–4), pp. 344–55. NPFMC. 2018. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council. NPFMC. 2019. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. Anchorage, AK: North Pacific Fishery Management Council. ODPM. 2005. A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. OEER. 2008. Fundy Tidal Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment: Final Report. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Offshore Energy Environmental Research Association. O’Mahony, C. 2021. Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 16). Phylip-Jones, J. and Fischer, T.B. 2015. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wind energy planning: Lessons from the United Kingdom and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, pp. 203–12. Post, J.C. and Lundin, C.G., eds. 1996. Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs. Series No. 9. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Ricardo Energy & Environment. 2018. Environmental Report, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Yorkshire Water Services Limited, Revised Draft Water Resource Management Plan 2019, issue no. 3. Manchester: Ricardo Energy & Environment. Scott, P. 2021. Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 15). Scottish Government. 2015. Scotland’s National Marine Plan: A Single Framework for Managing Our Seas. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Scottish Government. 2016. Integrating an Ecosystems Approach into Strategic Environmental Assessment, Information Note. The Scottish Government. Available at https://​ www​ .gov​ .scot/​ publications/​strategic​-environmental​-assessment​-integrating​-an​-ecosystems​-approach/​ [accessed 26 October 2019]. SEPA. 2015a. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Flood Risk Management Strategies Environmental Report – Consultation. Stirling: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SEPA. 2015b. Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Strategies Post Adoption Statement. Stirling: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SEPA. 2015c. Flood Risk Management Strategy Highland and Argyll. Stirling: Scottish Environment Protection Agency. SEPA. 2018. Guidance on Consideration of Water in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, SEPA guidance note 3, version 3. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Available at https://​www​.sepa​.org​.uk/​media/​162987/​lups​-sea​-gu3​-consideration​-of​-water​-in​ -sea​.pdf [accessed 26 October 2019]. Shetland Islands Marine Planning Partnership. 2019. Draft Shetland Islands Regional Marine Plan. Port Arthur, Shetland: NAFC Marine Centre UHI. Shi, C., Hutchinson, S.M., Yu, L. and Xu, S. 2001. Towards a sustainable coast: An integrated coastal zone management framework for Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, pp. 411–27. Slootweg, R. 2018a. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for wetlands: Overview, in: Finlayson, C.M., Everard, M., Irvine, K., McInnes, R.J., Middleton, B.A., van Dam, A.A. and Davidson, N.C., eds, The Wetland Book. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2085–95.

218  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Slootweg, R. 2018b. Wetland triggers for strategic environmental assessment, in: Finlayson, C.M., Everard, M., Irvine, K., McInnes, R.J., Middleton, B.A., van Dam, A.A. and Davidson, N.C., eds, The Wetland Book. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 2097–104. Slootweg, R. 2021. Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an integrating concept in a world of silos, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 17). UKWIR. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment – Guidance for Water Resources Management Plans and Drought Plans. London: UK Water Industry Research. Wiek, A. and Larson, K. 2012. Water, people and sustainability: A systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resources Management, 26(11), pp. 3153–71. Xu, X., Tan, Y. and Yang, G. 2013. Environmental impact assessments of the Three Gorges project in China: Issues and interventions. Earth-Science Reviews, 124, pp. 115–25. Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. 2018. Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan. Bradford: Yorkshire Water Services Ltd.

SECTION 2 INTEGRATION THROUGH STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

14. Integration through strategic environmental assessment: the case of health in English strategic planning Thomas B. Fischer, Tara Muthoora and Nicola Sworowski

INTRODUCTION: WHAT DOES INTEGRATION IN AND THROUGH SEA MEAN? Discussions on integration in and through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) usually revolve around the alignment of different substantive issues to be assessed (see also Chapters 15, 16 and 17 by Scott, 2021; O’Mahony, 2021; and Slootweg, 2021, respectively). In this context, SEA is frequently discussed as a sustainability or integrated assessment (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2015). Furthermore, aspects of governance are considered with the aim of achieving compatibility of aims and objectives in policies, plans and programmes (PPP), as well as consistency in ensuing action and implementation. Overall, the importance for considering health in SEA is derived from an ability of underlying PPP to influence human behaviour. For example, built and natural environments can either encourage or discourage certain exercises (such as cycling or walking to work). Determinants of health can therefore be influenced through PPP and their associated SEAs (Carmichael et al., 2019). According to Fischer (2016), integration efforts in SEA are often made: a. between different substantive aspects or topics in the same policy, plan or programme; b. across administrations and sectors; and c. between policies, plans, and programmes of one administration and/or sector. With regard to (a), the integration of substantive aspects, some environmental issues tend to be consistently considered in all known SEA systems globally. Importantly, SEA is of an anthropocentric nature, i.e. ultimately it aims at avoiding environmental harm in order to generate positive impacts and outcomes for people, as ‘destroying the environment runs counter to humans’ interests’ (Kronenberg, 2014). In this context, typical biophysical aspects considered include air, water, soil, flora and fauna. In addition, landscape (in particular in the context of visual) impacts are also routinely assessed. Objectives and targets from e.g. environmental legislation and sustainable development strategies established at local, regional, national or international levels are frequently used as the substantive points of reference, allowing an evaluation of the impacts in SEA. In order to be able to effectively integrate different substantive aspects, methods and techniques need to be aligned so that results are comparable, for example, in balance sheets and matrices (Ravetz, 2000). Typical impacts considered in SEA are usually associated with e.g. land-take, emissions, noise, waste and accidents. Health in SEA has recently received some particular attention, on the one hand in Europe, in association with the explicit mentioning of human health in the new EIA Directive (see Fischer, 2016), 220

The case of health in English strategic planning  221 and on the other hand globally, due to the Covid-19 pandemic (Fischer, 2020). There are different interpretations as to how health should be approached and what health aspects should be considered. This will be further elaborated on in the next section. With regard to (b), integration across administrations and sectors, substantive aspects and topics introduced under (a) are covered in PPP and actions of different administrations and sectors. These administration and sectors include e.g. regional and local administrations (Barker and Fischer, 2003) as well as land-use, economic development, transport, energy, water and waste (Stead et al., 2004; Fischer et al., 2013). There is a need for concerted action between those, and hence reconciliation and integration efforts need to be made across administrations and sectors. Administrative integration aims at making decisions that do not remain in isolated silos. Administrations frequently represent specific sectors, and in this context, integration also means achieving compatibility of different professional cultures and values (Harris & Hooper, 2004). Importantly, even if a broad strategic alignment of different issues and aspects can be achieved, implementation can still be misaligned, in particular due to levels of ambiguity and/or lack of compromise. A core test for effective integration is whether the objectives of one sector PPP are used and referenced in another (Fischer et al., 2013). Finally, with regard to (c), the integration and consistency of PPP of and within one administration and/or sector, there is often an assumption that these are bound to be consistent. However, in reality, there is often a disconnect, in particular between strategic thinking represented in e.g. policy, which usually revolves around strategic aims and objectives, on the one hand, and implementation of concrete actions in practice, on the other. This has been observed in e.g. the transport sector, which is further explained in Chapter 11 (Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). Efforts at integrating across PPPs and the ensuing actions of different administrations and sectors is one important aspect to consider (as discussed above). Another is the different ways of how to achieve integration. This can range from cooperation of e.g. administrations and sectors so that they become aware of each other’s objectives and hopefully align them, over coordination of activities with the purpose of using the same objectives (and targets) through to full integration where joint PPPs are prepared. With regard to the different attempts to integrate through SEA (i.e. from coordination to full integration), Jansson (2000) and Fischer (1999; see also Marshall and Fischer, 2006) observed that how integration works in practice is often associated with a particular systematic decision tier (i.e. a PPP). The higher the strategic level at which SEA is applied, the more likely an attempt is made to fully integrate different substantive aspects. Therefore, policy-level assessments tend to function as integrated assessments. Examples include the European Commission’s impact assessment procedures for draft directives and other policies and the UK’s impact assessment (formerly regulatory impact assessment) for policy initiatives (Sykes and Fischer, 2017). More recently, territorial impact assessment (TIA) of European policies has also been designed as an integrated assessment (see Chapter 5 by Marot et al., 2021). In the remainder of this chapter, we will examine how health is integrated in strategic plans in England, which, due to their strategic nature, could also be called policy-plans and therefore should integrate different aspects well. What role SEA has played in this context will also be considered. First, though, we explore why human health is considered in SEA and what this means in practice.

222  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

WHY IS HUMAN HEALTH CONSIDERED IN SEA? Whilst there are various SEA-type applications at the policy level (see Chapters 4 and 5 by Partidário, 2021 and Marot et al., 2021, respectively), globally, most SEAs are currently applied within administrative planning and programming procedures in spatial/land-use, as well as other sectors (in particular transport and energy at local levels; see Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021). There is also practice at national and regional levels. This is reflected in SEA research and publication endeavours and activities (Fischer and Onyango, 2012). Taking this overall context into account, the importance of considering health in spatial planning-related SEA arises in particular due to the close connection between planning towns and cities, and public health issues. In Europe and North America, awareness of this link started to develop during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century – in other world regions more recently – which led to an increase in urban populations, in particular of industry-related workers. This often resulted in overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions. The lack of basic public infrastructures and widespread poverty subsequently contributed to poor health and illnesses, such as cholera, typhoid, scarlet fever and smallpox. Social reformers, including Edwin Chadwick (General Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Classes of Great Britain, 1842) and Friedrich Engels (Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845) were the first to demonstrate the relationship between the state of the urban environment and the state of the health of urban populations (Fawcett, 2019). As a consequence, subsequent public health legislation was introduced in many countries (the first being the Public Health Act in Britain in 1875; see also the Clean Air Act here of 1956, following the London smog disaster in 1952, which is said to have claimed up to 12,000 lives). Public authorities (often at the local level) were charged with responsibility for public health and sanitation, the construction of sewage systems, and building codes for housing standards, land-use, and natural light requirements (Fawcett, 2019). The consideration of health in planning became weaker when the disciplines of planning and public health (the science of preventing disease) evolved at the beginning of the 20th century. In this context, next to other initiatives to reconcile planning and public health (Chang, 2019), the introduction of SEA in many countries over the last few decades and also the introduction of the (dedicated impact assessment tool) Health Impact Assessment (HIA) are associated with a wish to connect the two more effectively (Carmichael et al., 2019). The great importance for a thorough consideration of public health in planning and emergency planning is currently shown by the global outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. Preparedness for pandemics should be an issue covered in SEAs of e.g. strategic plans. Environmental Assessment (including both EIA for projects and SEA for PPPs) was introduced based on growing concerns over negative impacts of industrial processes on various environment aspects, including human health, in the 1960s. Rachel Carson, in The Silent Spring (1962) examined the environmental damage caused by the unregulated use of synthetic pesticides and its relationship to human health. Carson’s observations became the impetus for the creation of the US National Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The first EIA legislation globally was the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 (signed 1 January 1970). This laid out formal requirements for the environmental assessment of US Federal activities. NEPA mentions health several times, as follows:

The case of health in English strategic planning  223 promote efforts which will … stimulate the health and welfare of man; assure for all Americans … healthful … surroundings; … attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety. (US EPA, 1970)

Furthermore, the European SEA Directive (introduced in 2001) has health at its heart. Thus, in Annex 1, it specifies that information … be provided on … the likely significant effects on … human health,

and that “criteria for determining the likely significance of effects” include: characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard, in particular, to … the risks to human health.

Finally, the UNECE Protocol on SEA to the Espoo Convention on EIA in a trans-boundary context mentions human health every time it refers to environmental impacts. This is reflected in its overall objective (introduced in article 1) which is about providing “for a high level of protection of the environment, including health, by … i. Ensuring that environmental, including health, considerations are thoroughly taken into account in the development of plans and programmes; ii. Contributing to the consideration of environmental, including health, concerns in the preparation of policies and legislation; iii. Establishing clear, transparent and effective procedures for strategic environmental assessment; iv. Providing for public participation in strategic environmental assessment; and v. Integrating by these means environmental, including health, concerns into measures and instruments designed to further sustainable development.”

SEA legislation from many countries mentions human health. Next to the USA and EU member states and associated countries this includes, for example, the Canadian EA Directive which refers to health in its Annex. However, SEA legislation of some countries is quiet about a need to consider human health. This includes, for example, Australia, China and the Republic of Korea (Fischer, 2014).

HOW SHOULD HEALTH IN SEA BE CONSIDERED? Public health and the state of the biophysical environment are inextricably linked. For example, it has been estimated that nine million premature deaths globally (accounting for 16% of all those deaths) were linked to pollution in 2015 (The Lancet, 2017). Whilst particularly affected, this is not just a problem of developing countries, and in Britain a sharp rise of 25% in asthma deaths over the past decade has been linked with increased levels of air pollution.1 Health features – directly or indirectly – in all environmental legislations worldwide as well as in SEA legislations, mostly with regard to the need for a clean (i.e. healthy) environment, which should 1 See www​.theguardian​.com/​environment/​2018/​jul/​18/​asthma​-deaths​-rise​-25​-amid​-growing​-air​ -pollution​-crisis.

224  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment not negatively impact on (physical) human health. It is within this context that SEA frequently addresses human health as an important issue to be considered at those levels where action can be proactively influenced, i.e. at the levels of PPP (Fischer et al., 2010). Whilst consideration of biophysical determinants of health in SEA is important, this only covers parts of what is at stake in SEA. Here, for example mental health, social well-being and health inequalities are other important issues that require consideration. This was acknowledged in the now over 65-year-old definition of health by the World Health Organization (WHO), which states that: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. (WHO Constitution from 19462)

This means that whilst environmental legislation related to, for example, sanitation, and air and water quality is vital for the protection and improvement of human health, it only partly addresses the broad spectrum of health determinants. Neither NEPA nor the SEA Directive suggests that it is only biophysical aspects of health that should be considered in SEA. Emerging UNECE guidance on the SEA protocol to the Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context explicitly addresses non-biophysical aspects, including behavioural issues and mental health (UNECE, 2019). As a consequence, awareness of the importance of considering health determinants and outcomes other than those directly connected with the physical environment is growing amongst those conducting SEA. Determinants of health were summarised in a model by Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991), which was developed further by Barton and Grant (2006). This model is linked to spatial scales, ranging from the global ecosystem and natural environment, the built environment and the local community/economy to individual determinants (age, sex, hereditary factors) and lifestyles. Important health determinants are connected with (a) biophysical, (b) social, (c) economic, (d) behavioural, and (e) other ‘fixed’ personal physical attributes. Whilst it is possible to influence (a)–(d), personal physical attributes are not normally changeable. However, it is still possible to exert an influence on associated health implications. For example, a person with hereditary high blood pressure and heart problems may alleviate potential impacts by exercising regularly. Exercise can either be encouraged or discouraged by the built environment (see e.g. Sallis et al., 2012).

ENGLISH STRATEGIC PLAN-MAKING AND THE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH THROUGH SEA In English spatial planning, SEA is usually integrated with sustainability appraisal (SA). In order to be compliant with SEA, SA is structured into social, economic, and environmental sustainability outcomes with an implicit understanding that they are the wider health determinants. Furthermore, specific health and well-being objectives are considered (Bond & Pope, 2014). Aligned to SA is the duty of local authorities – in response to the UK Equalities Act (2010) – to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of local plans and policies. EqIA ensures that decision-making does not discriminate against anyone based on protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender (including reassignment), marriage and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and faith, and sexual orientation.

2

See https://​www​.who​.int/​about/​who​-we​-are/​constitution.

The case of health in English strategic planning  225 There are statutory requirements for the 330 local authorities in England with planning responsibility to produce local plans that guide the long-term spatial development of their area. Furthermore, a ‘duty to cooperate’ was introduced to the English planning system in 2011, requiring local planning authorities to cooperate with other public bodies (including neighbouring authorities) on cross-boundary, strategic matters. What exactly it means to cooperate in practice is interpreted in different ways (TCPA, 2018). Most efforts are currently directed at cooperation between local planning authorities. In this context, the production of joint or aligned plans is referred to as strategic planning. The UK National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) from 2012 (Gov.uk, 2012a) was the first national planning policy in England to specifically mention the need to promote healthy communities. Furthermore, a reorganisation of public health functions, also in 2012, gave local authorities responsibility for the health of their local population (Gov.uk, 2012b). ‘Directors of Public Health’ as well as public health teams were placed within local government and new ‘Health and Wellbeing Boards’ to provide integrated guidance over local population health were set up. This brought public health under the same local authority as urban planning in unitary authorities (an administrative division of local government established in place of a two-tier system of county and local levels). Unitary authorities’ planning remit is focused on issues that cross local planning authority borders within its administration, such as transport, waste management or social care. This supports closer working in two-tier areas (i.e. those that have county and local administrative tiers). Cooperation with the health sector is an important issue in strategic planning. For example, the National Health Service (NHS) is expected to play a role in capital, land and estates planning. It is in charge of a pilot on Healthy New Towns.3 Furthermore, Public Health England (an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care) plays an important role in the development of HIA and is currently working on guidelines on HIA in town planning. This means that the overall context of SEA in strategic planning is favourable towards the consideration of human health. In 2018, i.e. six years after its original release, Central Government made some significant revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which included putting a focus on the strategic planning dimension (Riddell, 2019). This required local authorities to work together to produce either joint (or aligned) strategies, spatial frameworks, or spatial development strategies in combined authorities with elected mayors. Prior to that, some local authorities had already been proactive at adopting joint strategic policies. For example, local authorities around Nottingham began working on an ‘aligned’ strategic plan in 2008, which was adopted in 2014 (Gregory, 2019). More recent efforts include strategic planning efforts in city regions (e.g. Greater Manchester or Liverpool City Region) and other strategically connected areas. Strategic plans are of particular interest when looking at integration through SEA and, to date, 33 strategic plan-making processes have been, or are currently being, conducted in England. These fall under four main categories: ●● Statutory joint or aligned local plans (JLPs), where several local authorities produce one joint local plan; ●● Statutory spatial development strategies (SDSs), which can be produced in city regions with an elected mayor and which do not substitute the local plans;

3

See https://​www​.england​.nhs​.uk/​ourwork/​innovation/​healthy​-new​-towns/​.

226  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment ●● Statutory joint strategic plans (JSPs), which can be produced in other city regions and which do not replace local plans; and ●● Non-statutory strategic planning and growth frameworks (SPGFs). By the end of 2019, 33 strategic plans were either complete or in preparation (Table 14.1).

Table 14.1

Preparation status of 33 strategic plans in England Complete

Statutory joint

1. North Devon and Torridge JLP 2018

or aligned local

2. South East Lincolnshire JLP 2019

plans

3. North Northamptonshire JLP 2016

Under preparation

4. West Northamptonshire JCS 2014 5. Gloucester, Tewksbury & Ch’ham JCS 2017 6. South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 7. Newcastle and Gateshead JCS 2015 8. Greater Nottingham aligned JCS 2014 9. Central Lincolnshire JLP 2017 10. Plymouth JLP 2019 11. North Essex JLP 12. Greater Norwich JLP 13. Newcastle-under-Lyme & Stoke Trent JLP 14. Black Country JCS 15. Greater Manchester Spatial Framework 16. Central Lancashire JLP Statutory SDSs

17. The London Plan 2019

Statutory Joint

19. West of England JSP

18. Greater Liverpool SDS 20. Oxfordshire JSP

Strategic Plans

21. South Essex JSP 22. South-West Hertfordshire JSP 23. Greater Exeter JSP Non-statutory

24. Partnership South Hampshire Position St. 2016

Strategic Planning 25. Somerset Growth Plan 2017 & Growth

26. Surrey 2050 Place Ambition

Frameworks

27. Central West Sussex & Greater Brighton Spat. St. 2016 28. Suffolk Strat. Plan. Framework 2019 29. Leicester & Lancashire Strategic Growth Plan 2018 30. Staffordshire Strategic Infrastructure Plan 2019 31. Cambridge & Peterborough Strat. Statement 32. Heathrow Strategic Planning Framework 33. Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework

Notes: JLP = Joint Local Plan; JCS = Joint Core Strategy (the main strategic part of a local plan); JSP = Joint Strategic Plan; SDS = Spatial Development Strategy.

The case of health in English strategic planning  227

EMPIRICAL REVIEW OF HEALTH IN SEA Subsequently, a summary of an evaluation is provided of eight strategic plans with regard to how health has been considered. A particular focus is on the role played by SEA. Evaluation is based on the following questions on a particular strategic plan: ●● What specific documents were/are produced with regard to health and well-being? ●● What were/are the key health policies in the strategic plan and what are the key messages? ●● What is the specific approach to considering health in the associated SEA and other impact assessments? ●● What are the impacts on health and where are they portrayed, and is equal weight given to different integration aspects? ●● Who is responsible for the preparation of the strategic plan and the SEA/other impact assessments relevant to health? ●● What is the approach taken to the assessment of health effects? Those strategic plans were evaluated for which documentation was available. This means only strategic plans and their SEAs that were complete were potentially usable. The objective was to have all four categories represented. Subsequently, of the 19 possible plans, the following eight were (randomly) chosen: A. Joint Local Plans. 1. Central Lincolnshire Joint Local Plan 2012–36 (three councils collaborating); 2017. 2. Plymouth Joint Local Plan 2014–34 (three councils collaborating); 2019. 3. Gloucester, Tewksbury and Cheltenham Joint Core Strategy (three councils collaborating); 2017. B. Statutory Joint Strategic Plan. 4. West of England Joint Spatial Plan; 2017.4 C. Statutory Spatial Development Strategy. 5. London Plan; 2019. D. Non-statutory Strategic Planning and Growth Frameworks. 6. Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan 2050; 2018. 7. Partnership for South Hampshire Position Statement (PUSH); 2016. 8. Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Statement; 2016.

RESULTS Results of the evaluation of the eight strategic plans and their associated SEAs are summarised in this section with regard to the six main analytical questions. Table 14.2 provides an overview of the key results.

4 The planning inspector suggested that this plan be withdrawn for being insufficiently robust, consistent or objective (The Planner, 2019), with one of the reasons cited for withdrawal being an inadequate justification of strategic housing options and SEA therefore being a central reason for the request to withdraw the plan.

Table 14.2

Key results of evaluation

228  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

The case of health in English strategic planning  229 What Specific Documents Were/Are Produced with Regard to Health and Well-being? Authorities have various choices with regard to producing documents that specifically focus on human health when engaging in strategic plan making. Only one strategic plan was prepared in concert with a joint Health and Well-being Strategy (HWS) and a joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA). As local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare these, it is not a surprise that the joint HWS and JSNA were associated with a joint local plan, namely Central Lincolnshire (elsewhere these were prepared at the local level, but not at the strategic level). For six strategic plans, equality impact assessments (EqIAs) were also prepared. The two exceptions were non-statutory strategic planning and growth frameworks. The only other non-statutory strategic plan, namely the Leicester and Leicester Strategic Growth Plan, involved the preparation of an Equalities and Human Rights impact assessment. The London Plan also involved the preparation of a Health Inequalities Strategy and a Community Safety impact assessment. For three strategic plans, integrated impact assessments (IIAs) were prepared that involved HIAs (Central Lincolnshire, Gloucester and London). Unsurprisingly, all eight strategic plans included the preparation of SEA inclusive SAs. Health was explicitly covered in six of them and implicitly in two non-statutory strategic plan SEAs. The London Plan included a range of documents, specifically targeting health and well-being. These included locally led garden villages, and documents on improving culture, arts and sporting opportunities through planning healthy streets and healthy public realms around schools. What Were/Are the Key Health Policies in the Strategic Plans and What Are the Key Messages? All strategic plans include the formulation of strategic priorities, ambitions and/or objectives that are related to health. In this context, all strategic plans connect with housing, jobs, and high-quality environments for better health and well-being. This includes aspects of physical and mental health and well-being. Next to green infrastructure and environmental (e.g. air and water) quality, healthy food aspects (locally grown food and constraints on hot food takeaways) feature in some strategic plans. Two of the strategic plans formulate provisions for the need to conduct HIAs in project development. This includes the London Plan, which makes reference to a range of toolkits and guidelines (including, for example, the Healthy Urban Development Unit’s ‘HUDU rapid HIA’, and the national Department of Health’s HIA toolkit). It also devises an HIA supplementary planning document (SPD), which provides further guidance on when and how to conduct an HIA in the development of specific projects. Furthermore, it includes the Central Lincolnshire Joint Strategic Plan, for which HIAs should be conducted for developments of more than 25 dwellings or developments above 0.5 ha. The need for enhanced health facilities is reflected in the policies of all strategic plans. Those strategic plans that come with an EqIA include policies on reducing inequalities. The London Plan provides the most comprehensive approach of all strategic plans in terms of the inclusion of health policies and the key aim of creating a healthy city.

230  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment What Is the Specific Approach to Considering Health in the Associated SEA and Other Impact Assessments? Those strategic plans that came with integrated impact assessments (IIAs) all include SEA-inclusive SA, HIA and EqIA. All statutory strategic plans consider social and economic factors next to environmental determinants of health, confirming earlier research on SEA-inclusive sustainability appraisals (SAs) applied to spatial plans in the UK (Fischer et al., 2018). The London Plan also includes a ‘community safety impact assessment’. All impact assessments are objectives-led, meaning impacts are assessed with regard to defined objectives. Whilst most include explicit health objectives, some are bolted onto other objectives, or are more implicit. For example, the non-statutory Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Statement suggests that new affordable homes come with health benefits and lead to a reduction in deprivation. However, this plan, together with the non-statutory Partnership for South Hampshire Position Statement, were the only strategic plans that did not explicitly integrate health in their impact assessments. Overall, health objectives are frequently connected with certain target indicators, for example, with regard to reducing inequalities. What Are the Impacts on Health, and Is Equal Weight Given to Different Integration Aspects? All seven strategic plans that cover health explicitly (i.e. all apart from the non-statutory West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Statement) are said to result in positive health benefits. The six plans that come with an SEA-inclusive SA were said to result in very positive impacts with regard to economic health determinants (and, to a slightly lesser extent, also social determinants). Negative impacts of strategic plans were consistently predicted with regard to environmental health determinants. This was particularly pronounced in those strategic plans that focused on new major housing developments, and here particularly with regard to increased emissions and noise, as well as loss of green spaces. Furthermore, in this context, negative impacts were predicted in connection with less sustainable forms of travel that residents in housing developments in more rural locations would have to rely on. Whilst there is a biodiversity net gain principle in place in UK spatial planning (leaving biodiversity in a better state than before development),5 how this can be achieved in the light of the results presented here is questionable. Of some concern is the observation that health and well-being have been cited as reasons for justifying controversial developments. In this context, one authority was reported to have removed the term Green Belt6 in housing site allocations altogether, citing reasons of the health and well-being benefits of living in a green environment.

See https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​consultations/​biodiversity​-net​-gain​-updating​-planning​ -requirements. 6 The green belt is a concept and policy for the control of urban sprawl. The idea is to have rings around metropolitan areas where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure opportunities are supposed to prevail. 5

The case of health in English strategic planning  231 Who Is Responsible for the Preparation of the SP and the IAs Relevant to Health? The preparation of all the strategic plans was led by public authorities. There was, however, substantial involvement of the private sector in the preparation of the impact assessment documents, with five of the eight strategic plans having their IAs prepared by consultancies. Public health experts appear to only have been involved in the preparation of HIAs, but not in SAs/SEAs. What Is the Approach Taken to the Assessment of Health Effects? All strategic plans have options of development policies assessed. In this context, they rely on matrices with scoring systems (from e.g. ++ to −−) based on scoring methods from risk analysis as a function of impact and probability. This method is at the heart of UK SEA-inclusive SA practice (Thérivel, 2004). However, it is questionable whether this is a suitable method for those strategic plans that do not assess sites with clear boundaries, as the range of assessment scores for any given site tends to vary substantially, depending on how development will later be implemented between very positive and very negative, thus rendering the assessment meaningless. Furthermore, some also have strategic growth priorities assessed upfront. These are not usually formulated as options, but as statements of development ambitions/intent, e.g. ‘meeting housing needs sustainably’ or ‘inclusive economic growth’. Whilst the assessment of alternatives and options in SEA is supposed to help decision-makers to select a good plan, in practice, HIAs work more towards optimising given options and, in this context, an assessment may aim, for instance, to change policy formulations or add to them. As a consequence, at times, the outcomes of impact assessments remain somewhat blurred as no clear recommendations are provided with regards to choosing a preferred option (see also Fischer, 2012).

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has explored how SEA functions as an instrument of integration, focusing on health as an example for one particular integration aspect – human health. The extent to which health gets considered in planning and, in this context, through SEA was examined, looking at English strategic plan-making practice. Strategic plans are the result of local authorities working together to produce either joint (or aligned) strategies, spatial frameworks, or spatial development strategies, the latter in combined authorities with elected mayors. They can be both statutory and non-statutory. With regard to establishing the health implications of strategic plans, a range of impact assessment tools are currently used. Strategic plans routinely include SEA-inclusive SAs. There are formal requirements for all statutory strategic plans to also prepare Equalities Impact Assessments (EqIAs). Furthermore, if SEA is prepared within an overall Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), then HIA is included. Whilst the European SEA Directive asks for human health to be considered, traditionally, the focus in SEAs has been on environmental determinants of health (e.g. air, water and soil pollution), leaving most social and behavioural determinants unaddressed. Whilst SAs tend to have a strong focus on economic benefits arising from plans, EqIAs address some social determinants of health. HIA, finally, should provide for a comprehensive assessment of the whole

232  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment range of (economic, social and environmental) determinants of health. Importantly, strategic plans formulate development objectives, consistently including some on health (mostly explicitly and occasionally implicitly). Eight strategic plans were reviewed in this chapter, including three (statutory) joint local plans, three (non-statutory) strategic planning and growth frameworks, one (statutory) spatial development strategy, and one (statutory) joint strategic plan. Overall, SEAs provided important baseline information for the strategic plans, including on health. Furthermore, it is through them that options were considered and whilst some of the SEAs were found to assess options and/or alternatives with regards to, for instance, different sites, a few only considered options of different policy formulations. Currently, and most notably in the context of new housing developments, negative impacts of SPs are consistently established in SEA/SA with regard to environmental aspects, while positive impacts are usually anticipated for economic and, to a lesser extent, social aspects. Generally speaking, SEA is observed to play an important role for the consideration of health in strategic plan-making, at times in combination with other impact assessment instruments. An observation which raises some concerns is that in SEA/SA, there is currently no mentioning of any consultations with public health practitioners/experts. One strategic plan, namely the West of England strategic plan failed examination by the planning inspectorate. One of the reasons cited was an inadequate justification of strategic housing options. This is an indication that SA/SEA should be treated as a genuine part of, and run in parallel with, the strategic plan-making process. Furthermore, it is concerning that when being explicitly considered, health and well-being are at times used to justify controversial developments, for example, housing in the Green Belt. Whilst SEA can therefore fulfil an important role in ensuring environmental, including health, aspects are considered in strategic plan-making, what is clear from the reviews of the eight strategic plans is that practitioners need situation-specific guidance. There is a particular need to support those assessing the impacts of spatial plans with regard to choosing suitable methods to assess health implications. To some extent, these are currently picked not based on the need of a specific situation, but rather on what is routinely used in planning-related assessments. However, depending on, for example, the level of ‘strategicness’, suitable methods differ. Thus, an assessor looking to specify, for instance, damage in square metres of specific ecosystems from development in impact matrices in the absence of exact locations, has probably picked the wrong method. Finally, strategic plan-related SEA practice indicates that only statutory plans consider different aspects consistently. In non-statutory strategic plans, health considerations were at times only implicit (rather than explicit). EqIA was consistently applied only in statutory plans and HIA was used only in statutory plans when IIA was used.7

This chapter presents results produced in the project ‘Strategic Planning – links between health issues and the development of strategic plans’ for the Local Government Association – Contract Reference Number 426627157, which was conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. 7

The case of health in English strategic planning  233

REFERENCES Barker, A. and Fischer, T.B. 2003. English regionalism and sustainability: towards the development of an integrated approach to SEA. European Planning Studies, 11(6): 697–716. Barton, H. and Grant, M. 2006. A health map for the local human habitat. The Journal for the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(6): 252–3. Bond, A. and Pope, J. 2014. Sustainability assessment and health, in: Fehr, R., Viliani, F., Nowacki, J. and Martuzzi M., eds, Health in Impact Assessments: Opportunities Not To Be Missed. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Carmichael, L., Townsend, T., Lock, K., Fischer, T.B., Sweeting, D. and Petrokofsky, C. 2019. Urban planning as an enabler of urban health: challenges and good practice in England following the 2012 planning and public health reforms. Land Use Policy, 84: 154–62. Chang, M. 2019. The State of the Union: Reuniting Health with Planning in Promoting Healthy Communities, London: Town and Country Planning Association. Dahlgren, G. and Whitehead, M. 1991. Policies and Strategies to Promote Social Equity in Health. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning; in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fawcett, P. 2019. Leveraging health: the urban planner’s dilemma, PhD thesis, April, University of Liverpool. Fischer, T.B. 1999. Benefits from SEA application: a comparative review of North West England, Noord-Holland and EVR Brandenburg-Berlin. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(2): 143–73. Fischer, T.B. 2012. Identifying shortcomings in SEA practice. Town and Country Planning 81(6): 281–6. Fischer, T.B. 2014. Health in SEA. In Fehr, R., Viliani, F., Nowacki, J. and Martuzzi, M., eds, Health in Impact Assessments: Opportunities Not To Be Missed, 23–46. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe: 23–46. Fischer, T.B. 2016. Linking SEA with other assessment and planning tools, in: Sadler, B. and Dusik, J., eds, European and International Experiences with Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, 270–83. London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. 2020. Editorial, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(3): 179–80. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B., Jha-Thakur, U., Fawcett, P., Clement, S., Hayes, S. and Nowacki, J. 2018. Consideration of urban green space in impact assessments for health. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 36(1): 32–44. Fischer, T.B., Martuzzi, M. and Nowacki, J. 2010. The consideration of health in SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(3): 200–210. Fischer, T.B. and Onyango, V. 2012. SEA related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B., Smith, M. and Sykes, O. 2013. Can less sometimes be more? Integrating land use and transport planning on Merseyside (1965–2008). Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 1(1): 1–27. Gov.uk 2012a. Health and Social Care Act 2012. Available at http://​www​.legislation​.gov​.uk/​ukpga/​ 2012/​7/​contents/​enacted/​data​.htm (accessed 26/02/20). Gov.uk 2012b. National Planning Policy Framework. Available at https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​ publications/​national​-planning​-policy​-framework–2 (accessed 26/02/20). Gregory, M. 2019, Joint Planning in Greater Nottingham, paper presented at PAS Strategic Planning Workshop, February 2019, https://​local​.gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​ Greater%20 Nottingham%20Aligned%20Plans-14th%20Feb.pdf (accessed 26/02/20). Harris, N. and Hooper, A. 2004. Rediscovering the ‘spatial’ in public policy and planning: an examination of the spatial content of sectoral policy documents. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(2): 147–69. Jansson, A.H.H. 2000. Strategic environmental assessment for transport in four Nordic countries, in: Bjarnadottir, H., ed., EA in the Nordic countries, 39–46. Stockholm: Nordregio.

234  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Kronenberg, J. 2014. Environmental impacts of the use of ecosystem services: case study of birdwatching. Environmental Management, 54: 617–30. Marot, N., Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Golobič, M., Muthoora, T. and González, A. 2021. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 5). Marshall, R. and Fischer, T.B. 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and tiered SEA in the UK: the case of Scottish Power. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(2): 279–99. Morrison-Saunders, A., Bond, A. and Pope, J. 2015. Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. O’Mahony, C. 2021. Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessments, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 16). Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Ravetz, J. 2000. Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 31–64. Riddell, C. 2019. The New World of Joint Strategic Plans, paper presented at PAS Strategic Planning Workshop, February 2019, https://​local​.gov​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​ documents/Catriona%20 Riddell%20Strategic%20Planning-1st%20%26%207th%20%26%2014th.pdf (accessed 28/02/20). Sallis, J.F., Floyd, M.F., Rodríguez, D.A. and Saelens, B.E. 2012. The role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and CVD. Circulation, 125(5): 729–37. Scott, P. 2021. Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 15). Slootweg, R. 2021. Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an integrating concept in a world of silos, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 17). Stead, D., Geerlings, H. and Meijers, E., eds, 2004. Integrated Land Use Planning, Transport and Environmental Policy-Making: An International Comparison. Delft: Delft University Press. Sykes, O. and Fischer, T.B. 2017. Impact Assessments? What Impact Assessments? Is anybody actually planning to leave the EU? Town and Country Planning, 86(12): 544–7. TCPA [Town and Country Planning Association] 2018. Planning 2020: Final Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England. London: TCPA. Available at https://​www​.tcpa​.org​.uk/​Handlers/​ Download​.ashx​?IDMF​=​30864427​-d8dc​-4b0b​-88ed​-c6e0f08c0edd (accessed 28/02/20). The Lancet 2017. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391: 10119. Available at https://​www​.thelancet​.com/​commissions/​pollution​-and​-health. The Planner 2019. Inspectors recommend West of England plan be withdrawn. The Planner, 2 August. Available at https://​www​.theplanner​.co​.uk/​news/​inspectors​-recommend​-west​-of​-england​-plan​-be​ -withdrawn. Thérivel, R. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan. UNECE 2019. Guidance on Assessing Health Impacts in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at https://​www​.unece​.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​env/​documents/​2019/​WG​_8th​_meeting/​Advance​_copy/​ Final​_documents/​1915379E​.pdf (accessed 08/05/2020).

15. Integrating appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment Paul Scott

BACKGROUND Both the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directives require the assessment process to consider the impacts of proposals on a range of environmental topics, which include biodiversity. Biodiversity (or flora and fauna, as it was referred to in the original EIA Directive) and the protection thereof, is also under the remit of several other European Directives, both directly and indirectly. Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May, on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (CEC, 1992), known as the Habitats Directive, and Directive 2009/147/EC, of 30 November, on the Conservation of Wild Birds – the Birds Directive, together form the basis for the direct protection of species and habitats across the European Union (EU). Not only do these two Directives require member states to establish protection regimes to preserve the breeding and resting sites for species and areas of important habitats, but they also require the establishment of a network of protected areas. The network of Natura 2000 sites occupies over 18% of the overall European Union and is a “network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right” (European Commission website1). The Commission has always maintained that this is not a network of no-go nature reserves where human intervention is forbidden. Indeed, many of the habitats that are the reasons for designation of these areas require a degree of intervention by anthropogenic activities, for example by grazing, flooding or woodland management. Nevertheless, there are safeguards in the Habitats Directive to ensure that the integrity of the Natura 2000 network is not fundamentally undermined by human development, unless absolutely necessary. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive requires that the member states design conservation objectives for the sites (Article 6(1)), avoid the deterioration and disturbance of habitats and species 6(2) and that if a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a site, then an “appropriate assessment” (AA) will be required before any consent can be given. This seemingly simple requirement for an AA of the effects of a proposal on the Natura 2000 network has subsequently evolved into a complex process that has become intertwined with SEA in the context of plans that could affect these sites. The processes of AA and SEA under the SEA Directive are also legally joined at the hip, with a legal trigger for SEA being if the plan or programme would require AA.2



See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​nature/​natura2000/​index​_en​.htm. Although, as described later in this chapter, a proposal may not automatically require full SEA if it determines the use of a small area at a local level or is a minor modification to a plan or programme (Article 3(3), SEA Directive). 1 2

235

236  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Since the legislative requirements for AA only apply to European Union member states, the commentary in this chapter focuses on the integration at the EU scale. Nonetheless, there are other jurisdictions around the world that have similar requirements for impact assessments that focus on biodiversity, although many of them are integrated into their national EIA systems – see Chapters 18 on Australia (Burdett and Cameron, 2021), 19 on Canada (Noble, 2021), 21 on New Zealand (Morgan and Taylor, 2021), 22 on South Africa (Retief et al., 2021), 23 on Brazil (Montaño et al., 2021), 24 on Chile (Jiliberto, 2021), 25 on India (Jha-Thakur and Rajvanshi, 2021) and 26 on Thailand (Chanchitpricha et al., 2021). The concept of placing a higher emphasis on biodiversity within impact assessments, as a discrete process, gained considerable support from the Convention on Biological Diversity reference to “biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, 2006). However, the process of biodiversity impact assessment has generally been referred to as an integral part of the SEA or EIA, rather than a separated regime such as AA in the European Union. For projects that fall outside of the remit of project-EIA, there are examples of non-statutory ecological impact assessments, such as those in the UK and Ireland, being undertaken as discrete assessments. At the strategic level, apart from AA in the EU, there is little evidence for a similar type of ecological impact assessment being applied to plans and programmes for which statutory SEA does not apply. Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive requires that SEA, must be carried out for plans and programmes “which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC”. The SEA Directive allows for a discretionary derogation from this requirement if the plan or programme is one “which determine[s] the use of small areas at local level and minor modifications to plans and programmes” and does not pose a risk of significant environmental effects. The linkage between the two processes of SEA and AA are based in law, but regardless of the requirements of the SEA Directive, there are important procedural and substantive overlaps in the scope and nature of both impact assessment processes. The European Commission has, for many years, acknowledged these overlaps and the Directive itself encourages streamlining of assessment tasks in recitals (10) and (19), article 5 paragraphs (2) and (3), and article 11 paragraph (2), which states: For plans and programmes for which the obligation to carry out assessments of the effects on the environment arises simultaneously from this Directive and other Community legislation, Member States may provide for co-ordinated or joint procedures fulfilling the requirements of the relevant Community legislation in order, inter alia, to avoid duplication of assessment.

The rest of this chapter identifies where the opportunities for the overlaps may occur and how synergies can result from integration of the two assessment processes.

PURPOSE OF SEA VS AA Whilst both are regarded to be members of the environmental assessment “family”, SEA and AA are starkly different in their scope of application and their overall purpose. Failure to recognise these differences may, at best, lead to the sub-optimal implementation of the assessments or, at worst, legal challenges which question compliance with their respective Directives. SEA is often regarded to be a decision-support process (in that it informs the

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  237 plan-maker, rather than deciding the fate of the plan) and the decision-makers are not obliged to adopt its outcomes or can permit other issues such as political, economic or social priorities to override the influence of SEA. The SEA Directive acknowledges this and requires transparency within the process. Article 9 requires the proponent of the plan or programme to be explicit (in their SEA Statement) in describing how certain alternative approaches have been discounted and how the SEA has influenced the adopted plan/programme. The reason why we undertake SEA is to ensure that environmental constraints, sensitivities and opportunities are fully evaluated and that the plan/programme is prepared in the context of these issues, allowing the plan/programme to be sustainable in environmental terms. AA, in contrast, is a strict, narrowly focused scientific assessment of the potential effect of the plan3 (or project, as AA also applies equally to the project-stage) on the conservation objectives for sites in the Natura 2000 network. If a proposal poses a threat to the “integrity” of these conservation objectives (which is the term used in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive), then the authorising body is obliged to refuse the proposal. A plan cannot be adopted or a project cannot receive permission in such circumstances, even if mitigation measures have been applied to avoid, reduce or minimise the impact. Only in exceptional circumstances can such impacts be allowed to take place and consent be granted. Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive allows consent to be granted after a negative AA has been recorded, if the proposal has no other alternative solution and if there are “imperative reasons of overriding interest” (IROPI). These reasons can be social or economic in nature but must be in the public interest, making approval of commercial plans and projects less likely. Project such as motorways, airports, quarries, ports and other large infrastructure proposals have typically received approval after scrutiny under this clause (Kramer, 2009). Notwithstanding the requirement for lack of alternative solutions (i.e. there must be no other less-damaging alternatives) and the need to demonstrate IROPI, the plan or project must include measures to compensate for the impact to the Natura 2000 network such that the network itself is maintained. This latter requirement can be particularly challenging and requires input from specialist scientists who have experience in habitat creation and species ecology, for example. So, overall, the AA process sets a particularly high technical threshold for pass/fail for plans and projects compared with SEA. Whilst more focused on a particular aspect of biodiversity impact than the SEA process, AA is generally potentially far more powerful and discriminatory toward the more benign proposals.

SCREENING: DIFFERENCES IN APPLICATION OF SEA AND AA There are stark differences between the scope of application of SEA and AA in terms of which types of proposals should undergo assessment. This reflects the fact that the SEA Directive was negotiated over several years resulting in a refined and clarified scope of application, involving the views and opinions of member states. The adopted version of the SEA Directive presented a defined area of application, albeit to a wide range of sectors; wider than the original proposal for the Directive4 which applied purely to “town and country planning plans and programmes”. Whilst the majority of the SEA activity across the European Union is likely to AA requirements apply to “plans and projects” whereas the terms “plans and programmes” are used in the SEA Directive. 4 See https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​CELEX:​51996PC0511. 3

238  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment be in the area of land-use planning,5 SEA frequently applies to other sectors such as energy, waste and transport, particularly at the national and regional scales. In contrast, the Habitats Directive requires AA for “any” plan or project that poses a risk of likely significant effects on European sites, regardless of the sector or level within the plan and project hierarchy. It has been determined to apply to proposals ranging from national planning and energy strategies to small-scale projects and activities such as land reclamation and cockle-fishing (EC, 2019). The breadth of application of AA has rarely been questioned in the courts, unlike SEA which has been frequently challenged at national and European levels. Legal challenges to AA have generally focused on the rationale for determining whether a proposal is likely to have significant effects, rather than on whether it is a plan or programme. The Habitats Directive refers to any plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site in the Natura 2000 network but does not define the terms “plan” or “project”. Judgements from the Court of Justice of the European Union have provided some clarification as to what should be considered a plan or project under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Case law6 has established that plans and projects located outside of designated sites are not excluded from requiring AA, and that size and scale of the proposal is also not a reason to screen it “out” from requiring AA. The key AA screening test is that any activity that could be linked to a deterioration of a European site (i.e. “a likely significant effect”) can only be given consent if it has, as a minimum, undergone an AA. The SEA Directive may seem more restrictive in its scope, in terms of how it has ruled out “plans and programmes the sole purpose of which is to serve national defence or civil emergency” and “financial or budget plans and programmes” (Article 3(8), EC, 2001) from requiring consideration for SEA to apply. However, there is a series of judgements from the Court of Justice of the European Union which have specifically focused on the interpretation of Article 2(a) and 3(2)(a) and have helped somewhat in clarifying the application of the SEA Directive beyond typical land-use plans and programmes for which it was originally intended (CEC, 1997). Despite the strict screening standard set by the Habitats Directive, there are circumstances whereby a proposed strategic measure would not require AA (if it was not likely to have significant effects on a site in the Natura 2000 network) but could still require SEA (if it was likely to have significant effects on other aspects of the environment). In some jurisdictions such as Ireland, the SEA Directive has been transposed partly (Statutory Instrument No. 436 of 2004, as amended) as a list of plans that require SEA to be applied. For example, for land-use plans at the regional, county and local levels all require SEA but may not require AA if no likely significant effects on European sites have been predicted. In reality, not applying AA to strategic plans would be rare as most would have impact pathways from their development objectives to the sites in the Natura 2000 network nearby. However, minor variations to plans may screen “in” for SEA but not for AA if they have no interaction with the natural environment but may have implications for other receptors such as cultural heritage, archaeology, transport or health.

In Ireland this accounts for approximately 70% of SEA activity – according to statistic held by the Environmental Protection Agency; see http://​www​.epa​.ie/​monitoringassessment/​assessment/​sea/​ statistics/​. See also Chapter 10 (González, 2021) on SEA of Spatial Land-use Plans. 6 See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​nature/​info/​pubs/​docs/​others/​ECJ​_rulings​%20Art​_​%206​ %20​-​%20Final​%20Sept​%202014​-2​.pdf. 5

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  239 The accrual of over a decade of SEA and AA practice has resulted in a clearer understanding of how and when AA can be integrated into the process of designing plans and programmes. The concept of carrying out iterative screening of proposals through the entire process has led to more plans considering the need for SEA and AA not just at commencement, but throughout the plan-design process. Since AA is generally a more pass/fail type of test than SEA, it is recommended that screening for AA takes place as early as possible in the plan-design process (González et al., 2012). Some plans may have overarching objectives in mind that may interact directly with conservation objectives and inevitably result in the plan requiring AA. For example, a water resource plan may have the intention of identifying a new water supply in a catchment which contains water-related European sites, and proposals for new abstraction points or reservoirs may be considered possible options at an early stage. As an example, consider the case of the Yorkshire Water Resource Management Plan 2019 Strategic Environmental Assessment. Every five years, water companies in England and Wales are required to produce an updated water resources management plan (WRMP). The WRMP sets out how water companies aim to balance supply and demand for water over the next 25 years, ensuring the efficient use of water and sustainable water supplies are available to meet customers’ needs. An SEA was carried out and was also informed by Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening and a Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance assessment. These assessments were reported separately. Together, these assessments have formed an integral part of the decision-making process to determine the preferred WRMP. The SEA Environmental Report summarises the outcomes of the HRA (that is, the AA) and there was also a separate HRA Screening Report produced. The integration of the AA and the SEA procedures took place at several stages including: ●● Potential effects on European sites to be included within SEA objectives; ●● Screening for likely significant effects of “schemes” at the “feasible option” stage and the consideration of the outcomes in the selection of schemes and options included in the revised draft WRMP; ●● Consider likely significant effects on European sites of various options; ●● Undertake HRA screening check of the preferred programme(s) including in-combination effects and feed this back to the SEA cumulative effect assessment; ●● HRA carried out if required and outputs fed into Environmental Report; and ●● The HRA and WFD assessments informed the SEA at each key stage, with adverse implications flagged during option assessments and used to inform decision-making at the programme appraisal stage. Two resource management schemes (both groundwater) were considered in the plan. Whilst one was not considered to require full appropriate assessment, likely significant effects of implementing the second scheme (North Yorkshire Groundwater Option) could not be ruled out. Specifically, the HRA screening indicated that likely significant effects on the North Pennine Dales Meadows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) could not be ruled out. An HRA was required to determine whether the implementation of the Scheme could impact on the conservation objectives or the qualifying features of the SAC. Analysis of geological and borehole data indicated that the SACs are above the groundwater water table level and that the SACs are designated for non-water dependent features. As such, it was concluded that abstraction from the proposed North Yorkshire Groundwater Option Scheme will not have a significant adverse

240  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment effect on the qualifying features of the North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC. Therefore, this Scheme could be further considered in the SEA process. Some SEA and AA practitioners have avoided screening “in” a proposed plan for either type of environmental assessment by designing a plan or programme to deliberately avoid interacting with European sites and by applying mitigatory objectives to address potential significant effects as the plan is prepared. Such practice is risky as it relies on the fact that the plan will remain benign throughout its design stages. Where the plan-design process allows for amendments at the end stages (often as publicly elected officials review a draft version of the plan), there is a risk that objectives may be revised, removed or added to. Screening for AA and SEA must take place during such stages in order to ensure that the incorporated changes do not have significant effects on the environment, or likely significant effects on sites in the Natura 2000 network. However, the linkages between the SEA Directive and AA are particularly relevant here, as a last-minute requirement to undertake AA on the draft plan means that the whole plan may have to undergo SEA as per Article 3(2)(b). This is why best practice in plan-preparation should commence with a stage whereby the risk of AA applying to the draft plan should be investigated prior to SEA screening. A plan is generally unlikely to fail due to a negative outcome of the SEA; the same cannot be said for a negative outcome of the AA, which has a statutory power to withhold adoption of the plan or programme. This statutory power of AA makes the consideration of alternative approaches to the plan an imperative step as early as possible in the SEA process. The two processes become intertwined again. If, during screening for AA, there are no significant reasons to withhold adoption or if such reasons can be addressed by mitigation measures (including revising, removing or adding to objectives) to avoid impacting the integrity of sites in the Natura 2000 network, then the SEA process should be able to proceed to completion. Care should also be taken during SEA and AA screening when considering whether the application of mitigation measures would have the effect of ruling out significant effects on European sites. The milestone judgment of People Over Wind and Sweetman v. Coillte Teoranta (Case C-323/17) had the effect of ruling out the consideration of mitigation measures at the AA screening stage in the case of projects. This judgment focused on proposed construction works required to lay a cable connecting a wind energy development to the electricity grid and the potential effects that this would have on two SACs. Objectors had argued that ingress of silt to nearby rivers, resulting from the laying of the cable, would have a harmful effect on the protected, rare and endangered River Nore Pearl Mussel. An AA was not carried as it was claimed by the applicant that the protective measures integrated into the design of the project would remove all likelihood of significant effects on the SAC. The granting of permission was appealed and the permission was upheld on the condition that all of the protective measures would be adhered to. This was then appealed to the High Court by objectors on the basis that an AA should have been required which then resulted in the judge referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) – “Whether, or in what circumstances, mitigation measures can be considered when carrying out screening for appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive?” The CJEU stated that any measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a project on a site should not be taken into account at the screening stage. This has been clarified further by a subsequent High Court judgment in Ireland (Eoin Kelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 84) that identified that the types of mitigation measures that cannot be taken into

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  241 account in AA Screening are those that are intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the proposed development on the Natura 2000 network or site and its qualifying interests. The measures must be analysed as part of the “full” appropriate assessment. Whilst the People over Wind judgment has not yet been tested in the courts in the context of strategic plans and programmes, it is common sense to assume that one cannot apply mitigation measures to likely significant effects unless these have been fully investigated in the context of full AA.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR EFFICIENCIES In 2012, the Ireland Environmental Protection Agency published the results of a study into Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment (IBIA). The purpose of the study was to investigate how best to integrate the methodological processes for AA and other environmental assessment regimes, including SEA and EIA. The IBIA study resulted in the publication of guidance7 (González et al., 2012) which highlights the stages at which these environmental assessments overlap and where there are opportunities to save time and resources. Whilst identifying that each of the processes has different purposes and meets the requirements of different legislation, there are commonalities that often result in duplicated efforts when different teams are undertaking the assessment. Once the SEA and AA processes commence in earnest, the initial stage (after scoping the terms of reference of the assessment) is to collect data on the existing environment, its sensitivities and background threats to its quality. Since biodiversity data are required for both SEA and AA, it makes sense that data collection and processing activities are coordinated. With AA, the focus is on data related to the sites in the Natura 2000 network, the conservation objectives for the site and species and habitats which are the reasons for designation. These data are also of use to the SEA process, but additional data on non-protected but nevertheless sensitive sites, green infrastructure and areas of ecological importance may also need to be identified and considered. If the SEA process relied solely on the data collected as part of the AA, it may fail to acknowledge the biodiversity supported outside of the Natura 2000 network. Conversely, the AA process would be unlikely to glean enough specialist data from the SEA data collection activities to carry out the assessment of impacts upon the conservation objectives. For example, a conservation objective for the River Barrow and River Nore Special Area of Conservation in Ireland is to have no decline in the distribution of Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinisana, which is only known from two small sites in two counties. The AA of the plan affecting these sites might look at the hydro/hydrogeological impacts of the development objectives on these specific mollusc sites using scientific data, whereas the SEA might look at impacts in much broader terms or recommend protective objectives to ensure development does not affect these areas. The burden of proof for AA is far higher and the consenting authority can only allow the plan to be implemented if it can be assured that these conservation objectives are not compromised. The IBIA study highlighted the value of integrating certain aspects of the data collection and analysis stage of AA and SEA, especially in regard to the application of geographic infor-



7

See http://​www​.ucd​.ie/​ibia/​IBIA​_Guidance​_Final​.pdf.

242  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment mation system (GIS) and spatial data analyses. Simple techniques such as overlaying multiple datasets on biodiversity from different sources can help to identify ecological hotspots, locations of sites in the Natura 2000 network and wildlife corridors. Maps can be created of each biodiversity feature and weightings added to represent sensitivity to development pressures. These weighted sensitivity maps can be overlaid to create composite heat maps showing areas of varying biodiversity vulnerabilities. For example, in the Clare County Development Plan 2017–23 (Figure 15.1), the mapping of sensitivities helped to generate and compare feasible strategic alternative and to include “sensitivity” as one of the impact assessment criteria (Clare County Council, 2017).

Figure 15.1

Sensitivity map, Clare County Development Plan 2017–23

Environmental sensitivity maps are often of more use for SEA than AA, since AA may require specialist data relating to specific habitat and species distributions. The effectiveness of this stage and the level of integration that is possible is often limited by the availability of data, or data at a suitable scale. For example, whilst there is generally accessible spatial data on the designated site boundaries, data allowing the key features within these sites to be mapped and identified are often lacking. GIS can also use ecological modelling to simulate changes to the environment that may result from implementation of the plan such as flooding regimes or loss of habitats. Another area where there is a clear opportunity for integrating the procedural requirements of AA and SEA is in the consultation of environmental authorities and in seeking the opinions of the public and other organisation. Whilst there is no legal requirement to consult the public

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  243 in the AA process as set out in the brief text in Article 6(3), it is integrated into most member state systems where there are parallel requirements for consultation and public participation. For example, requirements for consultation and public participation are obligatory at stages in the SEA process including screening, scoping, publication of the environmental report and following adoption of the plan/programme. Consultation of the environmental authorities or other organisations who can contribute to the AA process often piggybacks on the SEA process during the screening, scoping and publication stages. This may not always be the most effective way of getting feedback on the more detailed scientific issues handled within the AA process as the non-ecology topics may sometimes dominate the consultation process.

WARNINGS OVER ALTERNATIVES The analysis of alternatives in SEA can have important benefits for biodiversity in that it can assess broad-scale ecological impacts and propose holistic solutions such as offsetting and achieving no net loss and net gain in biodiversity. The consideration of strategic alternatives within the SEA process is generally regarded to be the most effective way to avoid significant effects on the environment. However, there are important differences between how SEA and AA deal with the “alternatives” as the legal contexts in which this term is used shows marked differences. The AA process is not obliged to address the alternatives being considered in the SEA process and, in practice, the assessment may be limited to the preferred (SEA) alternative. Article 6(4) of the EC Habitats Directive requires alternatives to be examined only after a negative outcome to the assessment of the impacts on integrity has been determined. At that point, the proponent has to demonstrate that there are no less-damaging alternatives (i.e. it is at this later stage in the AA process that alternatives are considered); if this is the case, then they have to examine if IROPI applies. Any discussion of alternative approaches in the Article 6(3) appropriate assessment process can lead to confusion and potentially legal challenges that correct procedure has not been followed. The author is not aware of any cases where an AA has reached this outcome for a strategic plan, but it would be assumed that any new alternative proposals generated by the AA process would also have to be integrated into a parallel assessment as part of SEA.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING IN SEA AND AA Both SEA and AA requirements include the provision for adopting mitigation measures where there have been potential negative (“significant” in SEA) impacts predicted. The measures that have resulted from the SEA and AA should be compatible and complementary. One of the symptoms of effective and integrated SEA and AA is that a clear set of mitigation measures has been transposed into the body of the adopted plan or programme. In the SEA process, there is the option to offset and compensate for ecosystem damage, habitat loss or adverse effects on species as part of the overall mitigation strategy. The success of these mitigation measures can be monitored as part of the statutory requirement in Article 10 of the SEA Directive. If the SEA mitigation measures are not successful and significant impacts are recorded, then it is regarded to be good practice for contingency measures to engage. However, such mechanisms are not considered possible in the AA process. Adverse effects

244  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment on integrity of the site must be avoided if the plan is to be given consent after undergoing an AA. The option to offset or compensate for an adverse impact is only permissible when IROPI is being considered. In projects, this has been tested under CJEU judgments (see Grace and Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála, Case C-164/17) where it was regarded that provision of additional habitat for protected bird species could not be regarded as mitigation under Article 6(3). Unlike SEA, there is no statutory requirement to monitor the implementation of the plan or the success of the mitigation measures as part of the AA process. The suggestion that an AA-related mitigation measure needs to be monitored suggests doubt over confidence in its success and opens the proponent up to challenge that the assessment is flawed. However, if monitoring of the condition of Natura 2000 sites is recommended as part of the SEA process, it would appear that this proposal is acceptable and seems to be regularly practised. The advantages of monitoring are relevant for both SEA and AA as they help to create a better understanding of the existing environment and how it responds to the implementation of the plan/programme. Where plans/programmes are extended or undergo cyclical reviews, these data can be useful for both the subsequent SEA and AA of the next cycle and may reduce the burden of data collection.

SEA AND AA REPORTING The stage where the outcomes of the SEA and AA process are documented and made available for comment are similar for SEA and AA. Some SEA systems have integrated the outcomes of the AA process into the environmental report that is required by Article 5 of the SEA Directive. However, the language that is used and the legal tests applied to “significance”, “mitigation” and “compensation” in AA often warrant a discrete section or separate report devoted solely to the AA process. Integration of the two processes at this stage is important, nevertheless. Mitigation measures that have been proposed as a result of the SEA process should always be reproduced in the relevant part of the draft plan/programme to ensure that they are implemented. Effective integration at this stage relies on a close working between SEA and plan-making teams as the draft plans/programmes and reports are often finalised simultaneously and last-minute changes to objectives within the draft plan/programme may require rapid SEA and AA screening to check that they do not conflict with the impact assessments previously made.

WHAT SEA CAN DO THAT AA CANNOT If one was to ask which environmental assessment process (SEA or AA) provides the most robust protection of biodiversity, the answer would not be clear since the purposes of SEA and AA are subtly different. Whilst AA requires absolute “beyond reasonable doubt” as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of specific sites, it does not necessarily address the linkages between these sites and other areas of biodiversity importance. Nor does it investigate issues such as protection of ecosystem services, effects of climate change and interactions with other impact types; unless, of course, if these factors are relevant to the specific conservation objectives for that site.

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  245 SEA, on the other hand, is a broad-brush assessment of a range of biodiversity features within and connected to the area under control of the plan or programme. It considers a range of designations that may be Natura 2000 sites or may be other national or local designations of importance. Issues such as green infrastructure, wildlife corridors and interrelationships between different SEA topics (especially air, water, climate and waste) are dealt with in SEA. SEA also deals with Articles 10 and 12 of the Habitats Directive which provide for a level of protection of “stepping stone” sites of ecological value that provide refuges between larger sites of international importance, as well as the strict protection of habitats and species wherever they may occur. Of course, during the evaluation of the impacts of a plan or programme, the protection of these features may have to be balanced against economic, social or political priorities, and the proponent may have to decide to live with some negative impacts on biodiversity. But when taken together as a dual system of impact identification, evaluation and mitigation, not only do the two processes provide a high level of protection at the strategic level across a wide range of biodiversity features, but they also ensure that the most valuable sites of international importance are robustly protected above all other priorities. When considered as an integrated system, it represents a very powerful assessment and environmental management tool. Only the plethora of AA-related case-law judgments at the project level, have distanced the assessments under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive from the potential for integration with SEA. The need to comply with procedural requirements, as clarified by the case law, in order to avoid further challenges has often resulted in a lack of effort for the scientific focus on the assessment.

CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATION So why have SEA and AA not merged more often into one assessment process? Increased scrutiny due to legal challenges is one explanation. The IBIA study (Gonzáles et al., 2012) also identified several other challenges to achieving more integration (specifically relating to Ireland; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021, and Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021): ●● Current poor administrative and procedural integration of EU and national assessment requirements addressing biodiversity issues; ●● Constraints on potential opportunities for biodiversity enhancement during development resulting from the minimalist conservation/protection approach of the assessment directives; ●● Existing shortcomings in public consultation effectiveness; ●● Discrepancies, lack of standards and accessibility issues with regard to biodiversity (spatial) data; ●● Lack of complete and up‐to‐date fundamental biodiversity data for many parts of Ireland; ●● Conservation objectives and site management plans are often incomplete or rudimentary; ●● Inadequate range and availability of biodiversity and taxonomic expertise in Ireland and current limitations with regard to the optimum use of such expertise; ●● The inconsistent quality of individual assessments; and ●● The need for additional guidance to establish a minimum national standard for biodiversity data gathering and impact assessment.

246  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

THE BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION Earlier in this chapter the benefits of SEA and AA were briefly described and the potential advantages of integration were touched upon. But in the light of the challenges listed above it may seem that integration is a concept beyond the current reach of most SEA/AA systems. Nevertheless, it is vital that the value of integration of certain elements of SEA and AA are promoted due to the potential for such benefits to occur in reality. These benefits may include (adapted from IBIA Study (González et al., 2012)): ●● Improving time and resource allocation; ●● Improvement to the effectiveness, efficiency and comprehensiveness of the assessment to cover all aspects of biodiversity and the interrelationships between different environmental factors; ●● Minimising duplication of efforts by optimising communication channels and data sharing; ●● Enhancing the congruence and efficiency of legal, administrative and operational procedures; and ●● Achieving best results for the protection and conservation of biodiversity.

THE FUTURE FOR SEA/AA INTEGRATION The European Commission has promoted efficiencies in assessment methodology and avoidance of duplication of effort in SEA since it was adopted in 2004, through their call for the advocation of “joint or coordinated procedures”. Despite efforts to informally combine procedural elements for specific energy infrastructure Projects of Common Interest (PCIs),8 there has been little evidence that this has been successful. Perhaps practitioners are too fearful that integration means losing focus on the purposes of each individual assessment system and can make them vulnerable to challenge in the national or European Courts. Certainly this may be the case with AA where there have been so many challenges relating to the interpretation of the requirements of Article 6(3). SEA has, by comparison, remained unchanged in terms of its interpretation due to the fact that the procedures are well set out in the SEA Directive which followed the EIA Directive after 16 years of it being in force. Practitioners were used to the terminology and methodological steps of EIA and could simply apply it to the higher levels in the planning hierarchy. So the future of AA and SEA integrating as one system of assessment is questionable after considering such challenges. There are still advantages in combining stages such as data collection and sharing, sensitivity mapping, consultation of authorities and ensuring that the plan reflects both SEA- and AA-related mitigation. If the political will supports it, member states may eventually decide on innovative and radical methods of integration to ensure that the maximum benefits of both SEA and AA can be achieved with maximum efficiency.



8

See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​eia/​pdf/​PCI​_guidance​.pdf.

Integrating assessment and strategic environmental assessment  247

REFERENCES Burdett, T. and Cameron, C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 18). CEC 1992. Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21st May, on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Commission of the European Communities. Official Journal of the European Union, L 206, 22.7.1992. CEC 1997. Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment /* COM/96/0511 FINAL – SYN 96/0304 */ Official Journal, C 129, 25/04/1997 P. 0014. Chanchitpricha, C.; Swangjang, K. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2021. Addressing the spectrum of strategic environmental assessment potential: evolving practice in Thailand and its effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 26). Clare County Council 2017. SEA Environmental Report. Clare County Development Plan 2017–2023. https://​www​.clarecoco​.ie/​services/​planning/​publications/​clare​-county​-development​-plan​-2017–2023​ -volume​-10b​-ii​-strategic​-environmental​-assesment​-environmental​-report​-24141​.pdf. EC [European Commission] 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal, L 197, 21/07/2001 P. 0030 – 0037. https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​ HTML/​?uri​=​CELEX:​32001L0042​&​from​=​EN. EC [European Commission] 2019. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Commission Notice C(2018) 7621 final, Brussels, 21.11.2018. https://​ ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​nature/​natura2000/​management/​docs/​art6/​EN​_art​_6​_guide​_jun​_2019​.pdf. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2020. Does SEA lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). González, A., Hochstrasser, T., Fry, F., Scott, P., Carvill, P., Jones, M., Grist, B. 2012. Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment: Streamlining AA, SEA and EIA Processes. Best Practice Guidance. http://​www​.ucd​.ie/​ibia/​IBIA​_Guidance​_Final​.pdf. González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment of Spatial land use plans, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 10). Jha-Thakur, U. and Rajvanshi, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in India: trends and Prospects, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 25). Jiliberto, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 24). Kramer, L. 2009. The European Commission’s Opinions under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Journal of Environmental Law 21:1. http://​users​.uoa​.gr/​~gdellis/​III/​3​_​_Kraemer​.pdf. Montaño, M., Tshibangu, G.M and Malvestio, A.C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil – an endangered species?; in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 23). Morgan, R. and Taylor, N. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 21). Noble, B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Canada, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 19). Retief, F.; Steenkamp, C. and Alberts, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa – ‘The Road Not Taken’, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds.). Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 22). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment 2006. Biodiversity in Impact Assessment, Background Document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment, Montreal, Canada. https://​www​.cbd​.int/​doc/​publications/​cbd​-ts​-26​-en​.pdf. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2020. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7).

16. Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment Cian O’Mahony

INTRODUCTION This chapter focuses on how plans and programmes may affect or be affected by climate change, and how climatic considerations should be addressed within the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process. It is based on the content of an Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance note on integrating climatic factors into SEA to assist plan-making authorities and SEA practitioners. The guidance does not constitute statutory guidance and is only intended to show how to practically incorporate climatic factors into plans and programmes, falling under the remit of Directive 2001/42/EC. Planning decisions have the potential to increase or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts. Variability in climate can also potentially impact implementing a plan/programme once finalised. One of the key mechanisms available to plan-making authorities in helping understand how human and natural systems will respond to and be affected by climate change is SEA. The SEA process is becoming recognised as a flexible and capable instrument of climate policy integration (EC, 2013; EPA, 2018a; OECD, 2010). It provides a clear framework for how to assess and manage environmental risks, which allows for the integration of climatic factors into plans and programmes. Through application of the SEA Directive, the integration of climatic factors in strategic planning should lead to better informed, evidence-based decision-making that is more sustainable in the context of a changing climate. International-level climate change agreements help inform national climate change commitments. Plan-making authorities, in various sectors and at different levels in the planning hierarchy, need to consider how to take these national commitments into account, in their plan-making and within any environmental assessments processes. Where plans/programmes are being prepared for the various sectors covered under the SEA Directive, plan-makers need to ensure the aims of the plan or programme align with these high-level commitments. The SEA Directive provides a formal mechanism for how environmental considerations, including climatic factors are to be taken into account within the assessment process.

CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITMENTS The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reiterated that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (IPCC, 2013, p. 4). Anthropogenic GHG emissions have already triggered substantial and long-lived change, bringing about atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are “unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years” (IPCC, 2013, p. 11). Climate policy must move to limit carbon emissions as a matter of urgency. 248

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  249 The Paris Agreement sets out the objective of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. In October 2018, the IPCC published the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018), which finds that attaining the 1.5°C objective is technically feasible, although very challenging. At a national or regional level, strategic plans/programmes (covering long timeframes) should include commitments for setting climate change targets and objectives. Where SEA is applied for plans/programmes at this level, those climate change targets and objectives should be considered in the assessment process (see also Chapter 3 by Hayes and Fischer, 2021). Lower level plans (with shorter time frames) should seek to achieve these targets through specific commitments and implementable actions.

CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION Mitigation and adaptation are considered equally important from a climate change policy perspective. Both aspects need to be considered in other national policy areas, to ensure a coherent approach to addressing climate change is achieved. A key goal should be for plans and programmes to avoid increasing GHG emissions (and ideally enable reductions in emissions) and for them to be resilient to projected climate change. Climate mitigation measures are actions that reduce the impact that humans have on the climate system by reducing/managing emissions of GHGs or by providing/enhancing carbon sinks. Examples of these types of measures could include good land management practices, maximising use of sustainable forms of transport, increasing energy efficiency by improving building insulation, using energy generated from renewable sources, and increasing forest cover. Climate adaptation measures are those actions employed to reduce the vulnerability to the effects of climate change. They also include actions to increase the resilience to observed or projected climate change impacts. These measures are essential to consider and address the impacts of climate change when preparing and implementing plans and programmes. In particular, given that many of the climate-related impacts are unavoidable in the short- to medium-term, regardless of how successful climate mitigation measures are in reducing future emissions, a plan/programme should take these into account. When proposing specific mitigation/adaptation measures, it is important to assess the potential likely environmental effects of the measures considered. For example, building flood defences may alleviate flood risk but may impact negatively on protected habitats and species. Adaptation responses can take the form of: ●● ‘grey’ engineered measures reduce climate hazards, such as the construction of flood defences; ●● ‘green’ ecosystem or nature-based adaption measures, such as catchment attenuation, upgrading and conserving of existing sea defences and harbour infrastructure, the restoration of dune systems and wetlands to buffer against sea-level rise; ●● ‘soft’ adaptations look to alter public behaviour through policy or economic instruments, such as reusing buildings, sourcing environmentally sustainable building materials for

250  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment major infrastructure, offering early warning systems that communicate directly and effectively to vulnerable communities and enable appropriate local actions in response to limit exposure and damage. These response approaches can be adopted in isolation or can be coordinated to complement each other depending on circumstances. In any case, our response to climate change should include both adaptation and mitigation objectives and consider their interactions. Mitigation and adaptation measures should, where possible, be coherently integrated within plans and programmes. For instance, increased temperatures will influence the way that buildings are designed; considering the installation of air conditioning may reduce building energy efficiency and add to GHG emissions.

SEA AND CLIMATE CHANGE The European SEA Directive is procedural in nature and provides a robust methodology for how environmental considerations (including climatic factors) can be considered in the SEA and plan-making processes. The European SEA Directive provides plan-makers with a statutory framework to assess the potential for likely significant effects, including climatic factors that may arise out of the plan/programme. The various stages involved in SEA are described later in the chapter, and some suggestions are put forward on how SEA can help consider climatic factors at these different stages (Table 16.1). The Scoping stage is an important stage with regards to integrating climate change into SEA. It allows plan-makers to consider current baseline and future climate change projections, identify relevant plans with specific climate change policy commitments or mitigation/adaptation measures that may affect how the plan/programme is prepared. It also helps to identify any significant impacts and opportunities created by climate change and develop climate change objectives and indicators for climate mitigation and adaptation. Annex I of the European SEA Directive, for example, requires the environmental report to describe the likely significant effects of implementation of the plan or programme, including long-term as well as short- and medium-term impacts and cumulative and synergistic effects.1 Plan-makers are required to consider and assess the potential effects of other ongoing plans and programmes as well as their own. However, cumulative effects assessment remains an issue. To help in addressing this issue, the EPA has recently published guidance on cumulative effects assessment in SEA (EPA, 2020). Similarly, research elsewhere points at the challenges of assessing synergies between climate change mitigation, adaptation and policy (for Denmark, see e.g. Larsen et al., 2012). Annex I of the SEA Directive also requires the environmental report to describe “the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme”, as well as “an outline for the reasons for selecting alternatives dealt with”. In the context of climate change, mitigation and adaptation measures should include alternative development scenarios and coherently account for climate change impacts and responses to them. Moreover, considering climate change

1 Synergistic effects occur when the interaction between factors or substances leads to an effect that is greater than the sum of the individual effects. An example is when the thawing of permafrost as a result of global warming releases methane, further increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  251 Table 16.1 Screening

High-level summary of SEA stages and climate change considerations at each stage ●●Establish the characteristics of the plan/programme ●●Consider related energy/emissions/infrastructure etc. demands of the plan ●●Consider compatibility of plan with higher level climate change commitments ●●Assess potential for likely significant effects ●●Early consultation ●●Determine whether SEA is required

Scoping

●●Establish the environmental (climatic) baseline ●●Develop climate change related Environmental Protection Objective(s) ●●Consider if the plan is likely to have a significant effect on climatic factors ●●Set out an approach to ensure climate impacts are appropriately assessed ●●Identify environmental vulnerabilities possibly affected significantly by climate change ●●Consider adaptation and mitigation options to achieve the plan aims/goals ●●Early consultation

SEA Alternatives

●●Consider ‘reasonable’ SEA alternatives to meet plan objectives, while looking to maximise climate resilience where possible ●●Select alternatives that avoid or minimise environmental impacts ●●Assess energy demands of alternatives, land-use zoning options in spatial plans, transportation/commuting, etc.

SEA Environmental ●●Assess the impacts of the plan for likely significant effects, including cumulative effects of climate change Report

on environmental vulnerabilities ●●Establish and recommend appropriate climate change mitigation/adaptation measures and fully integrate SEA recommendations into the plan ●●Consider whether extending the consultation period, over that specified in the regulations is warranted

Monitoring

●●Develop a monitoring programme to monitor the significant environmental effects of plan implementation, to identify early unforeseen adverse effects and undertake appropriate remediation. This monitoring should consider climatic factors ●●Review updated baseline information available throughout the lifetime of the plan at appropriate intervals to determine how effectively the plan is responding to climate change

SEA Statement

●●Summarise how climatic factors have been integrated into the plan

implications during the assessment of plan alternatives in the SEA, helps identify which alternative best supports climate change commitments. Several characteristics of climate change influence the way in which it needs to be considered in SEA including: –– the long-term and cumulative nature of effects; –– the complexity of cause–effect relationships; and –– uncertainty. Climate change mitigation and monitoring considerations, at a plan level and at a regional/ national level, can be used to determine if the plan/programme achieves or supports climate mitigation targets and commitments. The monitoring of SEA-related/strategic environmental protection objectives, for example, should allow for an assessment of the likelihood of potential significant environmental effects over the lifetime of a plan/programme and beyond. Table 16.2 provides examples of how climate change mitigation and adaptation can be considered in plan-making. These considerations are discussed further in the EPA guidance note (EPA, 2019 forthcoming), which is based on SEA-related climate guidance from the Scottish Government (2010) and the UK Environment Agency (EA, 2011).

and landslides

of droughts and heat waves Avoid development

patterns that fragment in areas at risk from habitat corridors for

movement of species coastal erosion (SDP/ and seek to enhance where possible (SDP/ LDP)

patterns of high winds and storminess Ensure development takes account of drainage and sewerage infrastructure capacity

and intensity of precipitation, flood risk and flooding Avoid building in flood risk areas (LDP)

Protect high carbon soils from loss/ sealing through new development (LDP)

to landfill)

Provide spatial framework for new waste facilities such as recycling, composting and

efficiency and

enabling renewable

energy generation Provide spatial

framework for

reduction in the

need to travel and

modal shift Make efficient use of Promote

existing infrastructure development

LDP)

(LDP)

efficiency standards

risk of current and need for cooling and help to address urban heat island effect

future flooding (SDP/LDP)

SG)

encourage the re-use of construction waste (LDP/SG)

on buildings or

in developments

(LDP/SG)

native woodland

(LDP/SG)

performance – reduce cover (SDP/LDP/SG) coastal areas at

extraction (LDP/ SuDS (LDP/SG)

new buildings and

Protect and expand for environmental

LDP)

erosion including

Encourage design

micro-renewables

development (LDP) provision of

commercial peat floods through use of development in

(LDP) Increase resilience to Avoid

in storm events

possible increase

in development of

Help to reduce waste Restrict

(SDP/LDP)

locations (LDP/SG) thermal treatment

in appropriate

need to travel (SDP/ development

Promote high energy Promote mixed use Support

(SDP/LDP)

pumping/treatment

emissions from

with associated

additional facilities

to reduce the need for patterns that reduce renewables

considering any

in patterns of erosion

changes in patterns

changes in

Avoid development

Resilience to changes

Resilience to

Resilience to

changed frequency

loss from soils

(e.g. reducing waste

transport through

emissions

increasing energy

Climate Change Adaptation Resilience to

Reduce impact of

Reduce all GHG

Reduce carbon

Climate Change Mitigation

Climatic factors considerations in SEA

Reduce energy use, Reduce resource use

Table 16.2

252  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

use of green roofs, protect and expand green space and tree cover (SG) Consider future water needs and availability when planning new development (SDP/

infrastructure and service development are not at flood risk (LDP/SG) Permeable surfaces and green space in new development (LDP/SG)

Power (SDP/LDP/

SG)

Promote

consolidation and

enhancement of

existing settlements

– cities, towns and

villages (SDP/LDP/

SG)

transport routes

(LDP)

Prioritise re-use of

(including

underused upper

stories) and

brownfield land

(SDP/LDP) Support car-free

design (LDP/SG)

Notes: (SDP): Strategic Development Plans, (LDP): Local Development Plans, (SG): Supplementary Guidance Source: Adapted from Scottish Government (2010).

(LDP)

protection (LDP/SG) developments

Tree planting and

SG)

higher density (LDP/ existing buildings

Small housing at

water (LPD)

rainwater and grey

Encourage use of

LDP)

Encourage the greater

new essential

Combined Heat and

to existing public

Climate Change Adaptation

through layout and

Climate Change Mitigation

Allocate sites close Encourage

Ensure that any

Use solar gain

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  253

254  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

OVERVIEW OF SECTORAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE The guidance note takes account of national level climate change research to suggest key aspects to consider when preparing plans and programmes for different sectors (built environment, agriculture, biodiversity, peatlands, forests, water quantity/water quality, coastal and marine resources/flood risk, human health, the economy and society). Some key sector examples are presented below. Built Environment Critical infrastructure represents those national infrastructure assets that are needed for the functioning of a country and the delivery/maintenance of critical societal functions. It includes: energy, transport, communication networks, water services and health services. Infrastructure could be at risk from projected changes in climate and increasing temperatures, sea-level rise, changing rainfall patterns and the increased occurrence of extreme weather events. Existing built environment infrastructure also requires consideration as much of this consists of historic buildings and other structures. Agriculture The agriculture sector can be affected significantly from episodes of extreme weather events (storms) and atypical seasonal precipitation and temperatures (flooding, drought, heatwaves and cold snaps). Although no single event can be attributed to climate change, the exposure and vulnerability of large sections of agriculture to these events should be of concern. The drying out of soils, for example, in response to climate change (including in wetlands) could result in the deterioration of soil quality and emission of CO2, while increased rainfall may cause increased soil erosion. For each of the sectors described in the guidance, information on changes in climate variables, impacts and suggested adaptation options are tabulated, in an Irish context. Table 16.3 shows an abridged version of the type of information provided in these sectoral impact tables.

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  255 Table 16.3

Summary of key impacts for agriculture

Sector

Climatic variable changes

Impacts

Adaptation options

Dairy

Temperature increases

Extension to growing season

Earlier planting and harvesting

Extended grazing season All year growth in coastal/sheltered areas Possible increase in viruses and diseases

Increased vaccination and disease control

affecting livestock, aphids in winter crops (Flood, 2013). Extended viability of disease vectors throughout the year Changes in precipitation patterns

Soil moisture changes will impact on

Modification of animal diet

plant/crop growth

Greater need to cultivate drought/heat

Impacts on soil carbon stores/

resistant crops

sequestration potential Extreme events (heatwaves)

More frequent/intense heatwaves may

Protection from the elements

increase water stress on animals and

Improved availability of water and shade

plants CO2 Concentration

Improved net biomass production.

Ongoing review of plant species

Significant uncertainty for regional impact on crops and grass

Source: Adapted from Desmond et al. (2017).

Relationship with Other Relevant Plans and Programmes and Plan Hierarchy When assessing environmental effects, plan-making authorities must consider the relationship of the plan/programme against other relevant existing plans or programmes (see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021; Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021; and Chapter 12 by Geißler et al., 2021). Reporting on this is, in fact, a mandatory requirement under the European SEA Directive. It is important to identify national level plans and programmes with relevance to climate change objectives. Subsequently, the plan/programme under assessment should identify, refer to and consider how the hierarchy of relevant climate change-specific plans and programmes may influence (or be influenced by) the plan or programmes being prepared. The aim should be to coordinate effective implementation and alignment within the planning hierarchy, in adapting to and responding to climate change. As a case study, Table 16.4 suggests an entry point for integrating climate change into energy decision-making, in the context of Ireland. The ‘actors’ referred to represent different government departments, local authorities and infrastructure owners, while the ‘key entry points’ include the names of specific relevant strategic plans, in an Irish context.

256  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 16.4

Irish case study showing possible entry points for integrating climate change into energy decision-making

Policy Level

Key National Actors

Policy Cycle Sage

Key Entry Points

EU-DG

DCCAE

All

Review of Energy Policy

DCCAE

Implementation

Engagement with Commission on Energy

Energy National

Regulation to integrate climate adaptation into guidelines and regulations for the energy sector DHPLG

Formation/Implementation

Interim Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Statutory Plans, Renewable Energy and Climate Change (DHPLG, 2017) Existing Wind Energy Guidelines (DHPLG,2006) are also currently being reviewed

National

DCCAE

Formation/Implementation

Climate change impacts and adaptation could be integrated into future National renewable energy action plans

All Government

Climate Action Plan 2019 National Energy and Climate Plan National Adaptation Framework National Mitigation Plan National Planning Framework

National

Relevant parent department

Sectoral Adaptation Plans

DCCAE/Infrastructure owners Implementation

Review of codes and standards for the design and safety of structures, power plants, electricity and gas network substations, oil storage and dams based on climate change projections

DTTAS

Implementation

National Policy Framework for Alternative Fuels Infrastructure for Transport

National

DCCAE/Infrastructure owners Implementation

National Energy and Climate Plan

Local

Infrastructure owners

Energy plant output could be reviewed in

Implementation

context of climate change, e.g. outputs from wind, wave and hydropower Local Authorities

Formation/Implementation

Local authority adaptation strategies/climate change action plans

Sectoral Research

DCCAE

Implementation

Review of wind and wave atlases could take climate impacts and projections into account

Notes: DCCAE: Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment; DHPLG: Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government; DTTAS: Department of Tourism, Transport and Sport. Source: Adapted from Desmond and Shine (2012).

Table 16.5 shows examples of different aspects of climate change and suggested plan-level commitments that could be considered in these plans. It also provides examples of plan-types that these commitments may be applicable to. Additionally, when preparing plans/programmes to take account of climate change aspects, existing sectoral plans, including these types of plans, should be taken into consideration in terms of their influence on the plan being prepared.

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  257 Table 16.5

Examples of climate change suggested commitments and relevant plans and programmes

Climate change aspect Suggested commitment in plans

Key relevant plans/programmes

Energy conservation ●●Improve building energy efficiency/design ●●Improve insulation ●●Regenerate housing areas to increase energy efficiency

●●Sustainable energy action plans ●●Regeneration master plans for local authority

Traffic management

●●Identify traffic issues ●●Implement higher level traffic management plan policies ●●Consider integrated Land Use and Transportation Strategies

●●Sub-regional traffic management plans ●●Regional/National Transport Strategies

●●Regional Transport Strategy, regional and Public transport (PT) ●●Promote increased public transport use and sub-regional land use planning upgrade related infrastructure ●●Establish integrated ticketing for public transport to facilitate regional, national and international travel ●●Provide/upgrade/maintain public transport and cycle-walkway network Air pollution

●●Promote integrated traffic management, to minimise congestion and poor air quality from transport-related emissions

●●National, regional and sub-regional traffic management plans

Drainage infrastructure

●●Assess/maintain drainage infrastructure ●●Assess resilience to increased heavy precipitation events/flooding etc. ●●Utilise sustainable drainage system technologies into developments

●●Regional level drainage studies/catchment level flood risk management and assessment studies ●●Sub-regional development plans

Transport infrastructure

●●Assess/maintain/upgrade transport infrastructure to determine potential impacts of flooding, slope failure, etc.

●●National, regional and sub-regional transport plans

Flood defence infrastructure

●●Integrate recommendations of flood risk manage- ●●Regional catchment level flood risk management planning, Integrated Coastal Zone Management ment/coastal zone management plans plans, lower level flood risk assessments ●●Assess, maintain and upgrade flood defences where appropriate ●●Consider implications for built heritage infrastructure and allow for appropriate upgrade, repair and modification

Spatial planning

●●Be aware of environmental issues, such as flood risk during land use planning ●●Identify public transport linkages when planning civic amenities and services to minimise travel/ promote public transport usage

●●National, regional and sub-regional land-use plans ●●Renewable Energy Development Plans ●●National level infrastructure-related plans (Water, Electricity etc)

Green infrastructure ●●Protect and enhance ecological corridors/linkages ●●National, regional and sub-regional land use plans, biodiversity action plans, heritage plans, green infra(support biodiversity, provide shade and shelter to structure strategies, etc. people, and locally act as carbon sinks) ●●Drought-resistant planting in public parks to minimise ●●Habitat mapping important to support upgrading/ maintaining green infrastructure and determine water use, while being mindful not to impact signifiimpacts on biodiversity due to climate change cantly on protected species that may use these areas. Water conservation

●●Recycle grey water within buildings ●●Promote harvesting of rainwater and meter water usage

Source: Excerpt from EA (2011).

●●National- and regional-level water resources planning ●●Sub-regional development plans ●●Water Services plans ●●Water metering installation programme, etc.

258  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Possible Climate Change Objectives and Indicators Following identification of the key issues associated with the plan or programme, the plan-making or SEA team should develop climate change objectives and indicators as part of the identification of Environmental Protection Objectives to be used when assessing the potential of the plan for likely significant environmental effects against different environmental receptors. Table 16.6 shows some of these possible climate change objectives. Table 16.6

Examples of some possible climate change objectives

Section

Possible SEA objectives

Mitigation

Minimise future climate change by:

measures

●●Reducing the need to travel/increasing use of public transportation ●●Increasing energy efficiency ●●Utilising lower carbon fuels ●●Decreasing usage of fossil fuels and increasing renewable resource usage ●●Maintaining/protecting natural carbon sinks (bogs/marshes/forests)

Adaptation

Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change by:

measures

●●Providing adequate health and critical service infrastructure ●●Providing adequate surface water drainage infrastructure to adapt to changes in seasonal rainfall; use sustainable drainage system technologies ●●Zoning lands to restrict inappropriate development types in flood-prone areas ●●Supporting utilisation of energy-efficient and water-efficient building design ●●Integrating coastal zone management ●●Developing a robust transport infrastructure ●●Increasing level green infrastructure provided in land-use plans ●●Avoiding situations that limit adaptation to climate change ●●Developing ecologically resilient and varied landscapes ●●Establishing and preserving ecological networks ●●Fostering adaptive management practices to be able to respond to uncertainty, favouring flexible adaptation options and allowing for alteration of plan/programme as monitoring and evaluation data become available

Source: Adapted from EA (2011).

Suggested climate change indicators (EA, 2011) could cover aspects such as: –– causes of climate change: carbon emissions per person, greenhouse gas emissions. –– climate variables/weather: sea level, precipitation, temperature (air, sea, ground), etc. –– local impacts: annual hosepipe bans, biodiversity, human health, recurring flooding, water quality. –– mitigation measures: household energy/water/electricity/gas use, distance travelled per person per year by public/private transport, etc. –– adaptation measures: number of houses built on floodplains, % land zoned for green infrastructure, % developments which include sustainable urban drainage systems, etc.

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  259 Complexity of Cause–Effect Relationships and Uncertainty Annex I of the SEA Directive requires the environmental report to describe the impacts of the plan or programme on the interrelationship of environmental factors. The interrelationships between different environmental aspects such as flood risk, land-use, water quality and biodiversity may have significant implications for specific elements of the plans/programme being prepared, such as infrastructural planning proposals or land-use/zoning changes should be assessed with these interrelationships in mind (see also Chapter 2 by Anke Rehhausen et al., 2021). As with any area of future/forward planning, many of the uncertainties surrounding the timing and distribution of climate change impacts are difficult to predict and should be documented in the environmental report. For instance, using different climate change models may indicate different degrees of change or variation in climate variables, such as precipitation and temperature. Selecting a single projection value against which to assess the impacts of climate change for the plan/programme may understate the range of potential climate impacts and increase the possibility (or risk) of maladaptation. Instead, a range of plausible future climate change projections and climate impacts is recommended to inform the SEA. A clear description of the projections employed, and their limitations, should also be provided, to help understand the decision-making process and assessment findings. Modelling and projection work to date indicates that a hugely significant change is underway. Although some of the parameters determining the precise trajectory of that change are subject to scientific uncertainty, there is very little uncertainty with respect to the future climate differing significantly from that of today. In the short- to medium-term, uncertainties are primarily due to scientific knowledge gaps. These are mostly related to the inherent variability and chaotic nature of natural phenomena (e.g. rainfall and wind regimes). In the longer term, the dominant uncertainty relates to the level of ambition and effectiveness of future international actions to address the drivers of climate change, i.e. to reduce emissions of GHGs. This will eventually determine the full extent of climate change and the level of adaptation that will be required. When considering uncertainties in climate change, plans/programmes in different sectors undergoing SEA may look to assess and address these differently, depending on the potential impacts on the sector, or where specific issues or locational considerations are concerned. Reference material on how to manage uncertainty in decision-making includes Willows and Connell (2003) and Walker et al. (2013). Additionally, SEA-related research in Denmark (Larsen et al., 2013), looked at how climate change uncertainties are considered within the Danish planning system. This research proposed a model for considering climate change uncertainty, based on awareness of uncertainty, acknowledgement of uncertainty and action on uncertainty. Posas (2011) researched climate change criteria for use in SEA (adapted from Fischer et al., 2011). This research included information on climate change implementation principles specific to SEA. From an uncertainty perspective, these principles include identifying approaches to assess future vulnerability and adaptation needs to characterise future climate-related risks. These approaches can also help assess future socio-economic conditions and capacity to adapt.

260  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Responses Plan-makers must consider mitigation and adaptation measures if a plan/programme has been assessed to have potential for significant adverse impacts on climatic factors or to result in increased vulnerability to climate change. This should be done as early as possible and be taken into consideration when assessing alternative development scenarios. Although a plan/programme may include proactive initiatives and commitments to avoid climate change impacts, these may not succeed in reducing GHG emissions or vulnerability to climate change. This is because of other factors, such as lifestyle choices affecting car choice, with car usage counteracting even the most well-intentioned plan or programme commitment. Mitigation Mitigation is primarily concerned with limiting the production of GHGs. Research carried out in Germany and England (Wende et al., 2011) highlighted the need to consider how climate mitigation (CO2 reduction) targets can be brought into the SEA and plan-making process. A discrepancy between intention and actual performance in considering climate change in SEA was recently observed for South Africa (Cape et al., 2018). However, overall, the topic remains poorly researched (Fischer and Onyango, 2012). The Irish guidance note includes suggested mitigation measures for specific sectors, some of which are presented in Table 16.7. Table 16.7

Example of categories of mitigation and some examples

Mitigation Examples for land-use plan

Examples for non-land-use plan

Measure Buildings ●●Support energy-efficient building design ●●More energy efficient smaller and higher density appropriate to demographics/infrastructure availability

●●Retrofit existing houses to increase energy efficiency ●●Promote re-use of recyclable building materials with low embodied energy

●●Promote renewable and low carbon energy Transport ●●Support construction of green routes/cycleways/pedestrian routes ●●Strengthen public transport linkages and encourage their use ●●Support localisation of jobs/shops/services to minimise the need for most common travel patterns

●●National/Regional Transport Strategies/Sub-regional traffic management plans ●●Support improved vehicle fuel efficiency ●●Support greater use of public transport ●●Encourage local holiday destinations; reduce the need for air travel ●●Promote purchasing of local foods/farmer’s markets, etc.

Energy

●●Promote energy-efficient building design

production ●●Promote links between developments and renewable

●●Develop Sustainable Energy Action Plans that promote localised electricity generation

energy resources; look to source energy from renewable

●●Use price incentives that rise with increased energy usage

or low-carbon fuel sources

●●Congestion charging to discourage wasteful energy usage

Source: Abridged excerpt from EA (2011).

Adaptation The principles to be applied in identifying appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures are as follows: ●● Keep options open and flexible, so that further measures or strategies can be put in place to meet needs identified in the future. Given the uncertainties inherent in predicting future climate change, consideration should be given to factoring flexibility into plans, through,

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  261 for example, the provision of buffer zones between developments and sites of ecological importance, avoiding inappropriate development in areas of known flood risk, promoting heritage-led regeneration and reuse of existing cultural assets and ensuring that sufficient flexibility is maintained within plans and programmes to alter course should future climate impacts differ significantly from those anticipated. Where uncertainty exists, or baseline data are unavailable, this should be highlighted in the plan/programme. ●● Prioritise addressing data gaps to inform analyses of how the environment may change within the plan or programme area and allow plans to be reviewed against up-to-date information. ●● Avoid decisions that will make it more difficult to manage climate risk in the future. One example is inappropriate development in flood risk areas; another could be enhanced drainage works to improve agricultural land that reduce water retention on land but increase flood risk downstream. ●● Consider the level of ‘regret’ involved in implementing the option: will it be effective regardless of how climate change is manifest in the future? i.

No-regret adaptation options are those that deliver societal benefits regardless of the future climate impact regime encountered. Examples include capacity-building actions or activities, or savings-targeted activities such as reducing leakage from water systems in drought-threatened areas. ii. Low-regret adaptation options are those that carry a relatively low cost but offer the potential for significant climate resilience enhancement. Examples include raising the minimum floor height of new-build dwellings in areas that may be flood-prone in the future or acting to ensure the long-term health and well-being of natural climate-buffering habitats such as dune systems and wetlands. ●● Seek ‘win-win’ measures if possible. Win-win options are those that serve a dual purpose, enhancing resilience to climate change impacts while also providing an alternative societal benefit, such as providing societal recreational and amenity opportunities as an integral part of new infrastructural development; responding to the threat posed by increased storm intensity and sea-level rise by building an artificial reef, thus dissipating wave energy to prevent coastal erosion and also serving to provide recreational opportunities for surfers and a nursery habitat for inshore fisheries. ●● Choose to implement flexibility/adaptive management in planning for climate change, staging the implementation of adaptation options incrementally over time wherever possible. Options that score highly in terms of their flexibility are those that allow for changing course as new information becomes available, allowing planners and managers to learn how best to respond to climate impacts without committing resources inappropriately or unnecessarily. This type of adaptation option is typically prefaced by a period of observation and monitoring, which then leads to the commitment of resources to a specific course of action. An example of flexible adaptation would be the prevention of future residential zoning and the de-zoning/re-zoning of existing residential lands in areas at significant risk of flooding, particularly in areas where flood alleviation measures are not viable to establish/maintain. Optimal adaptation policy responses should ideally be based on ‘win-win’ or ‘co-benefit’ decision-making processes. Decision-making, which includes adaptation, mitigation, and wider sustainable development objectives that would generate net social and/or economic

262  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment benefits, irrespective of how the impacts of anthropogenic climate change unfold, should be encouraged. Adaptation responses Adaptation measures are planned responses to the impacts of current and future climate change. Categories of adaptation and relevance for plans and programmes are provided for different sectors in the Irish guidance note. Examples are provided for both land-use and non-land-use plans in Table 16.8. Table 16.8

Some categories of adaptation and examples for plans/programmes

Sector

Examples for land-use plan

Buildings

●●Exclude areas at significant flood risk from inappro- ●●Introduce water metering and charge for excessive priate development ●●Include green roofs and good ventilation ●●Assess resilience of existing infrastructure under new climatic conditions ●●Promote permeable surfaces to decrease run-off rates ●●Maximise water conservation

Examples for non-land-use plan water usage ●●Promote energy efficiency in building design, materials, transport infrastructure, etc. ●●Conserve water resources ●●Upskill the construction industry and building professions in conservation, repair and/or adaptation of historic buildings for reuse

●●Plant drought-resistant plants/trees in public amenity areas to provide shade and increase green infrastructure linkages Water management ●●Increase resilience to flooding through use of sustainable drainage systems ●●Harvest rainwater/grey water ●●Ensure adequate/appropriate water supply and drainage provision Infrastructure, including flood defences

●●Prepare water conservation strategies ●●Ensure that critical infrastructure and services are resilient to new climatic conditions

●●National-level water resources planning ●●Reduce water leakage and water usage, increase permeability of pavements, parking areas, roadways, etc. ●●Limit agricultural/industrial/domestic discharges to surface waters ●●Review waste water treatment systems to cope with increased rainfall intensity

●●Review land-use zoning to ensure compatibility with ●●Accept some coastal area loss to sea-level rise level of flood risk identified/predicted in flood risk

●●Review flood/surge defences options/feasibility

management plans Agriculture, forestry and land management

●●Look to diversify the rural economy to promote crop ●●Plant drought-resistant crops/flood-resistant crops viability options, etc. ●●Encourage afforestation (where environmentally

●●Establish low-impact chemical approaches to control pests/diseases arising under new conditions

appropriate) to enhance interception and infiltration of water within river basin catchments ●●Restore/rehabilitate peat bogs where possible

Source: Adapted from EA (2011).

Integration of SEA Findings into Plans The SEA and draft plan/programme should be carried out concurrently, so that the SEA findings can influence the plan/programme as early as possible in the process. High-level commitments in plans/programmes being prepared should include ensuring alignment with the obligations of national policy commitments on climate change (mitigation and adaptation).

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  263 Lower level plans and programmes may seek the option to implement measures such as restricting zoning of lands outside flood plains, promoting energy and water conservation measures, etc. When higher level plans and programmes include commitments to address specific environmental aspects, such as energy conservation, it may be enough, in lower level plans to explain how these higher-level commitments are to be implemented rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring climate change-related effects within SEA process is challenging. Climate change monitoring tends to take a long-term approach, whereas many plans and programmes undertaking SEA, tend to have shorter timeframes. Where plans are cyclical/iterative, long-term planning can consider and prioritise the long-term implications of climate change and help establish a framework for how successive plans will respond/adapt, on a prioritised basis, to climate change, while still being flexible enough to review successive plans against improvements in climate modelling and associated projections. A useful summary report, Monitoring & Evaluation for Climate Change Adaptation: A Synthesis of Tools, Frameworks and Approaches (Bours et al., 2013) provides a collection of monitoring and evaluation tools, frameworks and approaches for use when considering climate adaptation. For example, it includes a suggested “monitoring and evaluation framework for adaptation to climate change” and a “climate change adaptation and monitoring assessment tool”. The report suggests there are five main categories for climate adaptation (climate risk reduction, administrative/policy management, education/training/awareness, climate scenarios and impact research, and coordination of sectoral climate change measures/activities). The challenge of developing climate change adaptation indicators is recognised internationally. Most countries across Europe are beginning a process of developing such indicators. A recent report (EPA, 2018b) provides information on climate-related monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation of climate adaptation has two overall objectives: –– To facilitate learning from the process of adaptation to ensure that adaptation measures are fit for purpose, and –– To provide some measure of accountability of actions through reporting (OECD, 2015). Monitoring, reporting and evaluation are three complementary techniques used in reviewing progress in developing plans, strategies and policies for adaptation and the outcomes of these. It is recommended that this report be consulted at this stage of the SEA process. The EPA is currently preparing guidance on SEA monitoring to also assist plan-makers.

CONCLUSION SEA provides a clear framework for how environmental risks and sensitivities can be assessed, managed and considered when developing strategic level plans and programmes. It provides a well-structured methodology for how climatic and other environmental factors can be integrated effectively into the plan-making process. This should lead to better informed,

264  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment evidence-based plans that are more environmentally sustainable, in the context of a changing climate. Many challenges exist in terms of integrating climate change into SEA. For example, there is a need for greater understanding for how climate uncertainty is considered, how long-term climate change projections can inform shorter term plans and programmes, developing national and sector-specific climate adaptation indicators, etc. These challenges can be progressed within the SEA process, particularly within successive iterations of the same plan or programme. Iterative plans and associated SEAs provide opportunities to review existing commitments, predictions, climate change measures and adaptation options. Doing so will help avoid mal-adaption and help align long-term national climate change commitments within specific plans and programmes.

REFERENCES Bours, D., McGinn, C. and Pringle, P., 2013. Monitoring & evaluation for climate change adaptation: a synthesis of tools, frameworks and approaches. https://​ukcip​.ouce​.ox​.ac​.uk/​wp​-content/​PDFs/​SEA​ -change​-UKCIP​-MandE​-review​.pdf. Cape, L., Retief, F., Lochner, P., Fischer, T.B. and Bond, A. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 69: 32–41. Desmond, M., O’Brien, P. and McGovern, F. 2017. A summary of the state of knowledge on climate change impacts for Ireland. EPA Research Programme 2014–2020. Report Series No.223. Available at http://​www​.epa​.ie/​pubs/​reports/​research/​climate/​research223​.html. Desmond, M. and Shine, T. 2012. National adaptive capacity assessment. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle, Ireland. Available at http://​www​.epa​.ie/​pubs/​reports/​research/​climate/​ CCRP​_17​_web​.pdf. EA 2011. Strategic environmental assessment and climate change: guidance for practitioners. UK Environment Agency. https://​assets​.publishing​.service​.gov​.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​ uploads/ attachment_data/file/297039/geho0811buca-e-e.pdf. EC 2013. Guidance on integrating climate change and biodiversity into strategic environmental assessment. European Commission. https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​eia/​pdf/​SEA​%20Guidance​.pdf. EPA 2018a. National preparedness to adapt to climate change: analysis of state of play. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Research Report 256 (2016-CCRP-FS.30), prepared by M. Desmond. http://​ www​.epa​.ie/​pubs/​reports/​research/​climate/​Research​_Report​_256​.pdf. EPA 2018b. Reflecting on adaptation to climate change: international best practice review and national MRE and indicator development requirements. EPA Research Report, Series No. 263, prepared by K. Kopke. EPA 2020. Good practice guidance in cumulative effects assessment in SEA. Available at: http://www. epa.ie/pubs/advice/ea/goodpracticeguidanceoncumulativeeffectsassessmentinsea.html. Faith-Ell, C and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Onyango, V. 2012. SEA related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B., Potter, K., Donaldson, S. and Scott, T. 2011. Municipal waste management strategies, strategic environmental assessment and the consideration of climate change in England. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 13(4): 541–65.

Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessment  265 Flood, S. 2013. Projected economic impacts of climate change on Irish agriculture. Stop Climate Chaos, Dublin. Available at http://​www​.stopclimatechaos​.ie/​download/​pdf/​projected​_economic​_impacts​_of​ _ climate_change_on_irish_agriculture_oct_2013.pdf. IPCC 2013. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report – Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis – final draft underlying scientific technical assessment (accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://​www​.ipcc​.ch/​site/​assets/​uploads/​2017/​09/​WG1AR5​_Frontmatter​_FINAL​.pdf. Geißler, G., Dahmen, M. and Köppel, J. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in the energy sector, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 12). Hayes, S.J. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Objectives for, of and in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 3). IPCC 2018. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://​www​.ipcc​.ch/​sr15/​. Larsen, S.V., Kørnøv, L. and Driscoll, P. 2013. Avoiding climate change uncertainty in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 144–50. Larsen, S.V., Kørnøv, L. and Wejs, A. 2012. Mind the gap in SEA: an institutional perspective on why assessment of synergies amongst climate change mitigation, adaptation and other policy areas are missing. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 33: 32–40. OECD 2010. Strategic environmental assessment and adaptation to climate change. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://​content​-ext​.undp​.org/​aplaws​_publications/​1769217/​ SEA​%20and​%20Adaptation​%20to​%20CC​%20full​%20version​.pdf. OECD 2015. National climate change adaptation: emerging practices in monitoring and evaluation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://​www​.oecd​.org/​env/​cc/​national​ -climate​-change​-adaptation​-9789264229679​-en​.htm. Posas, P.J. 2011. Exploring climate change criteria for strategic environmental assessments. Progress in Planning 75: 109–54. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Scottish Government 2010. Consideration of climatic factors within strategic environmental assessment. https://​www​.historicenvironment​.scot/​media/​2383/​0096207​.pdf. Walker, W.E., Hasnoot, M. and Kwakkel, J. 2013. Adapt or perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5(3): 955–79. Wende, W., Bond, A., Bobylev, N. and Stratmann, L. 2011. Climate change mitigation and adaptation in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32: 88–93. Willows, R.I. and Connell, R.K. (eds) 2003. Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report. UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford.

17. Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: an integrating concept in a world of silos Roel Slootweg

INTRODUCTION The amount of initiatives and publications related to biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural capital over the last decade is overwhelming. Ever since the appearance of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2003 & 2005), ecosystem services have been promoted as an effective concept to translate biodiversity for planners, decision-makers and the public at large. By translating biodiversity into products and services for present and future generations, the linkages between humankind and its environment can be described in understandable language. Ecosystem services provide an integrated consideration of the socio-ecological system that moves away from the traditional silo-based approach of the environment (e.g. soil, water, air, flora, fauna) to one that focuses on the interconnectivity of the socio-ecological system (Baker et al., 2013; Reyers et al., 2013). In spite of these apparent advantages, the concept of ecosystem services has only very slowly been adopted in the practices of planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for planning. Yet, the 2019 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019) tells us that around one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. The need to take biodiversity better into account in planning and decision-making processes has never been more urgently publicised. In the words of IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson: “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide” (UN, 2019). This chapter deals with ecosystem services in SEA. It summarises the conceptual framework underlying the Biodiversity Convention SEA Guidelines (Box 17.1), describes the present state of affairs, and gives some possible explanations why the world has such difficulty in dealing with the integrative concept of ecosystem services in a world divided into silos. Finally, the chapter tries to simplify matters to such a level that anybody should be able to understand and work with ecosystem services. Two SEA case examples are presented in boxes at the end of the chapter, one from the land and water sector (Box 17.4) and one on regional development planning (Box 17.5).

266

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   267

BOX 17.1 SEA AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SOME INFLUENTIAL TREATIES AND ORGANISATIONS SEA and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992): • Article 14 of the original Convention text calls for environmental impact assessment. • The 2006 Decision VIII/28 endorses Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment, both for EIA and SEA (CBD, 2006; extensively elaborated in Slootweg et al., 2009). • In 2017, the convention secretariat published a Global State of the Application of Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment (CBD, 2017). • COP Decision XIV/3 on mainstreaming of biodiversity reiterates the need for better use of SEA in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors (CBD, 2018). The CBD Guidelines have directly initiated or influenced the Guidelines on Biodiversity in Impact Assessment of the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010), the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity in Impact Assessment in Marine Environment (CBD, 2012), further guidance by OECD-DAC on ecosystem services in SEA (OECD, 2008), and guidance for local policy makers of The Economy of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2012). UNEP published a practitioner’s guide on ecosystem services in SEA (Geneletti, 2014), and the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) has updated its International Best Practice Principles on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment (Brownlie & Treweek, 2018).

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SEA: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The term biodiversity-inclusive SEA as used by the CBD Guidelines is following the CBD biodiversity definition. It encompasses the three levels of biodiversity as defined by the convention (i.e. genetic, species and ecosystem diversity), and addresses the three objectives of the convention: conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from biodiversity. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided the conceptual background and the vocabulary to link biodiversity to human stakeholders by means of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are defined as “the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems” (MEA, 2003). Recently the term ‘natural capital’ is gaining ground, especially in the sector of responsible business conduct. Where natural capital represents the stocks of renewable and non-renewable resources (e.g. plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals), ecosystem services represent the flows of benefits to people. The MEA recognises four groups of ecosystem services: (i) provisioning services providing harvestable products; (ii) regulating services for processing or regulation of natural processes; (iii) cultural services for aesthetic, spiritual, educational or recreational purposes. The fourth category of supporting services includes internal ecosystem services needed to create the other three categories of services. In impact assessment the first three categories are used to describe

268  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment impacts; the fourth category is not counted to avoid double counting, but is needed to understand underlying mechanism through which ecosystems are affected. Biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment according to the CBD objectives addresses (i) biodiversity sensu stricto, i.e. the diversity of ecosystems, species and genes, linked to the conservation objective; (ii) ecosystem services, i.e. the benefits obtained from biodiversity by people, linked to the sustainable use objective; and (iii) the beneficiaries of these services, linked to the objective of equitable sharing of benefits derived from biodiversity (also intergenerational). Ecosystem services thus link the biophysical environment to human well-being. We will see later in this chapter that in impact assessment there is a widening gap between experts in biodiversity sensu stricto, and ecosystem services and their beneficiaries. Biodiversity is pushed (or pulled) back into the green conservation silo dominated by biologists, and ecosystem services are pushed into the development and social sciences silo. The conceptual framework behind the CBD guidelines is extensively described by Slootweg et al. (2009, based on Slootweg et al., 2001 and Schooten et al., 2003). To understand some basic concepts, a short summary is provided in Table 17.1 and Figure 17.1.

Figure 17.1

Ecosystem services in the impact assessment framework

Note: Numbers explained in Table 17.1.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   269 Table 17.1

Description of concepts in the impact assessment framework

1. Activity

Planned human intervention(s), subject to assessment

2. Direct drivers of change Activities and their effects that change ecosystems and consequently the services provided by these ecosystems. Drivers of change within the influence of a proponent are called endogenous drivers; exogenous drivers of change are beyond the influence of a proponent (e.g. earthquakes, climate change). Depending on the level of planning, drivers may become endogenous or exogenous. For example, climate change is exogenous to a road project, but endogenous to a national energy policy 3. Biophysical effects*

Changes in the characteristics of the recipient media soil, water, air, flora and fauna

4. Social effects*

Changes in the characteristics of components of society (individuals, families, functional groups or a society as a whole)

5. Range of influence

Biophysical effects have a geographical range of influence (where and how far away) and a time range (when and for how long, permanent or temporary). Experts can model biophysical effects or use empirical evidence to predict where and when an effect will be noticeable. Local knowledge and experience can also be helpful for determining the range of influence

6. Impacts

Consequences of human activities through biophysical or social effects in terms of how they are perceived or valued by (groups in) society. Where an effect is context independent, an impact by definition is context dependent

7. Ecosystems

Affected ecosystems and land-use types within the range of influence of a biophysical effect provide ecosystem services. Depending on the sensitivity of the ecosystem or land-use to a biophysical effect, ecosystem services may change

8. Humans

A change in ecosystem services will lead to a change in their value for human society and consequently has an impact on human well-being, positively or negatively. Values can be expressed in economic, social or ecological terms and may differ among (groups of) stakeholders. Impacts are context dependent and can only be determined in consultation with local society

9. Direct social impacts

Depending on the characteristics of the existing community, social effects may lead to direct social impacts that may vary between affected groups.

10. Induced social changes Contrary to the biophysical world, humans are able to respond actively to impacts; social impacts in some cases lead to induced social effects 11. Indirect drivers of

Changes in society which under certain conditions may influence direct drivers of change. They operate

change

diffusely; their influence is established by understanding their effects on a direct driver of change

Note: *Social effects can lead to biophysical effects (creation of job leads to influx of people, in turn leading to pressure on land and water resources). Effects are neutral entities and can be measured or modelled by experts; they are not determined by human ‘values’ or ‘meaning’.

The CBD guidelines differentiate between four different situations in the way ecosystem services can be addressed in SEA: 1. Sector policies and plans for which the type of activities are known but the area of implementation not (yet). In SEA, the drivers of change created by the sector can be identified and described. Ecosystems or types of land-use with valued ecosystem services which are sensitive to these drivers can be identified, allowing creation of a sensitivity map. Such an approach can be used in proactive SEA for sector development planning. 2. Spatial/regional development plans for which the area is known, but the type of activities not (yet). Ecosystem services and their stakeholders can be identified, including their present status. A map can be created indicating whether ecosystem services are over- or under-exploited. This can be translated into a development opportunities and constraints map in proactive SEA for regional (spatial) development planning, or river basin management planning.

270  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment 3. Programmes for which usually both the interventions and the area of intervention are known. This provides the most advanced level of information: drivers of change, area of influence of these drivers, potentially affected ecosystems and ecosystem services, including their stakeholders can all be identified. This usually applies to SEAs for implementation programmes, in practice often carried out as reactive EIA-like SEA. 4. PPPs only affecting indirect drivers of change. This can apply to, for example, SEAs for economic incentive packages, trade agreements or tax plans. Obviously this is a more complex plan for SEA. It may depend on advanced scenario development or modelling. Arguably, Resilience Theory (Slootweg & Jones, 2011; Walker & Salt, 2006) may provide important clues on how to deal with ecosystems and human society (or socio-ecological systems in resilience terminology) in such SEAs. This categorisation was created to show that lack of detailed information on planned activities or planning location, a usual trait of SEA, cannot be an argument to avoid addressing biodiversity and ecosystem services in SEA. The argument of too little information cannot and should never be used. Reversely, SEA as a tool to assess the consequences of plans at strategic level has always been considered a better tool to address issues at the scale of ecosystems and landscapes in an integrated manner, including its potential to better address cumulative impacts.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN PRACTICE Assessment and Valuation Methods of Ecosystem Services The last decade has seen an explosive growth of the number of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services. Ecosystem services assessment encompasses all available methodologies to identify, describe, quantify and value ecosystem services which can be embedded in an SEA procedure. An evaluative study of different approaches to valuation showed there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ecosystem services assessment. Four key questions need to be answered before the appropriate method can be defined (summarised from Berghöfer et al. 2016): 1. Assessment purpose: The purpose of assessing ecosystem services can range from raising general awareness to supporting specific planning or decision making. 2. Assessment context: Understanding the ‘supply side’ (the ecosystem) and the ‘demand side’ (the socio-economic, cultural and political system) helps the analyst to ask the right questions. 3. Choice of method: Different methods generate different results because they represent different perspectives or focus on different factors. Assessments thus shape values, even if their main aim is to measure them. 4. Connection with policy process: An assessment is unlikely to change policy processes or decisions on its own. Engaging key stakeholders early on and strategically gearing the assessment to political entry points enhances its potential policy impact. Sometimes the (participatory) assessment process itself is just as important for leveraging policy change as the assessment results.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   271 For the SEA community, most of the above sounds familiar of course. Slootweg and Beukering (2008), in their overview of ecosystem services valuations, already observed that most ecosystem services assessments described in scientific literature are not linked to any concrete decision-making process and go unnoticed outside the scientific world. In the cases where such assessments did have concrete influence on decision-making, the authors distinguished four levels of complexity in methods of ecosystem services assessment: 1. Identification: Recognising ecosystem services raises awareness on issues that had not been thought of before and recognises stakeholders that have been overlooked. Even this most simple ES overview is shown to be of influence on planning and decision-making. 2. Quantification: A service can be quantified in its own terms, such as the annual sustainably harvestable products from a specific area. Such quantification allows, for example, for comparison of the impacts of alternatives. Rapid, semi-quantitative proxies are often effectively used. Stakeholders and decision-makers can easily relate to such methods. 3. Societal valuation: Ecosystem services represent values for society that can be expressed in terms such as number of people, households or jobs depending on a service, the number of red-listed species in an area (red-listed being a societal expression of ecological value), or somewhat more complex, the contribution that an ecosystem makes in maintaining other ecosystems (e.g. in the case of migratory fish and birds, or sediment flows in river deltas). In practice, such values appear to be very relevant information for decision-makers (see example case in Box 17.4). 4. Economic quantification of ecosystem services values: The most data intense and complicated valuation methods apply to situations where plans are known in more detail, often leading to an aggregate total economic value (TEV) of an ecosystem. These methods are often perceived as a black box. Furthermore, the outcome of one overall value figure blurs the view on impacts on different groups of stakeholders. Examples provided by Slootweg and Beukering (2008) show that embedding ecosystem services assessment and valuation in an SEA process is an effective means to inform and influence planning and decision-making. It was observed that at strategic planning levels quantitative data may not readily be available; therefore the simpler of the above categories of methods (i.e. categories 1 to 3) have preference over the more complicated fourth category of financial quantification methods (Table 17.2). Table 17.2

Requirements for different levels of ecosystem services assessments How

Who

Data needs

Time required

Identification

Interviews

Stakeholders & experts

Map; local knowledge

Days

Quantification

Statistics, interviews,

Modelling expert;

Statistics; proxies may be

Days to weeks

models

statistical analyst

sufficient

interviewers Societal valuation Economic valuation

Statistics, questionnaires

Interviewers, statistical

Statistics; proxies may be

analyst

sufficient

Many techniques; varying Environmental

Market prices, surveys,

complexity

questionnaires

economist; interviewers

Source: Summarised from Slootweg and Beukering (2008).

Weeks to months Months to years

272  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Ecosystem Services in SEA Ecosystem services have been promoted by many as an effective concept to translate biodiversity into understandable language for planners, decision-makers and the public at large (CBD, 2006; Baker et al., 2013; Geneletti, 2013; Partidário & Gomes, 2013). A serious lack of overall evaluations of the effectiveness of SEA in addressing biodiversity hampers a comprehensive analysis (see also Chapters 7 by Thérivel & González, 2021 and 8 by Fischer & Retief, 2021). The little available information, summarised below from CBD (2017) points to certain directions. Biodiversity is increasingly taken into account; the quality of impact statements several years after the adoption of the CBD Voluntary Guidelines were found to be better, compared with before. Yet, the quality of impact statements shows an enormous variability. SEA seems to live up to its promises by doing a better job at the landscape level (including ecosystem services), providing more room for alternatives, and better taking into account cumulative impacts. However, many bad SEAs do exist. The relatively short track record for SEA provides little room for comparison over time. Country regulations often have a narrow focus on biodiversity (species and habitat conservation) leading to a neglect of ecosystem services. Additional donor requirements in many cases lead to better quality environmental assessment. Donor and capacity development support contribute to a higher quality of environmental assessment. There is still a significant gap in the understanding of how ecosystem services exactly relate to ecosystem, species and genetic diversity. Research on biodiversity and ecological function1 has routinely “measured functions without extending those to known services”, whereas the ecosystem services field has “described services without understanding their underlying ecological functions” (Cardinale et al., 2012, in Brownlie et al., 2013). In practice, however, this does not have to hamper effective use of the ecosystem services concept in SEA. Ecosystem services can be quantified, even when we do not have complete ecological knowledge of all involved species and their roles in the delivery of a service (Slootweg et al., 2009). The real value of ecosystem services for SEA lies in (i) the description of the environment in understandable language (i.e. human values); (ii) the recognition of affected groups and whether these are winners or losers of proposed plans, to make impacts on people transparent and facilitate equitable distribution of benefits from development (Mandle & Tallis, 2016); (iii) the provision of a holistic framework to describe linkages between people and their environment beyond silo- and sector-based approaches; (iv) it is a means to cross boundaries between sectors and actors (i.e. planners, stakeholders and decision-makers); (v) and it is a means to identify relevant geographic scales for negotiating trade-offs, while maintaining the integrity of ecological systems and processes. In spite of these apparent advantages, the concept of ecosystem services has only very slowly been adopted in practice (e.g. Slootweg & Beukering, 2008; Geneletti, 2011 & 2013; Baker et al., 2013; Laurans et al., 2013; Rosa & Sánchez, 2015). Honrado et al. (2013, p. 23) consider it “striking how EIA and SEA miss the opportunity of exploring how ecosystem services can improve local well-being”. So, either the concept doesn’t work or the efforts to make it work are ineffective. 1 Function in ecology usually relates to roles that organisms play in an ecosystem; for example, green plants convert sunlight into carbohydrates; soil organisms act as decomposers of organic materials; predators regulate populations of animals. The terminology is confusing as function can be used in different meanings, and may be confused with ecosystem service.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   273 Why so Little Uptake of Ecosystem Services in SEA Practice? In a search for the reasons why, in spite of so much scientific evidence, the concept of ecosystem services has so little uptake in the worlds of planning and environmental assessment, Slootweg (2016) distinguished three main reasons (for more detail, see also Berghöfer et al., 2016): Unwillingness Since SEA has to inform decision-makers on plans with significant investments and serious consequences, it is always surrounded by power plays. Powerful investors or sector departments want to see their investments or plans realised. In many countries, environmental assessment is the only instrument available to force these actors to be transparent on their policies and plans, and to take into account the ‘voiceless’ in society. This is a main reason why environmental assessment processes are so often flawed by corruption, bad performance, too little too late reports, etc. (in this context, see also Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell & Fischer, 2021). It is not the quality of the instrument but the power play around the instrument aimed at minimising its influence that causes the trouble. There are many circumstances in which governments and the private sector alike explicitly do not want to know all things, or do not want them to be known in the public domain. It is unfair to blame SEA for bad decisions so often made. On the contrary, SEA can be an instrument to recognise the value of ecosystem services for communities and should be supported through the empowerment of civil society organisations (including a free press), capacity building exercises, and promotion of the effective use of this universally available tool. Silo thinking The world is organised according to sector silos: in education, in the working environment, in administrations, and even in language and culture. Where silos do not meet the sector may work, but in an increasingly interconnected world it creates problems. Ecosystem services have appeared in thousands of scientific publications and in hundreds of valuation studies (Laurans et al., 2013). These studies are commissioned by, implemented by and aimed at green sector actors and audiences, and not at audiences that govern economies and development. The CBD has clearly recognised this issue and has recently adopted Decision XIV/3 on mainstreaming of biodiversity in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors. If we want to get the biodiversity messages across, we have to leave our green silo and get involved in other sectors, go to their professional associations’ meetings, learn their language, and understand the opportunities and constraints for mainstreaming from the sector’s perspective. The CBD Decision refers to SEA and strategic planning, both from sector and spatial perspectives, as important tools for such mainstreaming (CBD, 2018). An ineffective science–policy interface As shown above, many ecosystem services assessments have not been designed to answer specific policy, planning or decision-making questions, so they may go unnoticed or provide inappropriate information. For ecosystem services one may need to know the present level of services delivery, the potential future delivery or the past pre-degradation level. Maybe we need more dynamic information on the pace of change in service delivery or we want to know where services delivery changes and who are winners or losers. The type of

274  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment information needed in a decision-making context cannot be predefined. So, having a solution ready, without having a clear definition of the question seems to miss the point. Many academic valuation studies are characterised by this ‘solution for an unknown problem’ approach. Box 17.2 provides some lessons from practice.

BOX 17.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN DECISION CONTEXT: CREATING AN EFFECTIVE SCIENCE–POLICY INTERFACE • It’s the process! The process in which biodiversity and ecosystem services information is embedded is at least as important as the outputs. An interactive science–policy process, meaningfully involving scientists, local experts, stakeholders and decision-makers, enhances the scientific credibility, policy relevance and public legitimacy of the information. • Keep it simple. Ranking models allow for an iterative process to rapidly develop and compare alternatives in a transparent manner and allow stakeholders to actively engage in the debate. While in the eyes of the scientists the information may be less than optimal (credibility), the public legitimacy and policy relevance of the information for decision-making is significantly enhanced. • It’s not always about the money. Decision-makers often want to understand the consequences of alternative decisions on specific groups of stakeholders. Monetary value information does not provide this information. Moreover, absolute values may not be so much needed; the relative magnitude of changes across different alternatives is often sufficient (see also Baker et al., 2013). • Involve local experts. In spite of continued repeated pleas for involvement of local experts and traditional knowledge, apparently a part of the expert community still ignores these lessons. Christie et al. (2012) report that half of the biodiversity valuation research they reviewed, failed to involve local researchers or policy-makers. • Use knowledge brokers. The incentives for scientists lie in innovation and new ideas, while policy-makers need more simple and generalised rules of thumb that they can use in complex decision making processes. Reinecke et al. (2013) therefore refer to knowledge-brokers that can bridge the gap between scientists, policy-makers, interest groups, the media and citizens. Source: Inspired by and adapted from Ruckelshaus et al. (2013).

The overall conclusion is similar to the lesson that many environmental assessment practitioners have learned in practice: the simpler, the better, as long as the information is of good quality, relevant to decision-makers and reflects the interests of stakeholders. So, maybe forget about computational models and monetary valuation for a while and first start asking local people and local experts, and listen well to the language they use.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   275 The Way Forward Who takes the lead? The discussion on how to deal with the integrative concept of ecosystem services in a world divided into sectors and silos has been shown to be a difficult one. Often we look at the multilateral development banks for guidance. Where the International Finance Corporation (IFC) has indeed embedded the concept of ecosystem services within its internationally praised Performance Standards (IFC, 2012), its mother organisation, the World Bank, has decided to maintain a silo-based approach to biodiversity (Box 17.3). In its new Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 6 on biodiversity (World Bank, 2016), the World Bank creates a mist around ecosystem services. From it, the good reader and the willing can make a case for the use of the ecosystem services concept to define values of biodiversity; the unwilling may get around it. The ESS 6 defines biodiversity in conservation terms only (threatened species, natural and critical habitat, red lists, etc.), the domain of the green silo. Ecosystem services, the concept providing a linkage between the green and the social and economic domains (and thus linkages to the SDGs) runs the risk of being lost. The Multilateral Financing Institution Biodiversity Working Group shows a similar inconsistency and shies even further away from the social side of biodiversity. This retreat from addressing ecosystem services cannot be a coincidence, although it is a bit bewildering that the member institutions of this working group address ecosystem services in the way IFC does it. The green connotation and the perception with others that ecosystem services are a thing for the green silo people may dissuade others from using it. If the ‘green’ people do not even maintain the effort to translate biodiversity into ecosystem services for human well-being, who will? Social professionals can maybe better relate to ecosystem services, as the concept is directly linked to human well-being. It provides an opportunity to reframe ecosystem services from a social perspective. However, splitting up biodiversity between the social and biological realms is risky since care has to be taken that human exploitation of ecosystem services will remain within the limits of (biophysical) sustainability and a functional ecosystem. SEA has shown its capacity to provide a way out, when applied in a proactive manner.

BOX 17.3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS A far-reaching effect on impact assessments is created by the binding requirements of the multilateral development banks. Among these, the IFC Performance Standards (IFC, 2012) represent the most comprehensive and coherent treatment of biodiversity in a regulatory context. It makes a clear distinction between biodiversity sensu stricto (in modified, natural and critical habitats), ecosystem services (and their link to stakeholders) and production of living natural resources (agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, forestry). It requires the client to identify the priority ecosystem services impacted by the project and the priority ecosystem services on which the project depends; when affected, communities should participate in the determination of priority ecosystem services. (The IFC PS6 oversees the supply side of the environment in terms of opportunities and constraints for development.)

276  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Contrary to IFC PS6, the new World Bank Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 6 (World Bank, 2016) on biodiversity refers to “vulnerable biodiversity or habitats” and “the differing values attached to biodiversity and habitats by project affected parties and other interested parties”. What the word ‘values’ stands for is unexplained; the same applies to ‘other parties’. It does not make clear whether these encompass ecosystem services or not. The entire ecosystem services concept is omitted from ESS 6, while on the other hand, ESS 4 on Community Health and Safety includes a requirement on “impacts on ecosystem services that may result in adverse health and safety risks to and impact on affected communities”, thus putting ecosystem services in a social perspective. A similar divide between diversity and ecosystem services is created by the Multilateral Financing Institutions Biodiversity Working Group. Their Good Practices for Biodiversity Inclusive Impact Assessment and Management Planning (Hardner et al., 2015) does not take into account any of the developments in thinking about biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment over the last decade (CBD is not even mentioned). It focuses on species, habitat and ecosystem conservation. There is no mentioning of ecosystem services; instead, it refers to biodiversity values without any further definition; linkages to social aspects are completely lacking. Rather contrasting to the Multilateral Financing Institutions document, the Asian Development Bank (2013) and the Inter-American Development Bank (Watkins et al., 2015), both members of the MFI working group, consistently refer to biodiversity and ecosystem services in their guidance documents. Source: Summarised from CBD (2017).

Proactive use of SEA SEA can be applied in a reactive manner, often described as the traditional EIA-like approach where the planning process is in the lead and SEA assesses its consequences. SEA can, however, also inform a planning process proactively. Rather than assessing the impacts of an already defined plan, SEA informs the plan formulation process from the very start (Partidário, 2012). A region can be described in terms of ecosystems and their services, thus describing the supply side for a development plan. The supply of goods and services can be assessed against the demand for development, thus providing a good knowledge base to assess whether a region has the potential to facilitate human development ambitions. A proactive ecosystem services assessment embedded in SEA defines options for sustainable development. Baker et al. (2013) point out that an ecosystem services assessment should form a basic conceptual framework for a planning process in order to use the strength of the ecosystem services concept to its full extent. Simple steps Table 17.3 provides a simple series of steps to do an ecosystem services assessment, including identification and participation of stakeholders, and to determine the development opportunities or constraints they represent. These steps can easily be embedded in existing SEA procedures. In this manner the application of the ecosystem services concept provides a practical framework for: (i) methodological consistency; (ii) to distinguish between expert and stakeholder inputs; (iii) to quantify ecosystem services and identify their beneficiaries; (iv) to quantify the ecological, social and/or economic values of ecosystem services, including the identification of development opportunities and constraints; (v) to identify winners and losers when assessing different development options; and (vi) to develop concrete mitigation or compensation measures for residual negative impacts.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   277 Ideally, an SEA will go through a proactive and a reactive phase; first, by proactively informing the planning process on the opportunities and constraints of the area, thus defining the boundaries of sustainability, and providing pertinent input for the development of alternatives: How does the environment influence the plan? Subsequently, the SEA will assess the consequences of proposed plan measures when these become more clearly defined: How does the plan influence the environment? Table 17.3

Stepwise approach to the use of ecosystem services in SEA

Step 1. Define boundaries of study area

Description Use conceptual framework to define area under influence of drivers of change, or define by administrative boundaries for spatial plan.

2. Identify and map ecosystems/

Describe linkages with neighbouring areas (e.g. surface/groundwater flows, wildlife or cattle

types of land-use

movements, migration of people). Ecosystems may cross administrative borders!

3. Identify stakeholders of each

Stakeholders can be direct users (e.g. farmers, fishermen) or an organisation speaking on

ecosystem service (iterate with 4

behalf of users (e.g. user associations), on behalf of wildlife (e.g. conservation NGO and park

and 5)

managers), or having governmental responsibility for a service.

4. Identify and quantify ecosystem Experts and stakeholders commonly agree on a set of ecosystem services, given understandable services (iterate with 3 and 5)

names. Where possible, quantify services in terms of the service itself (so not in monetary terms).

5. Prioritise and value ecosystem

Define values in a participatory manner; use local knowledge and expert input. Important

services (iterate with 3 and 4)

services can be used as criteria for plan assessment. NB. Services can have positive or negative values for different groups of stakeholders and priorities will differ among stakeholders.

6. Present status and trends for

Condition of ecosystem services (e.g. underexploited = opportunity, or overexploited =

ecosystem services

constraint; any exploitation conflicts?). What are past and expected future trends? At what scale do drivers of change work (climate change!); at what scale can they be managed (within or outside influence of plan); what management options are available?

7. Applicable regulatory

Legal or policy frameworks may apply to the use and management of ecosystem services, thus

frameworks for ecosystem services representing boundary conditions for future planning. 8. Gaps in information

Discuss reliability of information. Apply precautionary approach in case of serious deficiencies.

Source: Adapted from Slootweg (2016).

CONCLUDING REMARKS The lessons from literature on applying ecosystem services assessment can be simply summarised: listen to people, be careful with ‘behind-the-desk’ studies using geographic information systems (GIS), computational models and complex valuation techniques that people cannot relate to, and look beyond one’s silo (see Box 17.5 for lessons from practice). The practice of most of these assessments, both in academic studies as well as in impact assessment, is the opposite. In over 20 years of experience in natural resources management and assessment, I have found ecosystem services to be a perfect concept to understand and describe complex situations. It assists in bridging the gaps between sectors and between experts, stakeholders and decision-makers. Because of the green connotation of the concept, I often had to adopt a different language and terminology as a way to bridge the divide. In the meantime, the basic concept was kept unharmed. In this respect, stakeholder involvement is also about finding the language which resonates with their world. It avoids semantic discussions and negative perceptions.

278  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment So I end up with a renewed plea to look at biodiversity from an anthropocentric perspective, take conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits as three equally important points of departure, and use ecosystem services as an integrating concept in SEA. In the end it is all about the same thing: human survival. We use biodiversity sustainably for our own survival and we conserve it for our future survival, and thus strive for equitable sharing of benefits among and between generations. The concept of ecosystem services is clearly defined, the SEA process is available to serve as a mechanism to operationalise ecosystem services in planning processes, scientific and local knowledge usually are sufficient to set criteria for sustainability and to compare plan alternatives, and with the application of a precautionary approach there are no reasons not to make a start with it. SO JUST DO IT.

BOX 17.4 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SEA: A CASE FROM THE LAND & WATER SECTOR IN EGYPT • Assessment: Voluntary SEA during planning phase to support decision-making on a public–private investment programme: West Delta Water Conservation and Irrigation Rehabilitation. • Ecosystem services: Multiple services related to ground and surface water in desert area, Nile delta, and coastal zone (such as agri- and aquaculture, fisheries, public water supply, maintenance of coastal lagoons, archaeological heritage). • Valuation: Financial gains and losses linked to agricultural water supply quantified; other services quantified in terms of numbers of jobs or people affected. • Decision: Magnitude, technical design, and conditions for resulting projects influenced. In the desert area west of the Nile Delta, groundwater-based export-oriented agriculture has developed, with an annual turnover of about US$750 million. However, the rate of groundwater exploitation by far exceeds the rate of renewal. Groundwater is rapidly depleting and turning saline. To reverse this situation the Government of Egypt has proposed a plan to pump 1.6 billion cubic metres of fresh Nile water from the Rosetta Nile branch into the West Delta area (app. 100,000 ha.). The use of SEA at the earliest possible stage of the planning process guaranteed that environmental and social issues beyond the boundaries of the project area were incorporated in the design process. Valuation of ecosystem services focused on the services linked to water resources under the influence of the major driver of change, i.e. transfer of water from the Nile into the desert area. Simple quantification techniques provided strong arguments for decision-makers at the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation and the World Bank to significantly reduce the scale of the initial phase. The diversion of water from relatively poor smallholder farmers in the Nile Delta to large investors in the desert west of the delta poses unacceptable equity problems. It was decided to follow a phased implementation of the plan, providing time for the National Water Resources Management Plan to be implemented, including its water savings programme. Short-term measures can produce necessary water savings to allow for the first, relatively small pilot phase of the programme. Further water saving measures will provide room for further expansion. Source: Slootweg and Beukering (2008).

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   279

BOX 17.5 THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH IN THE SEA FOR THE ZAMBEZI LAND-USE PLAN (NAMIBIA) Integrated land use planning and SEA were carried out for the Zambesi region in Namibia. Ecosystem services assessment was piloted in the accompanying SEA. The following lessons were reported: Field assessment: • Perform ecosystem services assessment as early as possible, so that results can be used in subsequent discussions. • Ensure ample field work. • Coordinate the ES work with others (planners, mappers) to achieve greatest influence. • Plan what sort of data will be gathered; express the value of ecosystem services in ways that people understand, and in quantifiable ways, so not restricted only to monetary values. • Use maps to visualise ecosystem service users and providers. Add features relevant to ecosystem services: location of livestock and fish markets, areas of bush encroachment; selling of woodland products, etc. • Take photos to better explain environmental features and their link to livelihoods. • Arrange appointments with as many local representatives of the regional economy as possible, to dig out ecosystem services information. Compilation of ecosystem services information to influence the land-use planning process: • Present the opportunities and synergies that arise from ecosystem services. • Present alternative development scenarios that take into account the role of ecosystem services. Communication: • If economic valuation is applied, then the methods should be understandable to non-experts. • Express values in a variety of ways, such as livelihoods, benefits to local people, and other ways that decision-makers can relate to. • Maximise political buy-in; explain ecosystem services as a safety net for poor households (‘pro-poor’). • Make the ecosystem services information appropriate for the target audiences. Link ecosystems with livelihoods, employment and economy. Show people involved in day-to-day activities. Use headlines from newspaper articles to show how issues are relevant to local interests. • Classification (provisioning, regulating, etc.) of ecosystem services is irrelevant for stakeholders; don’t unnecessarily complicate things. Source: Pallet (2013), summarised in CBD (2017).

280  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

REFERENCES Asian Development Bank 2013. Environment operational directions, 2013–2020: Promoting transitions to green growth in Asia and the Pacific. Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Baker, J., Sheate, W.R., Phillpis, P. and Eales, R. 2013. Ecosystem services in environmental assessment – Help or hindrance? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40: 3–13. Berghöfer, A., Brown, C., Bruner, A., Emerton, L., Esen, E., Geneletti, D., Kosmus, M., Kumar, R., Lehmann, M., Morales, F.L., Nkonya, E., Pistorius, T., Rode, J., Slootweg, R., Tröger, U., Wittmer, H., Wunder, S. and van Zyl, H. 2016. Increasing the Policy Impact of Ecosystem Service Assessments and Valuations. Insights from Practice. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) GmbH, Leipzig, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. Available at http://​www​.aboutvalues​.net/​data/​about​_values/​increasing​_impact​_of​_es​ _assessments​.pdf. Brownlie, S., King, N. and Treweek, J. 2013. Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: can we stop the loss? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31: 24–33. Brownlie, S. and Treweek, J. 2018. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment. Special Publication Series No. 3. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available at https://​www​.iaia​.org/​best​-practice​.php. CBD 1992. Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at http://​www​.cbd​.int/​convention/​ convention​.shtml. CBD 2006. Decision VIII/28 Impact assessment: Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. Available at http://​www​.cbd​.int/​convention/​cop​-8​-dec​.shtml​?m​=​COP​-08​&​id​=​11042​&​lg​=​0. CBD 2012. Background on the development of voluntary guidelines for the consideration of biodiversity in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) in marine and coastal areas. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/16. CBD 2017. Global State of the Application of Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment CBD/ SBSTTA/21/INF/13. Available at https://​www​.cbd​.int/​doc/​c/​f02a/​9d5f/​7a27e1798492f4738014ba62/​ sbstta​-21​-inf​-13​-en​.pdf. CBD 2018. Decision XIV/3 Mainstreaming of biodiversity in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors. CBD/COP/DEC/14/3. Available at https://​www​.cbd​.int/​decisions/​ cop/​?m​=​cop​-14. Christie, M., Fazey, I. Cooper, R., Hyde, T. and Kenter, J.O. 2012. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics 83: 67–78. Geneletti, D. 2011. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. International Journal of Biodiversity science, Ecosystem Services & Management 7: 143–9. Geneletti, D. 2013. Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40: 25–35. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Geneletti, D. 2014. Integrating Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Guide for Practitioners. UNEP Project for Ecosystem Services. Available at http://​www​.ing​.unitn​.it/​~genelab/​ documents/​GuidelineESintoSEA​.pdf. Hardner, J., Gullison, R.E., Anstee, S. and Meyer, M. 2015. Good Practices for Biodiversity Inclusive Impact Assessment and Management Planning. Prepared for the Multilateral Financing Institutions Biodiversity Working Group. Available at https://​publications​.iadb​.org/​bitstream/​handle/​11319/​7094/​ Good​_Practices​_for​_Biodiversity​_Inclusive​_Impact​_Assessment​.pdf​?sequence​=​1.

Ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment   281 Honrado, J.P., Vieira, C., Soares, C., Monteiro, M.B., Marcos, B., Pereira, H.M. and Partidário, M. 2013. Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40: 14–24. IFC [International Finance Corporation] 2012. Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living. World Bank Group, Washington. Available at http://​www​.ifc​.org/​ wps/​wcm/​connect/​bff0a28049​a790d6b835faa8c6a8312a/​PS6​_English​_2012​.pdf​?MOD​=​AJPERES. IPBES 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Available at https://​www​.ipbes​.net/​. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R. and Mermet, L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management 119: 208–19. Mandle, L. and Tallis, H. 2016. Spatial ecosystem service analysis for environmental impact assessment of projects, in D. Geneletti (ed.), Handbook on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment (pp. 15–40). Research Handbooks on Impact Assessment series. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing. MEA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press. Available at http://​www​.millenniumassessment​.org/​en/​index​.html. MEA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute. Available at http://​ www​ .millenniumassessment​.org/​en/​index​.html. OECD Development Assistance Committee 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Ecosystem Services. Available at http://​www​.oecd​.org/​dac/​environment​-development/​41882953​.pdf. Pallet, J. 2013. Lessons learned from Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Zambezi Integrated Regional Land Use Plan, Namibia. Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment at the request of the ValuES project. Unpublished document. Partidário, M.R. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Good Practice Guidance – Methodological Guidance. Lisbon: Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente e Redes Elétricas Nacionais. Partidário, M.R. and Gomes, R.C. 2013. Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 40: 36–46. Ramsar Convention Secretariat 2010. Impact assessment: Guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, vol. 16. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Available at http://​archive​.ramsar​.org/​pdf/​lib/​hbk4–16​.pdf. Reinecke, S., Bauer, A., Pregernig, M., Hermann, A.T., Pistorius, T. and Hogl, K. 2013. Scientific climate policy advice: An overview of national forms of institutionalization. Diskussionspapier/ Discussion Paper 2–2013. Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU). Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G.S., Elmqvust, T., Hejnowicz, H.P. and Polasky, S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 268–73. Rosa, J.C.S. and Sánchez, L.E. 2015. Is the ecosystem service concept improving impact assessment? Evidence from recent international practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50: 134–42. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S.A. and Bernhardt, J. 2013. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics 115: 11–21. Schooten, M.L.F. van, Vanclay, F. and Slootweg, R. 2003. Conceptualizing social change processes and social impacts’, in H. Becker and F. Vanclay (eds), The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Advances (pp. 74–91). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Slootweg, R. 2016. Ecosystem services in SEA: are we missing the point of a simple concept? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 34: 79–86. Slootweg, R. and Beukering, P.L.H. van 2008. Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Lessons from Influential Cases. Reports of the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. Available at http://​www​.sevs​.nl/​reports​_eng​.htm.

282  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Slootweg, R. and Jones, M. 2011. Resilience thinking improves SEA: a discussion paper. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29: 263–76. Slootweg, R, Rajvanshi, A, Mathur, V B and Kolhoff, A. 2009. Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment: Enhancing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being. Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slootweg, R., Vanclay, F. and Schooten, M.L.F. van 2001. Function evaluation as a framework for integrating social and environmental impacts. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19: 19–28. TEEB 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy and Management, ed. H. Wittmer and H. Gundimeda. Abingdon: Routledge, and New York: Earthscan. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). UN 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’. Blogpost, available at https://​www​.un​.org/​sustainabledevelopment/​blog/​2019/​05/​ nature​-decline​-unprecedented​-report/​. Walker, B and Salt, D. 2006. Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press. Watkins, G., Atkinson, R., Canfield, E., Corrales, D., Dixon, J., Factor, S., Hardner, J., Hausman, H., Hawken, I., Huppman, R., Josse, C., Langstroth, R., Pilla, E., Quintero, J., Radford, G., Rees, C., Rice, D. and Villalba, A. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Managing Biodiversity Impacts and Risks in Inter-American Development Bank Supported Operations. IDB Technical Note 932. World Bank 2016. Environmental and Social Framework: Setting Environmental and Social Standards for Investment Project Financing. Available at https://​consultations​.worldbank​.org/​Data/​hub/​files/​ consultation​-template/​review​-and​-update​-world​-bank​-safeguard​-policies/​en/​materials/​the​_esf​_clean​ _final​_for​_public​_disclosure​_post​_board​_august​_4​.pdf.

SECTION 3 COUNTRY-SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

18. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia Tanya Burdett and Carolyn Cameron

OVERVIEW OF THE AUSTRALIAN SEA SYSTEM Does SEA Exist in the Australian Context? Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is not specifically referred to in most Australian legislative and regulatory jurisdictions, though systems for strategic assessment of policies, plans and programmes (PPP) do exist, including in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania, and at the national level (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). SEA is clearly identifiable as a requirement in legislation in Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), whilst identified legislative gaps have previously existed in other jurisdictions, including Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). Little research has been undertaken into measures that exist for mandatory SEA in Australia. In various reviews over the past 20 or so years, academic literature has looked to map SEA-style assessment requirements and practice in Australia against internationally recognised criteria for evaluating SEA systems (Marsden & Ashe, 2006; Elliott, 2014). One such approach utilised Fischer’s ‘factors for evaluating SEA systems’ as a reference point, as set out in Box 18.1 (Marsden & Ashe, 2006). However, the diverse institutional and legislative environment in Australia makes comprehensively evaluating SEA-type systems against these factors particularly complex.

BOX 18.1 FACTORS FOR EVALUATING SEA SYSTEMS (AND CLARIFYING EXISTENCE THE OF FORMAL SEA SYSTEMS) Context factors a.

Formal requirements and clear provisions to conduct and effectively consider SEA: ●● Are there requirements, based on legislation, regulations or directive? ●● Is there any specific or general SEA guidance available? ●● Are competences/responsibilities clear? ●● Is there enforcement through an agency, legal threats or independent review? ●● Is SEA actually considered in PPP-making? ●● Is there compliance with SEA requirements?

b.

Clear goals for assessment: ●● Are there clear and compatible (substantive) goals for assessment in place? ●● Is SEA succeeding in changing established thinking? 284

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  285 c.

Appropriate funding, time and support: ●● Is appropriate funding, time and support being made available?

d. Achieving a willingness to cooperate, considering and influencing traditional decision-making approaches: ●● Is there a developed environmental consciousness in the population and among stakeholders in the system within which SEA is applied? ●● Do SEA results get considered in other PPPs and projects? ●● Is there a sound public, legal, administrative and political support base? ●● Is there a tradition of transparency and cooperation? e.

Setting clear boundaries – addressing the right issues at the right time/defining roles of assessors: ●● Is there a clear, effectively tiered planning hierarchy in place? ●● Is there a clear focus of assessment? ●● Are the roles of assessors clearly defined? ●● Is there an effective project EIA system in place?

f.

Acknowledging and dealing with uncertainties: ●● Are uncertainties acknowledged and dealt with?

Procedural factors g.

A systematic SEA process: ●● Are there requirements for screening, scoping, reporting preparation (reporting/ documentation), review, preparation of a clear summary, monitoring and integration with underlying PPP process?

h.

Adequate consultation and participation: ●● Is consultation with experts and other administrations conducted? ●● Is there public participation?

Wider methodological factors i.

Adequate impact prediction and consideration of alternatives: ●● Are appropriate alternatives considered? ●● Does assessment come with clear predictions, whenever possible quantitatively? ●● Does assessment consider measures for avoiding, minimising, mitigating or compensating impacts?

Source: Fischer (2007).

Fischer used the framework in Box 18.1 to highlight the broad existence of SEA systems in Western Australia. To an extent the same can be seen with the strategic assessment requirement set out in the national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). Beyond that, applying all the factors in the Box to different regimes is likely to lead to a nil or at

286  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment least unclear response across the Australian landscape. If applied directly to certain planning and environmental regimes the answers may be clearer, though subjective judgement is often required. Taking a broader view of SEA, Pope et al. (2018) suggest that impact assessment more generally, and an associated effectiveness framework can help to illustrate the value of such appraisals, not just the existence of them. They introduce the following revised effectiveness criteria (see also Chapters 7 and 8 by Thérivel & González, 2021 and Fischer & Retief, 2021, respectively), using the controversial Australian case study of the Browse Basin, for which EPBC strategic assessment was undertaken, for context: ●● Procedural: Have appropriate processes been followed that reflect institutional and professional standards and procedures? ●● Substantive: To what extent does the assessment lead to changes in process, actions, learning or outcomes? ●● Transactive: To what extent, and by whom, is the outcome of conducting the assessment considered to be worth the time and cost involved? ●● Legitimacy: Was the assessment process perceived to be legitimate by a wide range of stakeholders? A review by Kelly et al. (2012) of SEA in New South Wales compared with the SEA system in Scotland suggested the following as defining features of SEA: ●● ●● ●● ●●

Methodological focus (akin to ‘procedural’ for Pope et al.) Use of a flexible tiered approach Environmental role Contribution towards sustainable development (akin to ‘substantive’ above).

The utilisation of such frameworks is useful to understand the way SEA, or a form of assessment similar to SEA, is applied in the Australian context. An attempt is made in this chapter to utilise examples of SEA-type practice, referred to in these earlier reviews, particularly Marsden and Ashe (Marsden & Ashe, 2006; Ashe & Marsden, 2011), updated and refreshed to provide an overview with reference to various types of SEA. This suggests a need for greater research and evaluation of Australian systems that may be understood as delivering the strategic aims of SEA. SEA at the National Level Legislative and regulatory provisions The Australian Constitution provides certain legal powers to the Federal Parliament and national government. As a readily identifiable process, SEA in Australia is largely related to the strategic assessment process under the national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). A discretionary tool of the Federal Environment Minister, Part 10 of the EPBC Act, provides for strategic assessment of a policy, plan or programme (referred to as the ‘Programme’, to distinguish it from a ‘project’). EPBC strategic assessments relate to an action or ‘class of actions’ across a broad landscape, and are typically focused on potential impacts on the environmental, cultural and heritage values in the listed Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  287 Strategic assessment under the EPBC Act (1999) is seen as “a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed policy, program or plan initiatives in order to ensure they are appropriately addressed at the earliest age in the planning process”, applied as ‘landscape-scale’ assessments, examining a much larger set of actions or ‘classes of actions’ (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013, p. 6). The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, responsible for administration of the EPBC Act, considers that strategic assessment offers the potential to deal with cumulative impacts on MNES and to look for both conservation and planning outcomes on a much larger scale than can be achieved through project-by-project assessments. The process is regarded as “flexible”, providing the opportunity to “reach a negotiated outcome for the benefit of both parties” (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013, p. 7). Benefits may include greater certainty for developers, better outcomes (including in environmental issues), and significant reductions in assessment timeframe and costs (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013; Marsden, 2013a). The latter is seen to be the key driver, despite the theoretical understanding that a key benefit of strategic (environmental) assessment is promotion of sustainable development. Strategic assessments Since its introduction over ten years ago, some 26 strategic assessments pursuant to the EPBC Act have been undertaken or have been commenced. These cover a range of sectors from regional-scale development plans and policies, to industry sector policies (fisheries, offshore petroleum, water/irrigation) and fire, vegetation and resource programmes. Most of these assessments occurred after amendments to the EPBC Act in 2007 to provide for approval of actions under Part 10 (Lavers, 2018). After endorsement of a particular Programme (as defined above), actions, or classes of actions may be approved if undertaken in accordance with the Programme. The ‘actions’ set out in the EPBC Act may constitute a project, development, an undertaking, activity or series of activities, and an alteration to any of these things (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2011). This is a unique and powerful feature of Australian law when compared with international decision-making about SEAs (Lavers, 2018). In other words, no project-level environmental impact assessment is required (Ashe & Marsden, 2011), providing certainty for development proponents and reducing duplication (Hawke, 2009; Marsden, 2013b). Table 18.1 provides an insight into the strategic assessments undertaken pursuant to the EPBC Act mapped to various sectors. To date, of the 26 undertaken, 12 have been ‘endorsed’ and 10 have achieved the status of approval of actions. Most of the EPBC Act strategic assessments relate to potential impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities (16 of the 26 strategic assessments to date), migratory species protected under international arrangements (15 of the 26), world heritage properties (12 of the 26), national heritage places (12 of the 26) and wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention) (12 of the 26) (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013; Ross & Banhalmi-Zakar, 2019).

Federal

Area

boundary Solomon Heights

(Urban growth boundaries included transport components)

Molonglo Valley Lower Hunter Sydney growth centres Western Sydney NSW Road and Traffic Management Works

Plan

West Belconnen

(ACT & NSW)

Hamersley Iron Ore (Rio Tinto) in Pilbara Area)

in Pilbara region Policy protection/ World Heritage

mining iron ore Management Reef(ongoing

Control Plan

management of

BHP Billiton

coastal waters

Fire

activities in NT

petroleum

Offshore

coastal waters

LNG Precinct

Browse Basin

region

Perth and Peel

Territory

Northern

activities in SA

petroleum

Offshore

Western Australia

Great Barrier

(coal mining)

petroleum

South Australia

National Carp

Upper Hunter

Offshore

West Menai

Master Planned

Gungahlin

urban growth

Mount Peter

Queensland

Scheme

Midlands Water

Tasmania

throughout

development

Irrigation

Tasmania

Notes: Italic text = in process; Roman text = endorsed; bold text = approved; underlined text = uncertain (based on information online) (as at January 2020). Endorsed = 12; Classes of action approved = 10.

Other

Water

Energy

Transport

New South Wales Victoria

Eastern Broadacre Heathcote Ridge Melbourne’s

ACT

EPBC Act strategic assessment across jursidictions and sectors

Spatial/ land use Christmas Island

Jurisdiction

Sector/

Table 18.1

288  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  289 Three particularly interesting examples arise from these national-level assessments – the BHP Billiton iron ore mining in the Pilbara Region (Box 18.2), Melbourne’s urban growth strategy (Box 18.3) and the Great Barrier Reef assessment (in two parts – Box 18.4). These are seen by industry practitioners and early researchers as being more strategic in nature and having wide-reaching consequences, though still somewhat challenging in implementation (Holden, 2019; Ross & Banhalmi-Zakar, 2019).

BOX 18.2 BHP BILLITON IN THE PILBARA CASE STUDY Overview A strategic proposal in the mining sector was submitted to the WA government by Billiton Iron Ore (BHP) in 2012, consultation undertaken throughout early 2016, and was endorsed and approved by the Minister for Environment in mid-2017. The strategic proposal outlined BHP’s future operations in the Pilbara for the next 100 years, including further development of existing mines and proposed new mines and associated infrastructure. This proposal was also assessed and approved through Part 10 of the EPBC Act. In its strategic proposal, BHP estimated that over the life of the plan, 95,000 ha. of land would be cleared in the region being assessed. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) determined that the strategic proposal would be assessed through Public Environmental Review. The preliminary environmental factors considered included water (surface and ground), flora and vegetation, fauna and habitat, rehabilitation and closure, air emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions (EPA, 2012). The assessment was completed in March 2016 and identified significant environmental assets and key threatening processes from mining and non-mining activities (BHPBilliton, 2016). Cumulative impacts on biodiversity, water, air quality, noise, and landscape and visual amenity were reviewed. BHP Billiton did not provide detailed engineering for operations and supporting infrastructure at the time of referring the strategic proposal. These details will be provided as each new mining operation is developed as a derived proposal: i.e. the full level of impacts on flora, fauna and water will be confirmed through the derived proposal process. The results from the EPA assessment will be used to inform specific management objectives in each derived proposal. BHP Billiton has estimated that derived proposals would require offsetting of 3,000 ha. of cleared vegetation (BHPBilliton, 2016). Outcomes By engaging in SEA under Part 10 of the EPBC Act, BHP Billiton has greater certainty for future planning (with actions approved over the next 100 years), reductions in overall environmental assessment costs, and may have the potential to achieve better environmental outcomes than would otherwise be realised had it applied a traditional project-level approach.

290  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Figure 18.1

BHP billiton in the Pilbara case study

Sources: Lavers (2018); BHPBilliton (2016).

BOX 18.3 MELBOURNE’S URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY Overview A programme for expansion of Melbourne including the urban growth boundary was subject to an EPBC Act strategic assessment. The strategic assessment included review of measures set out in Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (Department of Planning and Community Development, 2009; Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2009), including four new growth precincts providing 284,000+ new homes, and a new Regional Rail Link corridor. Outcomes The strategic assessment provided for urban growth boundaries to extend beyond previously agreed limits, removed the need for referring over 250 projects for subsequent assessment with a cost saving of an estimated $3.2 billion for the private sector up to 2039 (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013) and an estimated $28 million saving for Victorian businesses every year (Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly: Parliament of Victoria, 2019). It also led to identification of a high quality habitat for protection and conservation, safeguarding these as part of establishment of a 15,000 ha. grassland reserve, including 10,000 ha. of critically endangered grasslands, to the west of Melbourne, and 1,200 ha. of grassy woodland reserve north-east of Melbourne (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013, p. 11).

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  291 One part of the programme – the Outer Metropolitan Ring Transport Corridor/E6 Road Reservation – was subject to separate Commonwealth Government approval. However, noted difficulties in implementation include securing the areas designated for offset (Holden, 2019), catering for an increase in land values outside the urban growth boundary, and resultant shortfall of funds to establish the offset areas (estimated to be a shortfall of half the cost, as at 2019) (Parliament of Victoria, 2019). This has led most recently to the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environment Mitigation Levy) Act 2020 building in regular reviews of levy rates. Source: Adapted from Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013).

BOX 18.4 GREAT BARRIER REEF ASSESSMENT

Figure 18.2

Great Barrier Reef assessment

Overview The Great Barrier Reef covers some 348,000 square kilometres, roughly the size of Italy, with significant environmental assets as well as use and development pressures. The comprehensive strategic assessment is actually two strategic assessments of the reef (proponents for this strategic assessment were the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority or GBRMPA) and coastal zone (proponents were the Queensland Government). The aim was to address future management of the World Heritage Area and provide input into The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015). Outcomes The Assessment was to clearly outline priority conservation areas for restricted future development, or areas of exclusion; as well as management measures to ensure it retains the

292  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment values for which it was declared a world heritage area, balancing sustainable development and environmental protection. The strategic assessment has been endorsed, with no actions yet approved. Source: Adapted from Commonwealth of Australia (2015); Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (2013).

These three examples highlight the role that the private sector can constructively play in strategic assessment and thinking (BHPBilliton, 2016; see also Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021), the opportunity for programme-level multi-sectoral planning and assessment (Melbourne’s urban growth boundary; see also Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al., 2021), and complex marine-environment assessments (Great Barrier Reef; see also Chapter 17 by Slootweg, 2021). Both the Great Barrier Reef and BHP strategic assessments were landscape in scale (as opposed to project or species-level scale) (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2011). All three strategic assessments sought to: ●● highlight and explore issues and challenges for SEA in Australia ●● clarify and conserve values ●● engender genuine buy-in from proponent (government and private) (Cameron, 2019). Other areas of SEA at the national level include: ●● Defence – risk assessment-based SEA undertaken in 2006 for the Australian Defence Force use of the Great Barrier Reef region, concluding significant negative effects on the World Heritage values of the region were unlikely (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). ●● National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM) – Prepared by the National Environment Protection Council, NEPM outline national objectives for protecting particular environment values including ambient air quality, and have been subject to strategic assessment (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). ●● Overseas aid – Section 160 of the EPBC Act provides for Ministerial advice to be taken into account, including by Australia’s overseas aid agency (then AusAID, now the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or DFAT). DFAT includes such provisions in its environmental management system, which has strengthened cross-government approaches to early environmental assessments in PPP, and country/regional/sector strategies (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). An example is the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme and Persistent Organic Pollutants removal programme (Elliott, 2014; Ashe & Marsden, 2011). The Environmental and Social Safeguard Policy, in effect since January 2018, also provides for consideration of identifying, assessing, and managing environmental and social impacts, as a core principle in policy and planning through to review and evaluation of its actions (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2019). Issues in practice Recognised limitations of the existing provisions for EPBC strategic assessment are its discretionary nature, the limited scope of environmental matters (MNES) to be considered, and the relatively slow take-up of strategic assessments, possibly due to perceived costs over benefits for proponents and industry (Ashe & Marsden, 2011, p. 24; Marsden & Dovers, 2002).

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  293 SEA is intended to aid decision-making through integrating certain environmental factors into decision-making processes. Strategic assessment as practised under Australian legislation is largely focused on only certain listed matters, particularly MNES, which are the key points of focus for legislators and practitioners alike (Marsden, 1999, 2013b; Marsden & Dovers, 2002). It may ignore various other environmental and social values that, if assessed, would help to explore and articulate potential wider effects, and ostensibly lead to more sustainable development patterns and outcomes (Ives et al., 2015; Marsden, 2013a, 2017). Other weaknesses of SEA in Australia are that: ●● the lack of state legislation undermines the potential benefits of SEA including certainty, transparency and enforceability ●● the lack of political support limits its use ●● the relatively limited and discrete requirement for strategic assessment narrows the focus, whilst more holistic decision making would call for an assessment of broader factors and systems thinking approaches ●● the precautionary approach is not effectively built into the EPBC strategic assessment process ●● comment periods are typically too short for effective community input, including environmental non-government organisations (NGOs) ●● in practice, some EPBC strategic assessments and to some extent Western Australian Assessments, both formal and of planning schemes, more closely resemble large projects and are too far into the decision-making process to be truly strategic, thus lacking the ability to consider genuine alternatives at early stages of the process ●● whilst there are various strengths to the existing jurisdictions with legal provision for SEA, such as seen in Western Australia, weaknesses include consideration of alternatives, follow-up monitoring, and negotiation rights of the Minister and effects of reduced transparency (Ashe & Marsden, 2011; Dovers, 2002; Elliott, 2014; Fischer, 2007; Ives et al., 2015; Marsden, 2007, 2013a; Marsden & Ashe, 2006; Pope & Middle, 2019). In short, “belief in the merits of applying SEA processes to determine the environmental effects of public sector PPPs on a comprehensive basis is absent” (Kelly et al., 2012, p. 79). Changes in legal and policy arrangements would need to take place, as well as increased transparency in decision-making processes, in order for a tool such as SEA to gain more traction in States and Territories, over and above the constitutional arrangements of the EPBC Act and its strategic assessment provisions (Kelly et al., 2012). The first ten-year review of the EPBC Act (the ‘Hawke review’) noted that whilst potentially controversial for proponents, including government agencies, the benefits of strategic assessment outweigh the risks (Hawke, 2009). Benefits include: providing feasible, equitable as well as cost-effective ways of addressing cumulative impacts across areas and regions, considering matters at a strategic level and resolving certain things before project-level assessment and approvals take place. In its preamble, the Hawke review (2009) made the following point: We need to shift our management approaches to be preventative and proactive, and focus them on a scale where they will be most effective. This means investing more in strategic approaches such as regional environment plans and strategic assessments. In the long run, identifying and avoiding likely environmental harm early in the process will be much more cost effective than trying to fix damage after it has occurred. (p. 4)

294  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Many of the suggestions in the Hawke review are likely to be applicable to the current second review of the EPBC Act, and to broader SEA practice throughout Australian States and Territories. Other notable Commonwealth reviews (Productivity Commission, 2013) suggest that greater use of strategic assessment will result in: ●● less costly and time-consuming development assessment and approval processes ●● better alignment with environmental and social objectives ●● opportunities to examine the strategic planning context for major project approvals in Australia and in comparable international systems (including for example, the pursuit of urban and regional development policies, or broader strategic resource development plans). SEA in States and Territories Australian States (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia) and Territories (the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and Northern Territory) have legislative jurisdiction over a range of governance functions that lend themselves to SEA-style regimes, including local government, planning and land use, transport, natural resources, health and education sectors. Local government roles vary across Australia’s States and Territories. In practice, planning and associated approval processes operate largely at both the state and local levels of government in Australia. At these two governance levels, SEA has been somewhat patchy and slow to progress, and, despite legislative opportunity, remains a weak concept (Kelly et al., 2012). Two States and Territories are slightly different. The ACT has explicit provisions for SEA-style assessment – set out in the Planning and Development Act 2007, with SEA-style assessment discretionary for certain major policy development or amendments (for example changes to the Territory Plan). In the ACT, SEA is used to assess both the environmental benefits and impacts to determine an area’s suitability for future development, and to make recommendations for future planning in the region. Western Australia has perhaps the most overt requirements in its state legislation for objectives-led, EIA process-based policy plan appraisal and assessment of ‘strategic proposals’ under the auspices of the Western Australia Environmental Protection Act 1986 (as amended, referred to herein as the ‘EP Act’). ‘Proposals’ include a development, project, plan, programme, policy, operation, undertaking, change in land use, or an amendment of any of these things. A key oversight role is provided by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Reviewed against Fischer’s (2007) criteria, some of the factors suggesting that this represents an SEA-style assessment are present, including existence of formal requirements, responsibilities, enforcement through independent review, consideration of SEA in policy, plan and programme decision-making and other tiers of decision-making. The presence of Fischer’s ‘procedural’ and ‘wider methodological’ factors are less certain. Potentially more useful is review of formal and informal assessments against Pope et al.’s (2018) criteria, as set out in Table 18.2 (Pope & Middle, 2019). An overview of other State and Territorial requirements for SEA and approaches to SEA-style assessment is provided in Table 18.3. In reference to national-level EPBC strategic assessments (see Table 18.1), most SEA in Australia takes place in the spatial and land-use sectors. Around half of the 26 EPBC Act

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  295 Table 18.2

Western Australian SEA system (as per EP Act): assessment against Pope et al. (2018) effectiveness criteria

Criteria

Strategic advice by EPA s16e (Informal

Assessment of strategic proposals s38(3)

SEA)

(Formal SEA)

1. Procedural. Have appropriate processes No, these tend to be ad hoc

Yes, but still evolving, based on

been followed that reflect institutional and

project-level EIA

professional standards and procedures? 2. Substantive. To what extent does the

Strategic advice is influential, regardless of Substantive outcomes in the form of

assessment lead to changes in process,

lack of binding outcomes

a legally binding Ministerial Statement with conditions that can be applied to

actions, learning or outcomes?

future derived proposals (projects) under the strategic assessment. Processes are still evolving – learning by doing 3. Transactive. To what extent, and by

There is considered to be a relatively high

The uptake by private proponents (Water

whom, is the outcome of conducting the

degree of influence and relatively low

Corporation, BHP Billiton) would suggest

assessment considered to be worth the time transaction costs

this is valued due to the potential to

and cost involved?

streamline assessments of future derived proposals

4. Legitimacy. Was the assessment process Unclear, no requirement or opportunity for Probably, but limited experience so far perceived to be legitimate by a wide range consultation, but process is typically quite of stakeholders?

collaborative

strategic assessments have been in the urban planning and land-use sectors, though much of this also deals with infrastructure and transport sector initiatives. Of these 12 strategic assessments, six have reached approved status, and are in implementation phases. The New South Wales Road and Traffic Management Works strategic assessment focused largely on transport factors, though other spatial and land use strategic assessments undertaken in accordance with the EPBC Act have also considered various transport considerations, including Melbourne’s urban growth boundary strategic assessment. Energy-sector strategic assessments at the national level have largely been focused on resource-led proposals, offshore petroleum at the Federal level, and similar resources in South Australia and the Northern Territory. EPBC strategic assessment has been undertaken on two water resource initiatives: the Midlands Water Scheme (approved in 2013) and irrigation development throughout Tasmania. The examples set out in Table 18.1 suggest SEA forms can be found in a range of sectors. However, readily identifiable examples of SEA style assessments in different sectors are difficult, and would take more concerted research to illustrate.

296  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 18.3 State/Territory ACT

Key differences between state and territorial approaches to SEA Requirements similar High level commentary of relevant legislative frameworks, and against SEA frameworks to SEA?

(Fischer, 2007/Pope et al., 2018 criteria)

Yes

The Planning and Development Act 2007 provides for SEA, though is very limited in its application as it is largely integrated into the planning and development approach in Canberra (Cameron, 2019).

New South Wales Somewhat

The increasing emphasis on strategic level planning provides a potential avenue for SEA in the future (see also section ‘Strategic Approach to SEA’ below). Prior to the 2017 review of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, authorities were required to undertake ‘environmental studies’ when preparing draft Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), and ‘concept approvals’ were subject to environmental assessment under S.75N (now repealed). Such reviews were, however, discretionary (Kelly et al., 2012).

Victoria

Somewhat

Ministerial Direction 11, pursuant to section 12(2)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, requires a comprehensive strategic evaluation of planning scheme amendments and their outcomes (typically rezoning land for alternate uses); involving an evaluation, amongst other things, of environmental, social and economic effects (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, June 2015). SEA has been considered through two previous reviews of environmental impact assessment processes in Victoria (VAGO, 2017), and a Parliamentary inquiry looking at the relevant legislation (primarily the Environmental Effects Act 1978). The 2011 Parliamentary inquiry made a specific recommendation on SEA, though there has been no significant legislative change as at early 2020 (VAGO, 2017).

Queensland

No

South Australia

No

The State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 creates State Development Areas, which primarily have a socio-economic development focus. The Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Act 2012 and Character Preservation (McLaren Vale) Act 2012 provide that special character of the two districts be recognised, protected and enhanced while providing for economic, physical and social well-being of these communities.

Western Australia Yes

The Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) provides three mechanisms for taking a strategic approach to environmental assessment: ●●Formal strategic proposals (Part IV, Section 38(3)) – on agreement of the agency responsible for the PPP. If subject to SEA, many subsequent proposals are considered ‘derived’ and may not require further assessment. Few such SEAs have been undertaken. ●●Informal strategic advice (Section 16(e)) – regularly used by the EPA to give non-binding advice on a range of matters, including plans – allows the EPA to advise the Minister on environmental matters generally and on any matter which the Minister may refer to it for advice. The EPA makes reports public, and gives either overall policy advice on a particular matter, or early advice to another decision making authority regarding key environmental issues to focus on. Assessment of land use planning schemes (Part IV, Division 3 and 4 of the Act, ‘Section 48A’) – the EPA can assess statutory Planning Schemes, amendments, subdivisions and development proposals.

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  297 State/Territory

Requirements similar High level commentary of relevant legislative frameworks, and against SEA frameworks to SEA?

Northern Territory Potential

(Fischer, 2007/Pope et al., 2018 criteria) The Environmental Protection Bill 2019, part of a broader process of environmental regulatory system reform, introduces provisions for referring a ‘strategic proposal’ that may have a potentially significant impact on the Territory’s environment for impact assessment. A strategic proposal includes a policy, programme, plan or methodology.

Tasmania

Somewhat

Ashe and Marsden (2011) suggest that there is some form of SEA in existence in Tasmania, through the central role of the Resource Planning and Development Commission (now the Tasmanian Planning Commission) including assessments and preparation of reports regarding policies and plans prepared under Resource Management and Planning System legislation such as State policies, draft planning schemes and water management plans. No specific reference to SEA is made in the main Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

SEA TYPES The Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) suggests there are two primary approaches to SEA applied in Australia; an assessment approach and a planning approach (Lavers, 2018). This is in line with a similar distinction made in Chapter 1 (Fischer and González, 2021). In a planning SEA, the impact assessment process looks for opportunities to avoid and strategically offset effects of the PPP and to examine alternative options. It is similar to the ‘strategic approach’ and ‘policy’ approach to SEA. Planning SEAs include specification of the proposed ‘development’, as well as proposed compensatory conservation measures, i.e. typical SEA steps are built into the plan-making process. In most planning SEAs the entire PPP is set within an adaptive management implementation framework. In any planning SEA there may be clear established parameters such as the overall desired development footprint. In this type of assessment, what is negotiated as the SEA and impact assessment process are site-specific planning procedures and assurance and commitments for conservation measures (Lavers, 2018). In an assessment SEA, the process is focused on ensuring that the environmental and social effects of the PPP are within acceptable levels, which is similar to the ‘EIA-process based’ approach (see Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al., 2020). Planning SEA provides an optimal framework to understand impacts comprehensively and for considering alternatives to achieve objectives. In addition, the evidence-base provides early indication of risk and success and provides an effective framework to encourage engagement from affected communities and broader stakeholders early in the planning phase. As a critical element of the process, development and approval of a Planning SEA provides an opportunity to say ‘no’ for potentially impacted communities, or to pursue alternate scenarios or options. Dovers (2002) suggests alternatives to SEA exist and may be more prevalent in different sectors such as utilisation of Australian Standards for risk assessment, multi-criteria analysis and round-table approaches using deliberative democracy techniques such as citizens juries. Additionally, he observes that: “… SEA is not the only, or in some cases even the best, means towards that end, and that alternatives such as sound regional planning, good development control and technology assessment should be considered” (Dovers, 2002, p. 43). These and the other forms of SEA are elaborated on in this section.

298  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Strategic Approach to SEA Governments across Australia are increasingly focusing on strategic levels of assessment and decision-making. Planning departments in various state jurisdictions are exploring efficiencies in putting more effort into strategic planning and assessment, rather than in the more reactive EIA, project-level end of assessment. By way of example, Figure 18.3 illustrates how the NSW government is starting to take a more strategic approach to PPPs, whereby ‘strategy’ might also include a level of SEA (van den Honert, 2019). Examples of strategic approaches are provided in Table 18.4. Table 18.4

Strategic approaches to SEA

Type of PPP

Jurisdiction

Strategic elements of assessment

Examples

Regional plans

Queensland

Renewed emphasis on regional plans to balance

12 area plans

regional communities, high-quality agricultural areas, strategic cropping land and regionally important environmental areas. New South Wales

A suite of endorsed Regional Plans to set the

2 plans in place

framework, vision and direction for strategic planning for a range of land uses, priority areas and State Significant Precincts and an emphasis on proactive planning and assessment work. Victoria

Regional growth plans developed collaboratively

8 plans in preparation

between State and local government, with regional partnerships, and community input. Fisheries

Commonwealth

Commonwealth fisheries (3–200 nautical miles

120 fisheries assessments

seaward of the Australian coastline – the Australian

(noted in Ashe & Marsden,

Fishing Zone) are subject to mandatory Strategic

2011)

Assessment under the EPBC Act (clause 147). Regional marine

Commonwealth

planning

Preparation of these plans resembles SEA-type

4 plans in place

assessment – baseline assessment and development of bioregional profiles, scoping, impact assessment, discussion papers, draft and final plans, ongoing consultation.

Forest resources

Various

Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) developed

RFA reviews in place in

Regional Forest Agreements (RFA), between 1989

NSW (x 3), Victoria (x 5),

and 1993. Together with three main inquiries since,

Western Australia (x 1) and

these resemble SEA-style assessment (Ashe &

Tasmania (x 1)

Marsden, 2011). These three main inquiries related to: use and management of Australia’s forests and timber resources, mining in Kakadu Conservation Zone, and use and management of coastal zone resources. Ten RFAs were signed between 1997 and 2001, integrating environmental, social and economic assessments.

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  299

Figure 18.3

Emerging NSW government ideas for greater emphasis on strategic level for assessment

Source: Adapted from NSW chief planners presentation (van den Honert, 2019; White, 2018).

Policy-level SEA Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), and Policy Impact Assessment (PIA) are required for certain legislative/regulatory and policy changes, respectively, and may include environmental factors (Elliott, 2014), and resemble a form of SEA. An example is related processes of PIA undertaken on Victorian Fisheries Regulations and State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs) (Ashe & Marsden, 2011). RIA and PIA have similarities with SEA in reviewing proposals, objectives and impacts including cost–benefit analysis of alternatives. Most jurisdictions in Australia have guidance documents for this type of assessment. Expanding on an example of policy form SEA – the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) enables Protection of the Environment Policies (PEPs). PEPs set environmental standards, goals, protocols and guidelines, as a framework for Government decisions that affect the environment and as the means of adopting Australia-wide environment protection measures set by the National Environment Protection Council. Before a PEP can be made, the POEO Act requires public consultation on the draft PEP, and an analysis of the economic and social impact of the PEP, the latter resembling a form of SEA at policy level. EIA Process-based SEA The assessment approach to SEA, akin to EIA process-based approaches, reviews the impacts likely to be associated with implementing an already developed PPP. An example of this approach is set out in Box 18.5.

300  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

BOX 18.5 SYDNEY GROWTH CENTRES ASSESSMENT SEA In 2007 a strategic assessment was undertaken for areas of urban development in western Sydney. These areas were biodiversity certified through a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) planning instrument (DECC, 2007). The strategic assessment was used to assess details of the conservation package presented, including whether the SEPP would lead to an overall improvement or maintenance of biodiversity values (DECC, 2007). This was conferred under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and provides an example of assessment SEA being used to improve conservation outcomes of an already identified PPP. The assessment: • examined the likely impacts on defined environmental matters from implementing a prescribed government approval process • used case studies to illustrate how impacts would be avoided, mitigated or offset • led to revision of the PPP to ensure better environmental outcomes would be achieved (Lavers, 2018). As part of this process, the NSW Government established a $530 million conservation fund to protect over 2,000 ha. of high quality vegetation within the Growth Centres over the following 25–30 years. This programme was also strategically assessed and approved under Part 10 of the EPBC Act. Source: Lavers (2018).

SEA which Supports the Creation of Consensus of Future Action Examples of a roundtable approach are emerging Infrastructure Strategies through Infrastructure Australia and counterparts in the State and Territory jurisdictions. In Victoria, development of its 30-year Infrastructure Strategy (InfrastructureVictoria, 2016b) involved a deliberative dialogue approach encompassing citizens’ juries in metropolitan and regional areas to seek input on the broad question of ‘What should we do to meet Victoria’s infrastructure needs?’ These processes resulted in generation of a range of new ideas for options that people wanted to see included in the 30-year strategy. Reporting on the outcomes indicated that some of the points raised in the citizen juries’ forums were reflected in the final strategy (Infrastructure Victoria, 2016a). Another potential example of this roundtable approach is seen in South Australia discussions between the oil and gas industry and Government agencies and companies involved in the oil and gas supply chain. They meet annually to develop a roadmap for South Australian petroleum, and develop forward looking plans through a series of working groups, review of different aspects such as environmental water resources, legislation, and potential industry upgrades (Zeman, 2019). Systematic SEA Planning and assessment initiatives undertaken by the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council and its predecessor have been suggested as a form of SEA (Dovers, 2002; Elliott,

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  301 2014; Marsden & Dovers, 2002) using, amongst other things, a systematic approach to planning, with an emphasis on regional-scale assessments in different sectors. Established under the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) Act 2001, the VEAC provides independent and strategic advice on environmental and natural resources investigations at the request of the Victorian Government. VEAC assessments have included public land, conservation values of state forests, fibre and wood supply, values of the marine environment, and an assessment of Victoria’s coastal reserves. Investigations are also regionally focused, for example on the ‘Central West’, resulting in recommendations for different forms of land management, and on the basis of consultative processes alongside preparation of reports. Whilst lacking decision-making power of any sort, the VEAC must have regard to potential environmental, social and economic consequences of implementing its proposed recommendations, with a focus on conservation and protection of biological diversity, and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The VEAC provides a model for independent research to undertake and inform SEA approaches from policy to programme level. As such, it likely represents only a component of what systematic SEA might typically involve. SEA Defined by Specific Techniques The South Australian Government, amongst others, has partnered with the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (GISERA). Research areas include agricultural land management; greenhouse gas and air quality; health impacts; social and economic impacts and opportunities; surface and groundwater; marine environment; and terrestrial biodiversity. As of late November 2019, there were numerous projects underway which represent a form of baseline reporting that may be similar to this form of SEA (CSIRO, 2019). Another strategic baseline reporting and assessment approach is seen with the Staveley Minerals Exploration Initiative in Victoria, with emphasis placed on early engagement, assessment and identification of resource opportunities as well as areas to avoid, based on a blend of techniques. This has led to identification of areas for mineral exploration, applications for minerals exploration licences and, in time, will likely lead to a suite of project-specific EIA and approvals applications. Increasingly, planning departments are providing open access to information, which is giving planning and other authorities – including proponents – ready access to tools to utilise in strategic assessment, which might assist this form of SEA. An example is VicPlan, which provides a rich data source for forward and strategic planning, and strategic-level impact assessment (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2019).

FINAL REFLECTIONS ON SEA IN AUSTRALIA Marsden and Dovers (2002) questioned the role and function of SEA and whether it works in conjunction with Australian principles of sustainable development which drive most Australian policy, seen as integration of environmental, social and economic policy; taking long-term views; and utilising the precautionary principle. Much has happened in the Australian SEA landscape since. This chapter has provided an insight into some recent SEA

302  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment and related practice throughout Australia. More research is needed to highlight the value of SEA across different sectors, potential benefits at different levels of decision-making, and applicability of well-recognised evaluation criteria in different jurisdictions and assessment regimes. This would enable better comparisons of effectiveness of SEA-style approaches across States and Territories, and with the Commonwealth approach to strategic assessment as per the EPBC Act. Some criticisms of the existing Commonwealth EPBC strategic assessment regime are that it needs to build in safeguards in the process of the assessment, such as increasing procedural provisions, improving transparency through greater public involvement, beginning the process early in the formulation of the strategy proposal, and addressing alternatives in early stages (Marsden, 2013a; 2013b). Since a comprehensive review of the EPBC Act some ten years ago, little change has occurred, though there is certainly now more EPBC Strategic Assessment practice to draw on as an insight into how SEA is undertaken in Australia at the national level, and in some States. The second ten-year review of the EPBC Act commenced in late 2019, and provides an opportunity to harness the lessons of the last 20 years and to look forward to the next. Specifically, there is scope for additional research, including better understanding the integration of planning and SEA processes, practical application of SEA and integration with reference to some of the case studies noted herein, and illustrating the benefits SEA can provide, not least of which is the oft-referred to avoidance of the need for subsequent assessment and approval (Productivity Commission, 2013; Wade & Gale, 2018).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the input, ideas and cooperation provided from officers of various government agencies throughout Australia, and the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) SEA Working Group and its outputs (EIANZ-SEAWorkingGroup, 2018). The group is chaired by Carolyn Cameron and members include, amongst others, Garry Middle, Jenny Pope, Zsuzsa Banhalmi-Zakar, Mitchell Ross, Lachlan Wilkinson, Peter Hemphill, Warren McGrath, Ian Baxter and Bryan Jenkins. Many of the suggestions for SEA-type case studies were made by these contributors, as well as various suggestions for inclusion in this chapter.

REFERENCES Ashe, J. & Marsden, S. 2011. SEA in Australia. In B. Sadler (Ed.), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment (pp. 21–35). London, Washington: Earthscan. BHPBilliton. 2016. BHP Billiton Iron Ore Draft Impact Assessment Report Pilbara Strategic Assessment. Retrieved from https://​www​.bhp​.com/​-/​media/​bhp/​regulatory​-information​-media/​iron​-ore/​western​ -australia​-iron​-ore/​0000/​impact​-assessment​-report/​160316​_ironore​_waio​_pilbarastrategicassessment​ _commonwealth​_draftimpactassessmentreport​.pdf. Cameron, C. 2019. [SEA in the Australian Capital Territory]. Personal communication. Commonwealth of Australia 2015. Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Volume 1, No. 91, Compliation No.53 C.F.R. 2019.

Strategic environmental assessment in Australia  303 CSIRO 2019. Researching the impacts of Australia’s onshore gas industry. Retrieved from https://​gisera​ .cs​.iro​.au/​. DECC 2007. Order to confer biodiversity certification on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006. Sydney: DECC. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2015, June. Strategic assessment guidelines for preparing and evaluating planning scheme amendments Planning Practice Note 46. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2019. VicPlan. Retrieved from https://​mapshare​ .vic​.gov​.au/​vicplan/​. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2019. Aid Risk Management Environmental and Social Safeguards. Retrieved from https://​dfat​.gov​.au/​aid/​topics/​aid​-risk​-management/​Pages/​environmental​ -and​-social​-safeguards​.aspx. Department of Planning and Community Development 2009. Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities Program Report. East Melbourne: Victorian Government, Department of Planning and Community Development. Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning 2013. Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment. Brisbane: State of Queensland. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009. Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities Strategic Impact Assessment Report for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. East Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2011. Australian Government Response to the Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: Australian Government. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013. Strategic Assessment Prospectus. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Dovers, S. 2002. Too deep a SEA? Strategic environmental assessment in the era of sustainability. In S. Marsden & S. Dovers (Eds.), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Australasia (pp. 24–46). Annandale: The Federation Press. EIANZ-SEAWorkingGroup 2018. Impact Assessment Jurisdictions updates. Paper presented at the EIANZ Impact Assessment Symposium – Reimagining approvals – Strategic approaches to support Impact Assessment, GHD, 180 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. Elliott, M. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia Theory and Practice. Sydney: The Federation Press. EPA [Environmental Protection Authority] 2012. Strategic and Derived Proposals, Environmental Protection Bulletin No. 17. Prepared by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia, Perth. Fischer, T.B. 2007. The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment Towards a More Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Hawke, A. 2009, October. Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Holden, T. 2019. Implementing strategic assessments – some lessons learned. Paper presented at the EIANZ Annual Conference Resilience and Innovation, Adelaide. Infrastructure Victoria. 2016a. Options Book: A Supporting Document for Victoria’s 30-year Infrastructure Strategy. Melbourne: Government of Victoria. Infrastructure Victoria. 2016b. Victoria’s 30-Year Infrastructure Strategy. Melbourne: Government of Victoria.

304  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Ives, C., Biggs, D., Hardy, M., Lechner, A., Wolnicki, M. & Raymond, C. 2015. Using social data in strategic environmental assessment to conserve biodiversity. Land Use Policy, 47: 332–41. Kelly, A., Jackson, T. & Williams, P. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: lessons for New South Wales, Australia, from Scottish practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(2): 75–84. Lavers, T. 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment Good Practice Guidance. Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand. Marsden, S. 1999. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia: an evaluation of Section 146 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Griffith Law Review, 8(2): 394–410. Marsden, S. 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment. Paper presented at the EIANZ-SEQ Forum: Impact Assessment – A process not a product. Marsden, S. 2013a. A critique of Australian environmental law reform. The University of Tasmania Law Review, 32(2): 276–93. Marsden, S. 2013b. Protecting heritage on Australia’s coasts: a role for strategic environmental assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 15(3): 1–21. Marsden, S. 2017. The ‘triangle’ of Australian energy law and policy: omissions, connections and evaluating environmental effects. Journal of Environmental Law, 29(3): 475–503. Marsden, S. & Ashe, J. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment legislation in Australian states and territories. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13(4): 205–15. Marsden, S. & Dovers, S. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Australasia. Leichhardt: The Federation Press. Parliament of Victoria 2019. Melbourne Strategic Assessment (Environmental Mitigation Levy) Bill 2019 Explanatory Memorandum, Parliament of Victoria. Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Pope, J., Bond, A., Cameron, C., Retief, F. & Morrison-Saunders, A. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 70: 34–44. Pope, J. & Middle, G. 2019, 2 December. [SEA in Western Australia]. Personal communication. Productivity Commission 2013. Productivity Commission Research Report Major Project Development Assessment Processes. Melbourne: Australian Government. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Ross, M. & Banhalmi-Zakar, Z. 2019. Just how “strategic” are SEAs? Paper presented at the International Association for Impact Assessment, Brisbane. Slootweg, R. 2021. Ecosystem services in SEA: an integrating concept in a world of silos, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 17). Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). VAGO 2017. Effectiveness of the Environmental Effects Statement Process. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer. van den Honert, E. 2019. Review of EIA in NSW Australia. Paper presented at the International Association for Impact Assessment, Brisbane. Wade, F. & Gale, B. 2018. Protecting the Future Federal Leadership for Australia’s Environment. Chifley Research Centre. White, G. 2018. Achieving better Planning Outcomes through Collaborative Partnerships. Paper presented at the Cities for Us Summit. Zeman, N. 2019. [SEA in South Australia]. Personal communication.

19. Strategic environmental assessment in Canada Bram F. Noble

INTRODUCTION This chapter explores the requirements, diversity, and state of practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Canada. Attention is focused on formal SEA provisions and practices at the federal level, and on the diversity of practice external to federal requirements, operating provincially and regionally, often ad hoc, and rarely carrying the SEA label. Case study snapshots of different approaches to and purposes of SEA are highlighted, illustrative of the range of SEA practice in Canada. The chapter concludes by highlighting some of the enduring challenges and opportunities for SEA in the Canadian context that cut across the different applications and experiences.

ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF SEA IN CANADA Strategic environmental assessment was formally established in Canada at the federal level in the early 1990s, as a separate process from project-based impact assessment (Table 19.1). In 1999, Canada strengthened its commitment to SEA by way of a Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, requiring an SEA when a federal department or agency submits a policy, plan or program (PPP) proposal to a minister or Cabinet for approval, and when the implementation of that PPP may result in important environmental effects. It was not until 2004 that federal departments and agencies were required to prepare a public statement whenever an SEA had been completed. These public statements should not be confused with detailed SEA reports or impact statements as might be expected in an impact assessment registry (Hanna and Noble 2011); the majority of public statements often only indicate that an assessment was done, rather than provide details about the impacts or issues identified, the alternatives considered, and how any potentially adverse impacts will be managed. In 2010, compliance with the Cabinet Directive was implicitly linked to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, requiring that federal departments and agencies under the act ensure that any PPPs initiated and implemented are consistent with the government’s overall sustainable development strategy. The most recent update to SEA in Canada at the federal level is under the Impact Assessment Act. The Impact Assessment Act came into force 2019, replacing the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Like the previous Act, the new Impact Assessment Act applies to projects, or physical activities, designated under the Act – projects for which there is a federal decision-making authority or responsibility. These

305

306  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment constitute the minority of projects in Canada. However, the new Act also contains, for the first time in Canada, a legislated provision to conduct strategic assessment.1 Table 19.1 1990

Timeline of SEA development in Canada

A bill is introduced to establish the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; policies, plans, and programs are not included within the scope of the proposed act. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council releases guidelines for environmental assessment of policy and program proposals.

1991

Federal government introduces Environmental Assessment in Policy and Program Planning: A Sourcebook, Canada’s first initiative in the development of a system of SEA.

1992

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act receives approval. Section 16(2) emphasizes the role and value of regional studies outside the act, but there is no reference to SEA.

1993

Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office releases procedural guidelines to federal departments on impact assessment for policy and program proposals.

1995

Amendments to the Auditor General Act require that all federal departments and agencies prepare a sustainable development strategy. Federal government releases Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Guide for Policy and Program Officers.

1999 2000

The 1990 Cabinet Directive and guidelines for implementation are updated. Frameworks for regional environmental effects assessment appear in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s research and development priorities for 2000.

2001

Bill C-19 is introduced to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

2003

The amended Canadian Environmental Assessment Act comes into force.

2004

Guidelines on the Cabinet Directive on SEA are updated, requiring federal departments and agencies to release a public statement when a SEA has been completed.

2007

Minister of Environment’s Regulatory Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on SEA, commissions a report on the state of SEA models, principles, and practices in Canada.

2009

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment releases Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada: Principles and Guidance.

2010

Updated federal guidelines for implementing the Cabinet Directive on SEA are released. Federal Sustainable Development Act requires federal departments and agencies to ensure that their PPPs are consistent with the government’s Sustainable Development Strategy.

2012

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is repealed and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 enacted, but there is no reference to SEA.

2017

Federally-commissioned Expert Panel for the Review of Environmental Assessment Processes recommended that federal EA legislation requires the use of SEA to guide project assessment, and that the federal authority responsible for impact assessment conducts an SEA when a new or existing federal policy, plan or program would have consequential implications for project assessment. No amendments to the existing Cabinet Directive were recommended.

2019

Impact Assessment Act replaces the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Discretionary provisions are included in the Act for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to conduct an assessment of any federal PPP or issue that is relevant to conducting a project impact assessment under the new Act. The Cabinet Directive remains in place, as a non-legislated instrument.

Source: Based on Noble (2016, updated). 1 The Impact Assessment Act adopts the term ‘strategic assessment,’ removing ‘environment’ from the label. The Cabinet Directive continues to use the term strategic environmental assessment. There is no rationale for the introduction of new terminology under the Act and no indication that strategic assessment is somehow a different instrument or approach. The label was most likely adopted to align with the title of the new Act, but the dual labels may result in even further confusion about the nature and purpose of SEA (see Noble 2009).

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  307 Section 95(1) of the Impact Assessment Act provides that the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change may establish a committee, or authorize the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, to conduct a strategic assessment of (a) any federal PPP, proposed or existing, that is relevant to conducting project assessments; or (b) any issue that is relevant to conducting assessments of projects, or classes of projects, designated under the Impact Assessment Act regulations. The Act also requires (sec. 103) that the strategic assessment report is made publicly available. The Act is an important, but by no means ambitious, expansion of SEA provisions at the federal level in Canada. Whether a strategic assessment is conducted under the Act, when, and for what PPPs or issues, is at the discretion of the Minister. The Act does not contain a trigger mechanism for SEA; instead it simply provides that the federal Minister may establish a committee or authorize the federal Impact Assessment Agency to conduct an assessment. This level discretion allows for strategic assessment to be used when it is most needed, and to tackle new and emerging issues; however, it also means that strategic assessment can be used only when politically convenient or not at all. Strategic assessment under the Impact Assessment Act is also intended to tier directly to projects and focus only on assessing PPPs considered “relevant” (sec. 95(1)) to conducting impact assessments under the Act or on issues relevant to impacts assessments for projects designated under the Act. The Act also requires that the results of a strategic assessment are considered when determining whether an assessment for a project is required. This responds directly to enduring concerns about the relevance of federal SEA in Canada to project assessments and decisions (Noble 2009; Kirchhoff et al. 2011). However, it may also restrict the ability of SEA under the Act to tackle truly strategic issues – ones that are beyond the scope and scale of concerns that tier directly to project-level issues that are under federal authority. That said, the Act does not clarify what is meant by “relevant” under sec. 95(1), and it does not specify criteria that the Minister must use when making decisions about which strategic assessments will receive priority (see sec. 117 2&3). This may introduce some flexibility for strategic assessment to function beyond the scope of project-based assessment issues and needs. The Act does not replace the Cabinet Directive. The Impact Assessment Act is still relatively new. There has not yet been a strategic assessment completed under the new provisions. It is thus too early to assess SEA performance under the Act.

DIRECTIVE-BASED SEA REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICE Public statements on SEA application under the Cabinet Directive have been diverse, addressing such PPP issues as: genomics research and development, migratory birds regulations, metal and diamond effluent regulations, regulations for reduction in the release of volatile organic compounds in the petroleum sector, implementation of the Minamata Convention on mercury, and new federal standards and regulatory revisions mandating the accelerated, nationwide phase-out of coal-fired power by 2030. SEA in Canada thus goes beyond many SEA systems globally, which often focus on plans and programs only. However, similar to many international SEA systems, there is limited direction under the Cabinet Directive on how SEA results are to influence PPP decisions and inform next-level actions, and no specific requirement that it is to happen. While in most cases SEA is intended to influence or guide subsequent actions and decisions, the influence of SEA in tiered forward-planning and decision-making in Canada has been limited (Acharibasam and Noble 2014; Noble 2009).

308  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C–NLOPB), for example, the regulatory authority responsible for rights issuance and exploratory licenses for oil and gas activity in the offshore areas of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been conducting SEAs since 2002. The objectives of SEA under the C–NLOPB are to inform licensing decisions in prospective offshore areas and to help streamline issues and considerations for subsequent project impact assessments by, among other things, identifying potentially sensitive marine environments or activities that should be considered in the identification of license blocks or addressed through mitigation approaches. Bonnell (2019) describes the offshore licensing and project review process as reflecting an ideal tiered forward-planning system whereby the C–NLOPB completes the SEA, administers the rights issuance process for exploration licenses, and is then responsible for reviewing and approving exploration projects for which project assessments need to be prepared. However, notwithstanding this ideal tiered forward-planning framework (see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González 2021), Bonnell reports that “SEAs are not achieving their full potential in terms of influencing and focusing the project-level [impact assessments] that come after them” and that “where individual exploratory projects are proposed and subject to … review following completion of an SEA, there is often little evidence that the nature and scope of these are materially influenced by that earlier assessment” (Bonnell 2019: 4). Similar observations have been made in other countries and sectors, including transport planning in Germany and England (Fischer 2006; but see also Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief 2021). Bonnell (2019) argues that part of the reason for SEA’s limited influence is the generic nature of the SEA, few specific recommendations, and an absence of decisive conclusions. This may reflect a problem in how SEA is sometimes described in both guidance and scholarship – as a more generic, or less detailed, form of impact assessment (Noble et al. 2012; Slootweg and Jones 2011). There have been several evaluations of SEA practice in Canada for SEAs carried out under the federal Cabinet Directive. Between 2011 and 2016, the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, an office established under the Auditor General of Canada to conduct performance audits related to federal sustainable development strategies and the federal government’s management of environmental and sustainable development issues, audited 15 of the 26 federal government departments and agencies that are required to contribute to the Government of Canada’s Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (Table 19.2). Of the 2,820 PPP proposals captured in the three audits, only 10% were subjected to SEA (OAGC 2015, 2016, 2017). All 26 federal organizations subject to the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy were audited in 2018, with results showing that 93% of proposals submitted to Cabinet were assessed (OAGC 2018) – a significant improvement, likely owing to recommendations emerging from previous audit results (Noble et al. 2019). However, the lack of a public SEA registry, the limited information contained in SEA public statements, and the lack of follow-up reporting on SEA results make understanding the effectiveness of SEA under the Directive challenging.

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  309 Table 19.2

Synthesis of 2015–18 Federal SEA performance audits conducted by the Auditor General of Canada, Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Developmenta

Performance metrics 2015 Audit (2011–14)b

2016 Audit (2013–15)c

2017 Audit (2013–16) d

2018 Audit (2017)

Applying the

PPP proposals: 1,955.

PPP proposals: 506.

PPP proposals: 359.

PPP proposals: 283.

Cabinet directivee

Directive applied: 115

Directive applied: 98

Directive applied: 80

Directive applied: 263

Conducting

(6%). Ministers were not

(19%). Environmental effects

(22%). Environmental effects

(93%). Environmental effects

considered, and the

considered, and the

scope of assessment

scope of assessment

scope of assessment

commensurate with

commensurate with

commensurate with the

applied

the level of anticipated

the level of anticipated

level of anticipated effects.

Timelines

From a sample of 34

effects. From a sample of 31

effects. From a sample of 43

Not reported in this audit.

preliminary scans

preliminary scans

preliminary scans

reviewed in detail,

reviewed in detail, 8

reviewed in detail, 5

only 13 proposals were

were conducted early.

were conducted early.

assessed early. For most

For most proposals it was For most proposals it was

proposals it was difficult

difficult to determine due difficult to determine due

preliminary scans of provided with information considered, and the PPP proposals, when about potential the directive was

environmental effects.

to determine due to lack of to lack of documentation. to lack of documentation. Public reporting

documentation. No organizations

Parks Canada was the

All but one organization Not reported in this audit.

consistently reported

only organization that

reported each year on its

on their SEA practices

conducted detailed

SEA practices.

or prepared public

SEAs and issued public

statements. Meeting Sustainable No organizations made

statements. Over 50% of the

90% of the preliminary

All 26 organizations made

scans reviewed

satisfactory progress in

Development

satisfactory progress

preliminary scans

Strategy (SDS)

toward meeting SDS

reviewed considered SDS considered SDS goals,

strengthening their SEA

commitments

commitments.

goals and targets, but

but only Public Health

practices, implementing

only Parks Canada issued Agency of Canada

recommendations from

public statements on how made satisfactory

previous audit reports.

PPPs affected progress

progress in meeting

toward SDS goals.

SDS commitments to strengthen their SEA practices.

Notes: a The 2018 audit reported on proposals submitted to Cabinet but excluded proposals submitted to individual ministers for approval. b Federal entities included in audit: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada Revenue Agency, Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. c Federal entities included: Department of Justice, National Defence, Parks Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada. d Federal entities included: Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canada Border Services Agency, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, Public Health Agency, Public Safety, Western Economic Diversification Canada. e Results include a number of PPP proposals submitted to an individual minister for approval, to Cabinet, and submissions to Treasury Board. Source: Noble et al. (2019).

310  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The Cabinet directive applies only to national-level PPPs; it does not apply to matters under provincial or territorial jurisdiction. Impact assessment in Canada is legislated federally for certain types of initiatives, but each province and territory has its own separate legislative requirements for, and system of impact assessment. There are no formalized systems of SEA at the provincial or territorial level, but some jurisdictions do provide for impact assessment application above the project level. Newfoundland’s Strategic Environmental Review Guideline for Policy and Program Proposals, for example, provides for a separate review process for policy and program proposals; under Saskatchewan’s Environmental Assessment Act, 20-year forest management plans are subject to formal review. In Quebec, the Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune recently established a formal SEA program for offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, under which two SEAs have been initiated.

DIVERSITY OF SEA MODELS The conventional model of SEA is an instrument to assess the potential impacts of PPPs (see also Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al. 2021). When first introduced as a “higher-order” form of impact assessment, Wood and Djeddour (1992: 10) argued that there “is no fundamental methodological reason why SEA should not be introduced … utilising a form of SEA basically similar in its basic nature to that employed for projects.” This line of argumentation set the foundation for the simplest and perhaps the most widely cited definition of SEA today – the environmental assessment of PPP proposals, or the translation of project impact assessment upstream (Clark 2000). Internationally, SEA is still approached largely as an impact assessment tool. Emphasis is placed on ensuring that environmental issues are considered at the early stages of decision-making with SEA guidance entrenched in traditional project-based impact assessment principles (Noble et al. 2019). However, SEA is much more complex than this. Several authors have argued that there is more to SEA than the object of assessment – PPPs – and that what separates SEA from other forms of impact assessment is its underlying strategic principles (e.g. Partidário 2012; Cherp et al. 2007). Some authors have even argued that SEA needs to distance itself from the concepts and models of impact assessment as traditionally applied at the project level (Jiliberto 2007). Current perspectives on SEA are certainly more diverse than when SEA was first introduced and thinking about SEA has evolved considerably, adding to the debates amongst scholars, and confusion amongst practitioners, of what SEA is really about (Bina 2007). Perspectives are shifting from SEA “as a formal process … to a much more flexible and adaptable approach” (Retief 2007: 85) and one with a more strategic focus, beyond PPP impact assessment (Fischer and Onyango 2012). Rather than describe SEA as a single model, Noble and Nwanekezie (2017) suggest that SEA operates along a spectrum from the “less” to the “more” strategic based on the extent to which the SEA design, its application, and the intended objectives reflect the underlying principles of a strategic approach (see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González 2021). At one end of the spectrum, the less strategic, SEA adopts many of the features of traditional impact assessment. A PPP is proposed and either appraised to ensure compliance with existing policies, regulations, or commitments, or a direct assessment of the PPP’s potential impacts is undertaken and mitigation solutions identified. SEA of this nature can be described as a risk

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  311 management or impact mitigation tool for PPP design and implementation. This is the typical approach to SEA under most directive-based SEA systems and requirements (Verheem and Dusik 2011), including SEA under Canada’s federal Cabinet Directive. SEA at the opposite end of this spectrum is described by Noble and Nwanekezie (2017) as “strategy-based” (see Partidário 2012; Bina 2007; Cherp et al. 2007). Rather than solely assessing the impacts of PPPs, SEA applications are focused on PPP formulation, exploring alternative futures or development scenarios to steer PPP initiatives, and determining the necessary institutional context and transformations to achieve desirable outcomes (Partidário 2012; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch 2012; Partidário 2009; Fischer et al. 2002). There are fewer examples of strategy-based SEA in Canada. Those cases that do exist are often tightly coupled with regional land use planning issues – such as the Wood Buffalo and Elk Valley cases (discussed below), or the Great Sand Hills regional assessment (GSH SAC 2007). The Great Sand Hills is an ecologically and culturally rich landscape in southwest Saskatchewan. It is home to many rare species and intact native grasslands, but it’s also a highly valued recreational area and a major source of natural gas deposits. The Great Sand Hills assessment was commissioned by the province of Saskatchewan to assess human activities that cumulatively affect the long-term ecological integrity and sustainability of the Great Sand Hills region, to establish a management plan to guide future land use activities, including natural gas developments, and to identify the necessary changes in policies and governance to ensure the successful implementation of the management plan. The majority of SEA practice in Canada at the federal level depicts the traditional compliance model or impact assessment-like approach. There are examples of more strategic approaches in practice – like the Great Sand Hills case – not all of which occur under the Directive or under any type of formal SEA system. The three case study snapshots presented below are illustrative of this diversity of SEA practice beyond the traditional compliance and PPP impact assessment approach, and depict some of the opportunities and challenges to SEA practice in Canada. Wood Buffalo Strategic Environmental Assessment The Wood Buffalo National Park SEA is discussed by Noble et al. (2019). Wood Buffalo National Park is a designated UNESCO World heritage site in Alberta, Canada. Encompassing nearly 45,000 square kilometers, the park and adjacent Peace-Athabasca Delta are the traditional territory of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. In 2014, due to concerns about the potential cumulative impacts of hydroelectric development, oil sands extraction, and mining activity on the park’s boundaries, coupled with climate change, the Mikisew Cree First Nation petitioned the UNESCO World Heritage Committee that the park be added to the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger (IEC 2018). In response, in 2015, the World Heritage Committee formally requested that the Government of Canada first conduct an SEA of the cumulative impacts of development and climate change on the park and implement a subsequent plan of action for protection of the region’s outstanding universal values (UNESCO 2015). The focus of the SEA was to steer the development of PPPs to ensure a sustainable future for the park. The specific objectives were to contribute to the identification, recognition, and management of cumulative effects impacting the park; influence the development and implementation of an action plan for the protection of the park’s world heritage values; and inform the scope and support the effectiveness of subsequent project-level impact assess-

312  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment ments – including the impact assessment for the proposed Frontier oil sands project, just 30 kilometers from the park’s boundary. The SEA concluded that none of the desired outcomes for the park and delta region were likely to be met given current and expected future development pressures, including the impacts of climate change, resulting in 44 recommendations for action. The SEA contributed to the scoping of a collaborative action plan for managing environmental threats to the park and identified a set of baseline indicators that could be used for monitoring cumulative change. However, the SEA lacked specific legislative mechanisms to ensure influence over project reviews, mitigation actions, and approval decisions (Noble et al. 2019) – including the Frontier oil sands project. Elk Valley Regional Cumulative Effects Framework In 2012, the Ktunaxa Nation Council and Teck Coal Ltd. formed a multi-stakeholder initiative engaging communities, environmental groups, and other land users, to assess and manage the cumulative effects of mining, forestry, wildfire, residential development, and other land uses in the Elk Valley of British Columbia – the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa. The Elk Valley is located in the Rocky Mountains. A popular tourism and sportfishing destination, the valley is known for its grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, elks, and bald eagles. The valley is also the center of British Columbia’s coal mining industry, home to the province’s largest producing coalfield and five surface metallurgical coal mines. Initial discussions between the Ktunaxa and Teck about a strategic plan of action for the Elk Valley were triggered by a regulatory approval condition for a coal mine operations expansion, requiring that Teck Coal Ltd. and the Ktunaxa Nation Council hold a multi-stakeholder workshop to assess broader cumulative landscape and land use pressures in the Elk Valley (Elk Valley CEMF Working Group 2018). The strategic assessment process and management framework that emerged, however, were shaped from the bottom-up and external to any formal impact assessment system – based on recognition of the value of a strategic approach to informing sustainable land use decisions (Noble 2019). The assessment process explored alternative scenarios of human pressure and environmental change in the Elk Valley, under different assumptions about land uses and climate, and identified a range of responsive and proactive impact management options across land uses and resource sectors. In 2015, given the growing success of the initiative and the opportunity to link the assessment to regulatory decisions, leadership for the Elk Valley assessment was transitioned to the British Columbia provincial government and it became a key component of a province-wide cumulative effects management and decision support framework (FLNROD 2019). An implementation plan is currently being developed to identify priority actions and locations for management and mitigation of cumulative effects in the region. The Elk Valley can be described as a project-flagged SEA (Doelle and Sinclair 2006), whereby SEA is seen as an opportunity to address a critical policy or management gap, in this case a cumulative effects management framework, identified during the course of a project-based impact assessment. However, notwithstanding the potential value of the Elk Valley initiative, and its uptake by the province, the province’s overarching cumulative effects framework has been criticized by environmental organizations for having no legal mechanism requiring that outcomes are integrated into decision-making and no formalized linkages to land use plans to ensure on-the-ground influence and to coordinate decision-making about different resource uses at the regional scale (WCEL 2017, 2018).

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  313 Federal Strategic Assessment of Climate Change Under Canada’s new federal Impact Assessment Act, decision-makers must consider the extent to which each assessed project contributes to sustainability and hinders or contributes to meeting Canada’s national and international climate commitments. To determine what that means for decision-makers, project proponents, and other participants in impact assessment, in 2018, the Government of Canada released its draft SEA of climate change (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2018). The SEA is focused on tools to inform assessments of particular undertakings, and how mitigations for meeting climate change commitments might be translated into specific requirements for application in project-specific reviews. It provides guidance on how federal impact assessments will consider a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its resilience to climate change impacts. The assessment provides guidance to proponents and others on the GHG information requirements for projects undergoing federal assessment, for the purpose of addressing broader climate policy issues. The SEA is intended to fill a gap between climate commitments and implications for project decision-making. The SEA of climate change depicts a different approach to SEA than what is the norm in Canada at the federal level, but nonetheless important – setting specific direction for project-level approval processes (Fischer 2007). In principle, the SEA is about providing a consistent framework to apply when deciding whether to approve GHG-emitting projects, so those engaged in impact assessment know from the outset what information is needed to assess project impacts and to demonstrate a project’s contribution to Canada’s climate commitment under the Paris Agreement. However, as a strategic-level assessment for climate change, the SEA has received much criticism for its missed opportunity and narrow focus – providing specific measures for GHG calculations for projects rather than also improving coherence across the multiple federal initiatives, policies, plans, and programs already in place federally, provincially, and territorially with respect to climate measures (Noble et al. 2019). Wright (2019: 4) argues that while guidance for calculating emissions in relation to a federally designated project is important, the SEA does not provide for a meaningful understanding of calculated emissions, one that “facilitates comprehension of the climate change impacts that the emissions will have.”

ENDURING CHALLENGES AND EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES Unlike most countries with formalized SEA, Canada is not yet a member of the UNECE Kyiv (SEA) Protocol – an international agreement established in 2003 by the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. The Protocol requires its member states to evaluate the environmental consequences of their official draft plans and program; provide for public participation in SEA; ensure legislative and regulatory provisions for SEA; ensure that an SEA report is prepared; and demonstrate that the conclusions of the SEA report are accounted for in plan or program adoption. The lack of legislative basis for SEA in Canada has long been criticized (Gibson et al. 2010). As of 2019, however, with the introduction of the Impact Assessment Act, legislative provisions now exist for the conduct of federal SEA at the discretion of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. There is no specification as to what types of issues or PPPs SEA can address, but the scope of issues and PPPs must be relevant to federal project-based

314  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment impact assessments. There is also limited direction on how SEA results are to be used in future decisions, and the Act defers to the Cabinet Directive for SEA guidance and methodology. Not only does Canada need an improved legislative framework for SEA at the national level, requiring that SEA be done and setting out the scope of PPPs and types of issues that may require SEA, clear expectations are also needed for how the results of SEA feed into higher level decision-making; how changes in higher-level policy inform SEA; and how lower-tiered PPPs, projects and decisions must respond to SEA (Doelle 2009). Both the Cabinet Directive and the Impact Assessment Act are silent on the nature and authority of decision-making regarding the results of an SEA. Given Canada’s constitutional division of powers over lands and resources, and the lack of provincial and territorial SEA systems, the majority of PPPs and issues that could benefit from SEA do not undergo assessment. Provisions do exist under some provincial assessment legislation to conduct “regional studies,” for example, which may provide a mechanism to advance SEA should such studies be modeled after SEA principles. This was not the case in the Elk Valley assessment, discussed earlier in this chapter, but it was the window of opportunity for the Great Sand Hills assessment, mentioned earlier, whereby the Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act allows the Minister of the Environment to commission studies or reports. In the Great Sand Hills case, after the study was commissioned, the Minister directed that the terms of reference for the study adopt SEA methodology (GSH SAC 2007). There are also promising efforts in other jurisdictions, including British Columbia’s province-wide cumulative effects framework – a set of policies, procedures and decision support tools intended to help identify and manage cumulative effects consistently across the province’s resource sectors (Government of British Columbia 2019). At the provincial and territorial level, SEA efforts are usually tightly coupled with land-use issues and regional land-use planning. A common challenge is the ad hoc nature of SEA (Doelle 2009) and a disconnect from larger and formal systems of open and integrated policy, planning and development decision-making (Noble et al. 2019). Comprehensive land-use planning, as a vehicle for SEA implementation, is lacking in most jurisdictions across Canada (CCA 2019). Even in those jurisdictions where some form of comprehensive land-use planning does exist to enable SEA, there remains reluctance amongst political decision-makers to fully implement SEA – especially when the issues at hand are politically sensitive (Lobos and Partidário 2014). In the province of Alberta, for example, the Alberta Land Stewardship Act – arguably one of the most comprehensive land use policy and planning frameworks in Canada – sets out a process for the development of seven regional plans covering the entirety of the province, each of which must establish a vision and objectives for the given region (Government of Alberta 2013). As of 2019, however, only two regional plans have been completed in the province – one of which is the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, in Alberta’s oil sands region. This plan includes a provision for regional strategic assessments to inform the development of sub-regional plans. In 2014, the province announced that it would undertake a regional strategic assessment for the south Athabasca oil sands region to assess the cumulative impacts of alternative oil sands development scenarios, provide direction to provincial departments, municipalities and other agencies for land use decisions, and improve regulatory decision-making for in situ oil sands development (Government of Alberta 2014). A draft strategic assessment report was prepared in 2015 for internal review by the province, but the final SEA report was never completed or made available to the public.

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  315 Whether SEA is effective is a complex question, but it is also an important question that needs to be answered to understand the added value of SEA as an instrumental part of environmental governance in Canada. External to the federal system, practice is diverse and ad hoc with no formal SEA provisions or expectations. Within the federal system, for the majority of SEAs completed under the Directive there is limited public information available. Notwithstanding the mandate of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development to conduct performance audits, recent audits of SEA under the Cabinet Directive are best described as compliance audits – focused on whether the Directive was applied and whether federal departments and agencies are in compliance with the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, rather than focused on the value of the SEA effort and outcomes (Noble et al. 2019). Acharibasam and Noble (2014) argue that it is conceivable that an SEA implemented in full compliance with the Directive can have little to no impact. Understanding the effectiveness of SEA requires a deep dive into whether and how SEA has informed decisions, shifted patterns of thinking, shaped organizational and institutional practices, influenced next-level assessments, and identified and responded to emergent policy gaps.

CONCLUSION Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005: 61) described Canada’s early adoption of SEA as one of the “first of the new generation of SEA systems.” SEA in Canada has made some progress since it was first introduced in the early 1990s, but its progress and evolution have certainly slowed, if not stagnated. In 2009, a review of SEA across Canada described the state of practice as “promise and dismay,” in that most applications of SEA are falling far short of the intended purpose and influence (Noble 2009). Reviews of SEA performance under the federal Directive indicate that compliance with SEA is increasing amongst federal government departments and agencies, but SEA practice is often ad hoc and struggling to find its role in environmental governance (Bonnell 2019; Doelle 2009). In a more recent snapshot of SEA in Canada, Noble et al. (2019) conclude that the effectiveness of SEA, based on its substantive, pluralist, knowledge and leaning, transactive, and normative attributes is mixed, and that although SEA is often intended to influence higher-level decisions or PPPs, or to inform subsequent project assessment input and decisions, few applications deliver on these objectives or contain the legislative means to do so. Strengthening the legislative provision for and transparency of SEA at the federal level, including provisions under the Impact Assessment Act, is a first step to improving the state of SEA in Canada. Also needed are improved mechanisms for tiering SEA-like applications at the provincial and territorial level to regional land-use planning, such that strategic assessments, even though lacking a formal or standalone system, are able to provide clearer input, direction and added value to land use decisions and project-specific reviews. Much of SEA’s progress, however, will depend on the demonstrated utility of SEA for improving and streamlining next-level decisions and in filling important policy gaps that emerge from project-based regulatory reviews. Doing so will be difficult in the absence of the political appetite to implement SEA and to realign governance structures to ensure that SEA can play a meaningful role in decision-making.

316  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Table 19.2, the Wood Buffalo case study, and the strategic assessment of climate change case study draw on an earlier paper by Bram Noble, Lisa White, Jill Blakley, Robert Gibson, Meinhard Doelle, and Kelechi Nwanekezie, appearing in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (2019), vol. 37(3–4): 344–55.

REFERENCES Acharibasam JB, Noble BF. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(3): 177–87. Bina O. 2007. A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 585–606. Bonnell S. 2019. Project EA scoping in an SEA context: a case study of offshore oil and gas exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Available at https://​doi​-org​.cyber​.usask​.ca/​10​.1080/​14615517​.2019​.1647396. CCA Council of Canadian Academies. 2019. Greater than the sum of its parts: toward integrated natural resource management in Canada. Ottawa, ON: The Expert Panel on the State of Knowledge and Practice of Integrated Approaches to Natural Resource Management in Canada. Cherp A, Watt A, Vinichenko V. 2007. SEA and strategy formation theories: from three Ps to five Ps. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27(7): 624–44. Clark R. 2000. Making EIA count in decision-making, in: Partidário MR, Clark R (Eds.). Perspectives on strategic environmental assessment. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, pp. 15–28. Dalal-Clayton B, Sadler B. 2005. Strategic environmental assessment – a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. London: Earthscan. Doelle M, Sinclair AJ. 2006. Time for a new approach to environmental assessments: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(2): 185–205. Doelle M. 2009. Role of strategic environmental assessments in energy governance: a case study of tidal energy in Nova Scotia’s Bay of Fundy. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 27(2): 112–44. Elk Valley CEMF [Cumulative Effects Management Framework] Working Group. 2018. Elk Valley cumulative effects assessment and management report. Cranbrook, BC: EV CEMF Working Group. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2018. Draft strategic assessment of climate change. Ottawa, ON: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Available at https://​www​.strategicasses​ smentclimatechange​.ca/​. Fischer TB. 2006. SEA and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3): 183–97. Fischer TB. 2007. The theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan. Fischer TB, Retief F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer TB, González A. (Eds.), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Fischer TB, González A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer TB and González A (Eds.), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer TB, Onyango V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63. Fischer TB, Wood C, Jones C. 2002. Improving the practice of policy, plan and programme environmental assessment. Environment and Planning B 29(2): 159–72. FLNROD. 2019. Elk Valley cumulative effects management framework: project background. Victoria, BC: Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Fundingsland Tetlow MF, Hanusch M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 15–24.

Strategic environmental assessment in Canada  317 Gibson R, Benevides H, Meinhard D, Kirchhoff D. 2010. Strengthening strategic environmental assessment in Canada: an evaluation of three basic options. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 20(3): 175–211. Government of British Columbia. 2019. Cumulative effects framework. Available at https://​www2​.gov​ .bc​.ca/​gov/​content/​environment/​natural​-resource​-stewardship/​cumulative​-effects​-framework. Government of Alberta. 2013. Alberta Land Stewardship Act, Statutes of Alberta, 2009, Chapter A-26.8. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Government of Alberta. 2014. Lower Athabasca regional plan strategies. Available at https://​open​ .alberta​.ca/​publications/​9781460113226​#summary. GSH SAC, Great Sand Hills Scientific Advisory Committee. 2007. The Great Sand Hills regional environmental study. Regina, SK: Canada Plains Research Centre. Hanna K, Noble BF. 2011. The Canadian environmental assessment registry: promise and reality. UVP-report 25(4): 222–5. IEC [Independent Environmental Consultants]. 2018. Volume 1: Milestone 3 – Final SEA report. Strategic environmental assessment of Wood Buffalo National Park World Heritage Site. Edmonton, AB: IEC. Jiliberto RH. 2007. Strategic environmental assessment: the need to transform the environmental assessment paradigms. Journal of Environmental Policy and Management 9(2): 211–23. Kirchhoff D, McCarthy D, Crandall D, McDowell L, Whitelaw G. 2011. Strategic environmental assessment and regional infrastructure planning: the case of York Region, Ontario, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29(1): 11–26. Lobos V, Partidário M. 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 34–46. Noble BF. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(1): 66–75. Noble BF. 2016. Introduction to Environmental Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Noble BF. 2019. Transforming IA from the outside in: capacity and levers for strategic assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Available at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​14615517​.2019​ .1664811. Noble BF, Gibson R, White L, Blakley J, Nwanekezie K, Croal P. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 344–55. Noble BF, Gunn J, Martin J. 2012. Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(3): 139–47. Noble B, Nwanekezie K. 2017. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. OAGC, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2015. Report 2—Departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies: 2015 Fall reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Available at http://​www​.oag​-bvg​.gc​.ca/​internet/​English/​parl​_lp​_e​_925​.html. OAGC, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2016. Report 3—Departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies. 2016 Fall reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Available at http://​ www​.oag​-bvg​.gc​.ca/​internet/​English/​parl​_lp​_e​_925​.html. OAGC, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2017. Report 4—Departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies. 2017 Fall reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Available at http://​ www​.oag​-bvg​.gc​.ca/​internet/​English/​parl​_lp​_e​_925​.html. OAGC, Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2018. Report 3—Departmental progress in implementing sustainable development strategies. 2018 Fall reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Available at http://​ www​.oag​-bvg​.gc​.ca/​internet/​English/​parl​_lp​_e​_925​.html. Partidário MR. 2009. Does SEA change outcomes? International Transport Research Symposium, Discussion Paper 2009–31. OECD/ITF, Paris, France.

318  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Partidário MR. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment better practice guide: methodological guidance for strategic thinking in SEA. Lisbon: Portuguese Environment Agency and Redas Energeticas Nacionais. Rehhausen A, Hanusch M, Fischer TB. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: Fischer TB, González A. (Eds.), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Retief F. 2007. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 84–100. Slootweg R, Jones M. 2011. Resilience thinking improves SEA: a discussion paper. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29(4): 263–76. UNESCO. 2015. Decision: 39 COM 7B.18. Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada) (N 256). Available at http://​whc​.unesco​.org/​en/​decisions/​6275/​. Verheem R, Dusik JA. 2011. Hitchhiker’s guide to SEA: are we on the same planet? Opening plenary. Prague, 21–3 September: IAIA Special Conference on SEA. WCEL. 2017. Paddling together: co-governance models for regional cumulative effects management. Vancouver BC: West Coast Environmental Law. Available at https://​www​.wcel​.org/​sites/​default/​ files/​publications/​2017–06​-wcel​-paddlingtogether​-report​.pdf. WCEL. 2018. Why it’s time to reform environmental assessment in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: West Coast Environmental Law. Wood C, Djeddour M. 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, plans and programmes. Impact Assessment Bulletin 10: 3–22. Wright D. 2019. A comment on the strategically narrowed strategic assessment of climate change. Alberta Law Blog. Available at https://​ablawg​.ca/​2019/​03/​29/​a​-comment​-on​-the​-strategically​ -narrowed​-strategic​-assessment​-of​-climate​-change/​.

20. Towards advancing strategic environmental assessment practice: learning from experiences of eight European countries Sara Khoshkar, Kedar Uttam, Berit Balfors, Christina Hörnberg and Thomas B. Fischer

INTRODUCTION Since becoming a formal requirement in 2004 based on Directive 2001/42/EC, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been used widely in European Union (EU) member states in plan- and programme-making, and also increasingly elsewhere (Sadler and Dusík, 2016). The legislative framework transposing the SEA Directive varies across member states and associated countries, depending on their administrative structures and arrangements (European Commission, 2016). Overall, the need for SEA to contend with global challenges, such as climate change, has become increasingly recognized (Bond and Dusík, 2020; Bice and Fischer, 2020; see also Chapter 16 by O’Mahony, 2021). In addition, it has been emphasized that impact assessment holds opportunities to support the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, but that there is a need to inspire changes in its practice (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2019; González et al., 2020). In a study by the European Commission on the effectiveness of the SEA Directive, member states’ progress and challenges experienced with the application of SEA is reported. This was based on an evaluation of the implementation, transposition and performance of the legislation (European Commission, 2016). Overall, a positive trend was observed, with all member states having transposed and implemented the SEA Directive in line with its objectives and requirements. However, the report also highlighted the uncertainties that still exist concerning some key steps in practice, for example, the handling of alternatives and monitoring. There is a growing realization that SEA can have multiple roles and benefits in different decision contexts, which has led to a diversity in interpretations and expectations of SEA and associated ways of application (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2017; Ludovico and Fabietti, 2018). To enhance the benefits of SEA, various authors have called for the need for studies to demonstrate how the practice of SEA is developing, what difficulties are being experienced, and how it is contributing to sound decision-making (Cashmore and Partidário, 2016; Fischer and Onyango, 2012). Aspects of SEA effectiveness are discussed further in Chapters 7 (Thérivel and González, 2021) and 8 (Fischer and Retief, 2021). In this chapter, we elaborate on SEA practice from eight European countries concerning selected components of the SEA process. Furthermore, we reflect on these practices in order to identify key issues and potential learning points for SEA in general. First, methods underlying this study are presented, followed by a presentation of the different practices, followed by a discussion of these practices. 319

320  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

METHODS To gain insight into practices and experiences, 51 experts working in SEA, representing different environmental ministries in European countries, were contacted for interviews in 2018. Eight experts agreed to participate from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Norway. These participants had (a) practical experience with SEA, working in the government departments responsible for SEA (e.g. Ministries of Environment or equivalent); and (b) experience with the transposition of the SEA Directive and with review of SEA documentation. A semi-structured interview design was employed, guided by a list of open-ended questions (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). This form of interview design was selected because it allows (i) for the discovery or elaboration of information which is important to participants, but which may have been overlooked by the researcher (Gill et al., 2008); and (ii) for the elicitation of narratives concerning personal experiences (Creswell et al., 2007). In-depth interviews were conducted via Skype or phone and ranged between 60 and 90 minutes. Two researchers took written notes during the interviews and transcribed them. Both researchers then grouped the interview results under the five themes presented in the subsequent paragraph. Notes were compared and cross-checked to validate the interpretation of the results in relation to the themes. The interviewees provided supporting documents to verify the discussions. The interviews were conducted with the aim of developing an in-depth understanding rather than ‘quasi-measurement’ (Boddy, 2016) and with the intention to build stories (around experts’ experiences and perspectives), to present accounts of SEA frameworks being implemented in the selected countries’ contexts (Richardson, 2005). Interviews were built around five themes, which had been selected, based on a qualitative content analysis in accordance with Bryman (2012) with intercoder reliability of SEA papers, published in international refereed journals, reports and presentations between 2000 and 2017. Intercoder reliability is the measure of the extent to which independent coders evaluate a text and make the same coding decisions (Lombard et al., 2002). Examples of the sources for the material included the journals Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal and Journal of Environmental Assessment and Policy Management (see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021) as well as reports and presentations from the European Commission. These journals were chosen because of their primary focus on impact assessment with a large number of peer-reviewed published research on the topic. The five themes are: 1. timing of SEA and planning processes; 2. quality control; 3. handling of alternatives; 4. public participation; and 5. monitoring. While issues such as governance (Monteiro and Partidário, 2017; Arts et al., 2012) and approaches that reinforce the strategic dimension of SEA, for example strategic-thinking SEA (Partidário, 2012; see also Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021) have also been recognized as emerging themes of SEA, our content analysis revealed the themes presented above as those that are particularly frequently discussed in the professional literature.

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  321 Presentation of interview results are followed by a discussion of results in the light of the wider literature. This is organized along the lines of key SEA aspects identified during interviews. They include (a) an increased awareness of the benefits of SEA; (b) the facilitation of interaction between actors with different interests; (c) the involvement of the public early and continuously; (d) the enhancement of quality of SEA process and content; and (e) the improvement of monitoring practices.

RESULTS Below is a summary of the interviewees’ responses concerning their practices and experiences in relation to the five themes identified in the content analysis; timing, quality control, public participation, alternatives and monitoring. A summary of the practices is presented in Table 20.1 at the end of this section. Timing of SEA and Planning Processes In the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Finland, SEA was said to be applied early in the planning process. Best practice for an early application was found particularly in spatial planning processes. One challenge raised by one interviewee was “telling planners what the rationale of the SEA Directive is”. This was an issue, in particular, with plans that are subject to different assessments, such as River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), which fall under the scope of both the SEA and the Water Framework Directives. Both directives include key procedural requirements for the preparation of RBMPs. Therefore, overlaps exist. According to the interviewees from the three countries, this led to the application and timing of SEA being problematic. In Slovenia, when municipalities accept the decision to start a plan, they have a responsibility to send initial ideas to different ministries and organizations (e.g. the Water Authority, Institute for Nature Conservation, Ministry of Culture, and Ministry of Health). These authorities then can make suggestions on how to improve the plan. The Dutch interviewee presented an example in which SEA was applied early in the planning process for the Spatial Vision of the Eemsmond-Delfzijl region. According to this interviewee, the early application of SEA set an overall framework for 17 projects and each project was followed up with EIA, facilitating tiering. The interviewee emphasized that the application of SEA was beneficial, and if they had not planned those 17 projects together, “a number of problems would have arisen concerning, for example, air quality, noise, nature protection and the living environment”. Quality Control Many of the countries had formal and/or informal requirements for quality control in place. Formal requirements for quality control have existed in the Netherlands since 1987, where the Netherlands’ Commission of Environmental Assessment (NCEA), an independent body, takes the responsibility of providing voluntary advice on environmental assessment and mandatory reviews of SEAs and EIAs. In the Netherlands, quality control was said to facilitate a “good and well-organized process, imparting transparency of information”. In Slovenia, it was obligatory for the SEA report to be sent to the Ministry of the Environment for quality

322  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment control, checking that all parts were in accordance with the environmental decree, and that the environmental aims were consistent with the wider plan objectives. In Greece, the Ministry of Environment holds an important role in ensuring that SEA content meets legal requirements. Furthermore, in the consultation phase, the public and each relevant authority (e.g. Ministry of Transport, Cultural Heritage, Waste, Energy) are provided with the opportunity to review the SEA report, establishing whether any aspects are missing or are not considered. In Austria, there were no formal requirements for quality checks. It was suggested to be difficult to conduct quality checks for every SEA, due to the large number of SEAs that are undertaken in the country every year (in particular due to SEAs being conducted for small-scale construction plans), with planning authorities being responsible for completing the SEAs and ensuring quality. However, to aid those authorities, the responsible ministry implemented certain measures, including the release of guidance, methodological support and the publication of a list of criteria for practitioners against which to check the quality of the SEA report. Whilst criteria are not mandatory, they were considered instructive in guiding practitioners on how to conduct good-quality SEA. Moreover, the Ministry of the Environment is holding annual meetings with SEA authorities from federal and local levels, giving opportunities for exchange of knowledge and discussions on practical problems. Also, examples of good practice SEAs are made available online. Every year environmental reports are sent to the Ministry of Environment by planning authorities, providing explanations on why they are “good examples”. The Austrian interviewee added that “it is difficult to identify the good practice examples, with everyone having their own idea of why they think the report is good”. The interviewee emphasized that the aim of this practice was to “improve acceptance of the SEA, gaining support of planning authorities, and bringing a more positive attitude towards SEA”. In Luxembourg, independent measures to improve quality of the SEA have been established. For example, the interviewee mentioned that “one element to assure quality is that all experts that are elaborating on the SEA report have the authorization to do this work”. Furthermore, general guidance documents were developed to define the minimum requirements for the SEA. Additionally, the Ministry of Environment is staying in close contact with the experts working on the SEA report, having regular exchanges to improve practice step-by-step. Handling of Alternatives Most of the interviewees perceived the consideration of alternatives in their SEA practice in need of improvement. One interviewee said that “alternatives are presented only because they are being asked for by the authorities, but often a thorough alternative analysis is not conducted”. In Greek practice, an outline of the reasons for selecting alternatives is provided and of the environmental evaluation leading to the selection of the proposed plan/programme over other alternatives. The presentation of alternatives is seen as a type of ‘sanity check’ for the plan/programme, asking the question whether the plan/programme is reasoned or not. The example of the spatial plan for the development of Kassiopi, Corfu was provided in which the application of SEA led to a comprehensive consideration of alternatives, with the aid of multi-criteria decision analysis. According to the Greek interviewee, “SEA aided in selecting the alternative for the development of the area, which met the environmental, social, and economic goals”. In the Netherlands, amongst the many tasks to be completed by NCEA, one is to ensure that alternatives meet the purpose of the plan/programme, which they do in most cases according to the interviewee.

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  323 Public Participation In Greece, the plan is always presented more than once to the public, giving the public a chance to provide their input. The comments are considered in both the plan/programme and the SEA report. According to the Greek interviewee, because of the obligation to involve the public from the start of the plan/programme preparation, “we conclude with a much more accepted plan/programme”. The interviewee from Slovenia described a similar system for public involvement, providing an example of the SEA public participation process for the spatial plan for the municipality of Ljubljana. In this context, the public involvement was said to have been more “intensive than prescribed by law”, with three rounds of consultation, open scoping and many workshops. The early integration of SEA and planning processes as well as the input from the public was said to have resulted in the reduction and/or relocation of proposed activities as well as the improvement of suggested alternatives. Furthermore, the Norwegian interviewee emphasized that the local authorities had an important role in involving the public. Here, the Norwegian interviewee stated that they “do not underestimate the importance of public participation which takes time. There should be clear and concrete communication during the public participation process.” Monitoring Overall, specific practices for monitoring were not identified in the interviews. A common agreement amongst the different countries was that monitoring and follow-up still need improvement. For example, the Dutch interviewee suggested that “monitoring and follow-up are not very well developed and there is a need for further elaboration on how and when to do it in practice”. Generally speaking, in the studied countries, monitoring was conducted on the execution of the plan; however, it is not on the environmental effects of the proposed plans. For example, in Austria, the interviewee said that monitoring was a difficult issue to address in general, but that implementation of the plan was checked. The interviewee from Norway emphasized that the requirements in the legislation for monitoring were clear; however, it was not enough for effective implementation. In the Netherlands, the Environment and Planning Act is currently being revised and is set to be implemented in January 2021, which will put more emphasis on monitoring.

324  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 20.1

Summary of practices identified by the interviewees in relation to the different SEA components

Themes

Practices identified by interviewees

Timing

●●Sending out notification to all concerned parties, drafting planning programme at the very beginning for their comments ●●Environmental and planning authorities working together from the start

Quality control

●●Formal body responsible for review ●●Web page with methodological guidance ●●Collection of SEA reports in public databases ●●Annual meetings with SEA authorities enabling exchange of knowledge and discussion on practical problems ●●Public and relevant authorities have opportunity to review and comment on any aspects which are missing or not considered ●●Accreditation of experts ●●Guidance documents established to define minimum requirements ●●SEA training courses

Public participation

●●Presenting the plan more than once to the public to provide input and state concerns ●●Implementing supplementary actions to the legal requirements for public participation

Alternatives

●●Providing outline of the reasons for selecting alternatives ●●Adopting multi-criteria decision analysis for alternatives ●●Appointing formal body for ensuring that the alternatives meet the purpose of the plan/programme and are realistic

Monitoring

●●Strengthening legislation to have more focus on monitoring ●●Elaborating how and when to do monitoring in practice

DISCUSSION The perspectives in this chapter are those of national SEA experts. In the next section, we reflect on key issues in relation to the different SEA components and identify possible learning experiences for advancing SEA practice in a general context. Table 20.2 summarizes key issues and recommendations coming out of the discussion. Increase Awareness of the Benefits of SEA If applied early in the planning process, SEA has the potential to promote the development of environmental and sustainable plans and programmes (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014). However, those interviewed stated that often this is not happening in SEA practice. A late start of SEA in the planning process can lead to decisions being made without appropriate environmental information (Thérivel and González, 2019). In a study on the effectiveness of SEA in Portugal, Partidário and Monteiro (2019) exemplified that SEA starts late in the planning process, and is separate from planning, and therefore misses the opportunity to create a benefit. In the examples presented by three of the countries (Slovenia, the Netherlands and Greece), SEA was applied early in the planning process and held a ‘plan-shaping’ role, influencing the chosen development activities and alternatives. In the example presented from the Netherlands, the early application of SEA facilitated tiering. Whilst these examples provide insight into the potential opportunities if SEA is applied early, the question remains on how to facilitate the early application of SEA. Interviewees

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  325 suggested that in order to encourage the early application of SEA, increasing awareness of SEA as a useful decision-making tool was important. In efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of SEA, in Austria, ‘good example’ SEAs were gathered and distributed on government websites. While it is difficult to clearly pinpoint what a ‘good example’ SEA is, this approach may be a step towards aiding authorities in understanding the benefits of SEA through reviewing other examples. The documentation and dissemination of SEA success stories is important in order to increase the perceived attractiveness of SEA (Vicente and Partidário, 2006). This is in line with the findings of McLauchlan and João (2019), highlighting that the SEA gateway, an online register of all SEA documents, sets a supportive context for SEA practice in Scotland. A similar observation was made by González et al. (2019) for Ireland with regard to the existence of an SEA forum. However, a challenge which may arise with these forms of databases is the need for constant management and updating. Furthermore, it is important to note that knowing that SEA is of benefit to the plan may not necessarily ensure that plan-makers will start SEA early, and therefore may require additional measures such as knowledge exchange and quality control. Facilitate Interaction between Actors with Different Interests As highlighted by Lobos and Partidário (2014), the interaction between stakeholders with different interests will make SEA stronger. Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013) and Nadeem and Fischer (2011) also suggest that incorporating expert and local knowledge can lead to greater public support of a proposal and is likely to lead to more environmentally sound plans and projects. According to Sánchez and Mitchell (2017), the sharing of knowledge can result from collaborative learning in environmental assessment, which in turn has possibilities to change future decisions. It is important to note that the type of knowledge is important as well as the timing of the knowledge provision (Stöglehner, 2019). To facilitate knowledge exchange amongst the experts and authorities, different practices applied in the countries could be a start, such as local workshops for diverse actors to share their experiences and challenges with SEA. Several authors have underlined the importance of communication and interaction between different actors to create acceptance of SEA, as well as knowledge brokerage (Runhaar and Driessen, 2007; Sheate and Partidário, 2010; Zhang et al., 2013). More recently, Arbter (2019), provided insight into a participative SEA model in Austria, the SEA roundtable, involving members of public administration, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and external experts, throughout the SEA process. This approach produced a common understanding of the problems and issues at stake, led to more environmentally and socially sound plans, and established a culture of cooperation and partnership. The exchange of SEA experiences between experts at different scales, including regional, national and multilateral groups, is also important in order to foster mutual learning and quality improvement (Meuleman, 2016). Furthermore, the sharing of experiences amongst different disciplines and sectors can facilitate collaborative learning. Therefore, a suggested measure to aid in the exchange of experiences is to develop knowledge exchange platforms further, inviting different actors from academia, consultancies and governmental departments from other European Union member states (see González et al., 2019). This could be through workshops with countries interchanging the responsibility for hosting the event. For example, in 2016, a two-day interactive workshop was arranged through the SPEAK project in Sweden (Balfors et al., 2018). In this workshop, different actors participated in seminars and group

326  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment activities and discussed practices and challenges related to their SEA practices as well as potential solutions to problems.1 Engaging in these forms of knowledge exchange platforms may provide opportunities to discuss the challenges and experiences with SEA at different scales and within different disciplines, thereby providing opportunities for learning from other countries’ experiences and presenting more learning examples. Involve the Public Early and Continuously The early and continuous involvement of the public from the start of the planning process can provide input and influence plans, as exemplified in the Slovenian example. However, the methods used to involve the public are important. Over the years, the importance of innovative communication and participation methods and technologies has become more prominent (Barrios-O’Neill and Schuitema, 2016; Sinclair et al., 2017). For example, a web-based platform launched in Portugal has been developed in which all public participation procedures within SEA, EIA and land planning areas are collated, and open for the public to submit their inputs (European Commission, 2016). This follows on from other examples for web-based public participation, including, for example, e-participation in Sweden and Iceland (Babelon et al., 2017; Sinclair and Diduck, 2017) or interactive approaches such as those in Germany and Ireland (Fischer et al., 2009; González, 2017). Enhance Quality of SEA Process and Content Different measures were implemented in the participating countries in order to control the quality of the SEA process and documents (formal and informal). The formal quality control requirements, like the one provided by the Netherlands Commission of Environmental Assessment (NCEA), was perceived as having a critical impact on quality through their advice and review of the reports. The advising and reviewing role provides opportunities to support authorities and other actors in the process to assure the quality of the different parts of the SEA work. A similar observation was made by González et al. (2019) for Ireland, where the Irish Environmental Protection Agency’s SEA Team holds an important role in promoting the quality of the SEA. Other quality control measures included the development of guidance documents, training courses, accreditation of SEA practitioners, and local SEA forums. The importance of guidance for an effective application of SEA, with various suggestions on what the guidance should entail and how it should be used, have been acknowledged (Partidário, 2000; Schijf, 2011). In the studied countries, guidance documents were used for different purposes, for example, to guide practitioners to self-assess the quality of their reports. Other countries use guidance to encourage an early start of SEA and clarify particular sections of the EU SEA Directive, for example, providing a definition of ‘reasonable’ alternatives. However, excessive use of guidance has been said to be risky, reducing SEA to a licencing exercise with negligible

Other examples include the international symposium on ‘Leadership in impact assessment’ in Liverpool in January 2019 with over 60 participants from 11 countries (https://​ www​.liverpool​ .ac​.uk/​geography​-and​-planning/​research/​spatial​-planning​-impact​-assessment/​symposium/​), the annual International Association of Impact Assessment conference, or the forthcoming ‘Advances of European SEA Practice’ conference in Berlin in September 2020 (https://​www​.sea​-conference​.eu/​). 1

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  327 discretionary decision-making opportunities (Pope et al., 2013). On the other hand, Montaño and Fischer (2018) suggest that guidance has the potential to support good SEA practice, if it is stimulating a higher standard than the existing minimum requirements. The authors emphasize the importance of continuously updating guidance since the context within which SEA is applied changes over time. In addition, guidance should keep a practical focus, using examples and case studies (see also Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). Frequent local training courses and forums for practitioners and authorities were also practices implemented to enable quality control. Training courses, for example, can focus on existing weaknesses of SEA (general and country-specific), including the consideration of alternatives, integration of SEA and plan-/programme-making processes and techniques for adequate monitoring (see e.g. Fischer and Nadeem, 2014). Accreditation of courses (education and training) by a suitable body is suggested as one way to improve standards for SEA (Bond et al., 2018; Rehhausen, 2019). The forums implemented in Austria and Luxembourg, which included fostering dialogue between the Ministry of Environment and SEA practitioners, were perceived as leading to incremental changes ‘step by step’. In a recent study of practitioner’s experiences in the UK and Republic of Ireland, Montaño and Fischer (2018) highlighted that exchanging experiences, especially regarding best practices through the community of SEA practitioners, can enhance the quality of SEA. Improve Monitoring Practice Monitoring of implemented plans was a weakness amongst all the countries for which interviews were conducted, similar to the findings of previous studies (Nicolaisen and Fischer, 2016; Partidário and Arts, 2005; Rehhausen et al., 2018; Sheate and Eales, 2016), although the importance and benefits of monitoring is well understood. In a study of the benefits and barriers to SEA follow-up, Gachechiladze-Bozhesku and Fischer (2012), identified several obstacles for implementing SEA follow-up and monitoring, including the lack of resources, legal requirements, and clear guidelines and methods. Furthermore, monitoring requirements depend on the type of plan or programme; therefore, existing guidelines need to be adapted to specific types of plans as well as to different social, cultural, economic and environmental contexts (Barth and Fuder, 2002; Mascarenhas et al., 2012). More recently, the need to make monitoring of impacts of plans mandatory, as well as requiring proposed mitigation measures to be legally binding has been emphasized (Thérivel and González, 2019; Cepuš et al., 2019). This may call for stringent regulations, clearly establishing when monitoring should be conducted, as well as who should be responsible for the monitoring. In a study on SEA practice in Germany, the funding for monitoring was difficult to obtain since the publishing of a monitoring report is not mandatory (Rehhausen, 2019). Therefore, the allocation of resources is especially important to prioritize monitoring efforts.

328  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 20.2

Summary of key issues and recommendations

Key issues

Recommendations

Corresponding finding from the literature

Increase awareness of the benefits of SEA ●●Documentation and dissemination of SEA McLauchlan and Joao (2019) success stories (e.g. online register of

Vicente and Partidário (2006)

SEA documents) Facilitate interaction between actors with

●●Knowledge exchange platforms

Arbter (2019)

different interests

●●Interactive workshops

Balfors et al. (2018)

●●SEA roundtable Involve public early and continuous

●●Web-based public participation

Babelon et al. (2017) Fischer et al. (2009) González (2017) Sinclair and Didicuk (2017)

Enhance quality of SEA process and content

●●Formal quality control requirements (e.g. Bond et al. (2018) NCEA) ●●Guidance to clarify specific sections of EU directive

Improve monitoring practice

Fischer and Nadeem (2014) González et al. (2019) Montaño and Fischer (2018)

●●Local training course

Rehhausen (2018)

●●Local actions for monitoring

Cepuš et al. (2019)

●●Mandatory requirements for implementa- Thérivel and González (2019) tion of proposed mitigation strategies

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, practices implemented in eight European countries in relation to specific components (timing, quality control, public participation, alternatives and monitoring) of SEA were presented and discussed. Overall, a diversity of practices is implemented across these countries in relation to the different SEA components. Our findings highlight that some countries have taken actions which exceed the general requirements set in legislation, for example with regard to quality control and public participation. However, reoccurring challenges exist in SEA practice concerning the handling of alternatives and monitoring. Whilst there is no one-size-fits-all approach to SEA, it is important for SEA practitioners to gain perspectives on what is happening in other planning systems and countries to develop knowledge about SEA implementation. To achieve this, it is important to foster learning. One approach to fostering learning is through the development of centralized databases. Furthermore, it is important for practitioners to have the opportunity to tell stories and identify strengths, challenges and shortcomings in their practices. In addition, knowledge exchange platforms between different sectors and disciplines are a means to facilitate learning. However, questions can be raised on whether learning is adequate for addressing all challenges and improving SEA practice. For example, many factors can have an effect on monitoring, such as lack of clear roles and responsibilities, and financial resources at the local level. Therefore, local actions supported by stronger national legal remit for monitoring is important for addressing the issues regarding monitoring. Overall, SEA has a critical role to play in promoting sustainable development and can be an important tool for achieving environmental goals and objectives. Therefore, it is important to continuously work on improving practice and finding forms for the exchange of knowledge and learning experiences between practitioners in different countries, for example interactive

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  329 workshops. Increasing global environmental challenges calls for a constant development of SEA in order to meet new demands.

REFERENCES Acharibasam, J.B., Noble, B.F. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32(3): 177–87. Arbter, K. 2019. SEA in Austria and the participative round table model. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 1–11. Arts, J., Runhaar, A.C., Fischer, T.B., Jha-Thakur, U., Van Laerhoven, F.V., Driessen, P.P., Onyango, V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14(4): 1250025. Babelon, I., Ståhle, A., Balfors, B. 2016. Toward Cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(8): 1366–90. Balfors, B. et al. 2018. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable planning: final report for SPEAK project. Report 6810. Stockholm, Sweden. Barrios-O’Neill, D., Schuitema, G. 2016. Online engagement for sustainable energy projects: a systematic review and framework for integration. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 54: 1611–21. Barth, R., Fuder, A. 2002. IMPEL project: implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC. Final Report. Oko-Institute.V., Darmstad. Bice, S. and Fischer, T.B. Impact assessment for the 21st century – what future? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 89–93. Boddy, C.R. 2016. Sample size for qualitative research. Qualititative Marker Research 19(4): 426–32. Bond, A., Dusík, J. 2020. Impact assessment for the twenty first century: rising to the challenge. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 94–9. Bond, A., Retief, F., Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Duinker, P.N., Verheem, R., Brown, A.L.L. 2018. A contribution of quality in impact assesment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 68: 49–58. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods (4th edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cashmore, M., Partidário, M.R. 2016. SEA research and capacity development agenda, in: Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London and New York: Routledge (chapter 15). Cepuš, S., Strmšnik, K., Harmel, M., Krajnc, A., Premelč, M., Harmel, E. , Weldt. S. 2019. The effectiveness of the SEA process in Slovenia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 312–26. Chanchitpricha, C., Bond, A. 2013. Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43: 65–72. Creswell, J.W., Hanson, W.E., Clark Plano, V.L., Morales, A. 2007. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Counseling Psychologist 35: 236–64. European Commission. 2016. Study concerning the preparation of the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) Final Study. Luxembourg. Faith-Ell, C., Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11) Fischer, T.B., Gonzalez, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B., Nadeem, O. 2014. Environmental Impact assessment course curriculum for higher education institutions in Pakistan, IUCN, Pakistan, https://​www​.eia​.nl/​docs/​mer/​diversen/​pos722​-eia​ -course​-highereducation​.pdf. Fischer, T.B., Onyango, V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63.

330  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Fischer, T.B., Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Fischer, T.B., Kidd, S., Jha-Thakur, U., Gazzola, P., Peel, D. 2009. Learning through EC directive based SEA in spatial planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(6): 421–8. Gachechiladze-Bozhesku, M., Fischer, T.B. 2012. Benefits and barriers to SEA follow-up: theory and practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 22–30. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., Chadwick, B. 2008. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204: 291–5. González, A. 2017. Mapping environmental sensitivity: a systematic online approach to support environmental assessment and planning. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 66: 86–98. González, A., Bullock, C., Gaughran, A., Watkin-Bourne, K. 2019 Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 233–46. González, A, Gazzola, P, Onyango, V. 2020. The mutualism of Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82: 106383. Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (2nd edition), Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Lobos, V., Partidário, M. 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48: 34–46. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C. 2002. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28: 587–604. Ludovico, D., Fabietti, V. 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment, key issues of its effectiveness: the results of the Speedy Project. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 68: 19–28. Mascarenhas, A., Ramos, T., Nunes, L. 2012. Developing an integrated approach for the strategic monitoring of regional spatial plans. Land Use Policy 29: 641–51. McLauchlan, A., João, E. 2019. Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 299–311. Meuleman, R. 2016. The implementation of the EU SEA Directive: main achievements and challenges, in: Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London and New York: Routledge (chapter 3). Montaño, M., Fischer, T.B. 2018. Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 37(2): 1–10. Monteiro, M.B., Partidário, M.R. 2017. Governance in Strategic Environmental Assessment: lessons from the Portuguese practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 65: 125–38. Morrison-Saunders, A., Sánchez, L.E., Retief, F., Sinclair, J., Doelle, M., Jones, M., Wessels, J.A., Pope, J. 2019. Gearing up impact assessment as a vehicle for achieving the UN sustainable development goals. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(2): 113–17. Nadeem, O., Fischer, T.B. 2011. An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(1): 36–47. Nicolaisen, M., Fischer, T.B. 2016. Editorial: special issue on expost evaluation of environmental assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 18(1): 1601001. Noble, B., Nwanekezie, K. 2017. Conceptualizing Strategic Environmental Assessment: principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. O’Mahony, C. 2021. Integration of climatic factors into strategic environmental assessments, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 16). Partidário, M.R. 2000. Elements of an SEA framework: improving the added-value of SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(6): 647–63. Partidário, M.R. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment Better Practice Guide: Methodological Guidance for Strategic Thinking in SEA. Lisbon: Portuguese Environment Agency. Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4).

Learning from experiences of eight European countries  331 Partidário, M.R., Arts, J. 2005. Exploring the concept of strategic environmental assessment follow-up. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 23(3): 246–57. Partidário, M.R., Monteiro, M.B. 2019. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in Portugal. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 247–65. Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F. 2013. Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda Environmental Impact Assessment Review 41: 1–9. Rehhausen, A., Köppel, J., Scholles, F., Stemmer, B., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Geißler, G., Wende, W. 2018. Quality of federal level strategic environmental assessment: a case study analysis for transport, transmission grid and maritime spatial planning in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 73: 41–59. Richardson, T. 2005. Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25(4): 341–65. Runhaar, H., Driessen, P.P.J. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 25(1): 2–14. Sadler, B., Dusík, J. 2016. SEA at a milestone and a cross road: the paradox of progress and performance, in: Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London and New York: Routledge (chapter 1). Sánchez, L.E., Mitchell, R. 2017. Conceptualizing impact assessment as a learning process. Environment Impact Assesment Review 62: 195–204. Schijf, B. 2011. Developing SEA guidance, in: Sadler, B., Dusik, J., Fischer, T.B., Partidário, M.R., Verheem, R. and Aschemann, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London and Washington, DC: Earthscan (chapter 30). Sheate, W.R, Eales, R.P. 2016. Effectiveness of European national SEA systems: how are they making a difference? In: Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. (eds), European and International Experiences of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London and New York: Routledge (chapter 8). Sheate, W.R., Partidário, M.R. 2010. Strategic approaches and assessment techniques: potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assesment Review 30(4): 278–88. Sinclair, A.J., Diduck, A.P. 2017. Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 174–82. Sinclair, A.J., Peirson-Smith, T.J., Boerchers, M. 2017. Environmental assessments in the Internet age: the role of e-governance and social media in creating platforms for meaningful participation. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 35(2): 148–57. Stöeglehner, G. 2019. Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(20): 141–5. Thérivel, R., González, A. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 181–7. Thérivel, R., González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Vicente, G., Partidário, M.R. 2006. SEA: enhancing communication for better environmental decisions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26(8): 696–706. Zhang, J., Christensen, P., Kørnøv, L. 2013. Review of critical factors for SEA implementation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38: 88–98.

21. Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand Richard Morgan and Nick Taylor

INTRODUCTION Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as a named process, is not recognised as such in New Zealand legislation, or in any related administrative procedures. Yet forms of SEA are evident in New Zealand decision-making processes, especially at the policy and plan levels (Sadler, 2001). In this chapter we look at the main SEA-type of processes evident in New Zealand, consider to what extent they do in fact constitute SEA as understood internationally, and discuss the opportunities to improve current practice. We first examine the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which provides an integrated policy- and plan-making framework for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, by central government and territorial authorities. It has been argued that by its very nature the RMA provides an integrated approach to SEA (Dixon, 2002; Sadler, 2001; Jackson and Dixon, 2006; Wilson and Ward, 2011). A more specific provision for SEA-type assessment under the RMA is found in section 32 of the Act, which calls for the evaluation of proposed policies, plans, rules, etc., by relevant authorities. Taken together, the broad framework of the RMA and the section 32 evaluation requirements constitute, in theory at least, a coherent process that provides possibilities, rather than a direct mandate, for the use of SEA (Dixon, 2002). The key question is whether practice is taking up those possibilities and producing quality SEAs. As we show, there is no easy answer to that question. The status and role of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in New Zealand is then examined, from the perspective of SEA. RIA is applied to the formation and evaluation of new national-level policies and regulations or legislation. In this respect we find some significant changes are currently taking place whereby RIA is taking on many of the characteristics of SEA. We then turn to planning processes under other legislation, and in particular land transport planning. This has been seen as a potential area for SEA development and application in recent years, but the initial promise does not seem to have borne fruit, and we consider some of the reasons why. Two non-statutory reporting processes are also briefly addressed: strategic environmental reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and various Royal Commissions. Lastly, we consider the overall status of SEA in New Zealand, recognising some of the missed opportunities of the past two decades, but also the future potential for SEA, particularly at a time when New Zealand is developing legislation and processes for climate change adaptation planning, indigenous biodiversity and freshwater management.

332

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  333

SEA AND THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT Policies, Plans and SEA The RMA established a framework of policies and plans for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, from national to regional and district levels. Regional and district councils play the major decision-making role under the RMA. Regional councils are mainly responsible for the management of natural resources, especially water, air and soil, together with waste management and public transport. To this end, they are required to produce regional policy statements, and can develop non-mandatory regional plans on specific topics of regional importance. District and city councils have the primary responsibility for land-use planning through district plans. The hierarchy requires lower level instruments to be consistent with those at higher levels. Central government is responsible for providing national direction on important issues, through national policy statements and national environmental standards. However, apart from a national coastal policy statement, first released in 1994, these national-level policies have been slow to emerge, which left regional and district councils to develop their own policies and standards on issues such as air and water quality until a national approach was available. Inevitably, the results were uneven across this small country. The RMA introduced an “effects based” approach to policy and plan making “with an emphasis on the management of environmental effects rather than on the prescription of activities (as was the case under the previous town and country planning regime)” (Dixon, 2005, p. 160; see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021; and Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al., 2021). This approach underpins decision-making at the project level through the resource consent process. Unless a resource use is permitted as of right, or is expressly prohibited, anyone proposing to use or potentially affect the environment must apply for the relevant resource consents or permits from the relevant authority. Typically, these will be permissions to discharge contaminants to air, water or land, or to take water from rivers or groundwater, or to subdivide land. All such resource consent applications must include information about the effects of the proposed activities on the environment. This is now referred to as an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), which is the New Zealand name for project-level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Environment is defined under the RMA to include not just biophysical components but also people and communities, their livelihoods, amenity, health and security, etc. From an SEA perspective the effects-based approach to the development of policies and plans means that in theory the potential implications of policy and plan options are to be considered, and the final form of those policies and plans will be informed by those considerations. Then project-level assessment (AEE) is to be applied to projects requiring resource consents under those plans. To that extent, SEA can be thought of as being built into the fabric of the legislation, hence the comment that New Zealand has an integrated form of SEA, “plan-making as EA”, one of the four main models of SEA (Jackson and Dixon, 2006). Dixon (2005, p. 159) refers to the “informal and loose style of SEA that is emerging in New Zealand as a consequence of a relatively integrated approach to planning”. Unlike AEEs, however, neither a defined assessment process nor a label have emerged to focus people’s thinking on SEA and this raises questions as to the extent to which SEA is actually carried out in New Zealand as an integral part of the policy- and plan-making processes (Dixon, 2002; Ward, Dalziel and Wilkie, 2005).

334  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Section 32 Evaluation Reports Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a more specific opportunity for SEA, requiring as it does the evaluation of policies, plans, rules, etc., proposed by central, regional or local government, and for the report to be made public. The overall requirements of the section 32 evaluation reports are to show the “extent to which the objectives of the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act” (RMA 1991 s32(1)(a)). In particular, authorities need to report on other reasonably practicable options considered, then assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the main options, and summarise the reasons for deciding on the preferred option. Crucially in this weighing up of options, efficiency and effectiveness mean identifying and assessing the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposed policy, plan, rule, etc. Following amendments to the RMA in 2013, there is now greater emphasis on quantifying benefits and costs where possible, and on the assessment of economic benefits and costs. A recent guide to conducting section 32 evaluations notes that: ●● new proposals must be examined for their appropriateness in achieving the purpose of the RMA; ●● the benefits and costs, and risks of new policies and rules on the community, the economy and the environment need to be clearly identified and assessed; ●● all advice received from iwi authorities and the response to the advice needs to be summarised; and ●● the analysis must be documented, so stakeholders and decision-makers can understand the rationale for policy choices (MfE, 2017, p. 5). The question debated in the literature since the enactment of the RMA is to what extent these evaluation reports equate with SEA (Fookes, 2000; Memon, 2005). Certainly, elements of the legislation are strongly suggestive, especially the requirement to identify and assess the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects of the proposed policies, plans, rules, etc. When set within the overall purpose of the RMA, the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, section 32 evaluations will meet many of the broad aims of SEA, as defined in international literature (Fookes, 2000; Dixon, 2005). However, it is important to note that section 32 has two broad purposes. First, it has an accountability function: it requires authorities to show that their chosen proposal not only meets the purpose of the RMA but does so in an efficient and effective way. Second, it has a substantive function, in that it addresses the analysis of issues, and the costs and benefits (including social, environmental, etc.) of the options (Fookes, 2000; Memon, 2005). Fookes (2000) comments that in practice most section 32 reports emphasise the accountability function, while too little attention is paid to the substantive purpose of the report. Recent research by Morgan and Whitby (2019) indicates the situation has not changed to any great extent. They examined a sample of 65 section 32 reports, produced between 2011 and 2015 by central, regional and district government, for a variety of policy and plan proposals. The reports were evaluated for their SEA characteristics using a set of criteria similar to those used by McGimpsey and Morgan (2013). Most reports scored well on the generic characteristics expected of any such activity (stating objectives, demonstrating inter-sectoral and inter-organisational connectivity, as well as being integrated with existing policy and planning

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  335 structures, etc.) but the findings indicated weaknesses in core aspects fundamental to good SEA: public participation, impact forecasting, consideration of significance, and mitigation and monitoring. Overall, there was still an emphasis on demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness, but less on reporting the potential effects of the planning proposals. It does still seem that many councils tend to use section 32 reports to justify a course of action, focusing on the accountability aspects. The accountability function encourages a highly reductionist approach, with every separate part of a proposal examined in a mechanical way. Consequently, the section 32 reports are often technical and bureaucratic, intended for a technocratic audience as evidence of accountability; rarely are they produced in a form that can be easily understood by communities and individuals to summarise and communicate the substantive findings of the underlying assessments. However, Morgan and Whitby (2019) did find that a small number of section 32 reports in their study, for regional plans and some national policy proposals came close to meeting SEA criteria. This suggests that with better training, and perhaps greater appreciation of SEA thinking, policy and plan processes under the RMA could meet their SEA potential. One example of the broader analysis of a substantive technical issue in plan-making prior to the section 32 report is the technical analysis of plans that control retail activity in urban environments. This analysis has included examination of the efficacy of focusing retail development in existing urban centres for greater efficiency of land use, and other sustainability outcomes such as walkability, use of public transport, intensive housing and ready access to a range of services (Taylor et al., 2010). Towards Integrated SEA: Land and Water Plans Challenges posed by water resource management have stimulated some interesting thinking about policy and plan assessment, and especially in the area of sustainability appraisal. Building on a sustainability appraisal by Sadler et al. (2008), the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) developed by Environment Canterbury, a regional council, had a strong sustainability framework (Jenkins, 2019), using concepts of nested adaptive cycles (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) and sustainability strategies (Chapin et al., 2009). Of particular note, for the practice of SEA, was the incorporation of a strong collaborative governance approach, following Ostrom’s (1990) work on the management of common pool resources. In particular, the notion of collective choice arrangements informed the design of community engagement in the CWMS, with the establishment of a multi-stakeholder steering group, and the use of facilitated workshops, open meetings and public hearings at various stages during the development of the strategy (Jenkins, 2019). The CWMS was developed to move water resource management in the region to a more clearly sustainable basis, in light of previous over-allocation of water resources and potential future problems due to the effects of climate change. It was an ad hoc process, in that the approach was not prescribed by the RMA or other legislation, although the CWMS developed by the approach was recognised in 2013 in the Canterbury regional policy statement, a requirement of the RMA; similarly, the implementation programmes were incorporated into the regional land and water plans (Jenkins, 2019). So, although sustainability appraisal was not mandated by legislation it was used to facilitate the development of policies and plans that were subsequently given institutional support.

336  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment More widely, there has been a distinct improvement in recent years in the preparation of land and water plans by regional councils. These plans are responding to two triggers under the RMA. The first is simply the need for the councils to update the relevant sections of their regional policy statements with the required section 32 evaluation. The second is a series of increasingly directive national policy statements on freshwater management (in 2011, 2014 and 2017), which have required councils to set limits such as minimum flows and abstraction restrictions on streams and rivers and also limits for key environmental attributes such as the level of nitrogen or E.coli in drinking water and ecosystems. This approach is focused on outcomes such as improved ecological status, and enhanced cultural and recreational uses of waterways alongside extractive uses such as irrigation and industrial water supplies, or the disposal of storm and waste water by settlements and urban areas. Although approaches to plan-making have varied within and between regions, the essence of the approach used by regional councils has been to work closely with affected communities and stakeholders through varying levels of collaborative processes and community input. The resulting, community-led processes have been informed by technical analysis and modelling of options from the status quo policy settings to ones that achieve increasingly strong environmental outcomes. This scenario-based approach requires an integrated strategic assessment, with bio-physical, ecological, economic, social and cultural impact assessments of the different scenarios in order to guide deliberation through the community processes (Taylor and Mackay, 2016). There are three levels of results from this effort. The first result is a set of changes made to existing policies and plans. These have usually been in the form of sub-regional chapters to the plans that are directed at the management of a particular catchment or set of catchments. Each of these plan changes requires a section 32 evaluation to proceed through hearings and decision-making. There is therefore a formal impetus to the assessments that the section 32 reports draw on. The second outcome has been a series of non-statutory “solutions packages” for particular waterways and catchments, including community restoration projects, and guidance to farmers on good farm-management practices in order to build their social licence to operate. These additional components of freshwater management also benefit from the SEA work for their planning, implementation and evaluation. Thirdly, regional councils are also responsible for ongoing environmental monitoring that again requires impact assessment techniques and analysis, adaptive management and, potentially, further changes to the applicable policy and plans. The challenge facing New Zealand is to use examples such as the CWMS process to encourage regional and local authorities to adopt similar approaches in their own policy and plan development. To this end, Ward et al. (2019) developed a strategic assessment tool which they call Integrated Assessment. The approach modified and refined that developed for the CWMS and was used in relation to the Christchurch earthquake recovery processes and related planning such as the Port of Lyttelton Recovery Plan, following the 2010/11 earthquakes. At the heart of this assessment tool are four sets of bespoke criteria identified by the assessment team, covering cultural, social, environmental and economic matters (Ward et al., 2019, p. 1). These criteria are then examined in a workshop comprising 30–40 stakeholder and community representatives who have an understanding of one or more of the four sets of criteria, supported by technical professionals and workshop facilitators. The community representatives must reflect local cultural and social diversity, and where possible include groups who are often overlooked in such processes. The representatives address the completeness and

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  337 clarity of the criteria, before looking at top and bottom line positions. “The bottom line position is the agreed safe minimum for resource use or minimum achievement level for a service. The top line position is an aspirational or desirable upper limit” (Ward et al., 2019, p. iv). In a second workshop the representative groups then apply the criteria to the draft proposal. The workshop produces detailed comments to help the planning team developing the proposal, focusing on aspects that scored low on certain criteria and therefore might suggest areas of improvement. The other main output is a set of simple graphs that show the top and bottom line positions on each criterion, which provides an easy way to highlight how options differ, and a basis for further discussion and possible changes (Ward et al., 2019). This approach has much in common with the EIA-style of SEA (i.e. the assessment being applied to a draft proposal, rather than being embedded in the policy or plan making process itself). Assessing the likely impact of a proposal on a set of criteria does not in itself constitute an impact assessment of the proposal, which would usually involve more structured investigation of impact pathways, including indirect, cross-sectoral and cumulative impacts. However, this Integrated Assessment methodology has usefully fostered a collaborative and participatory approach to the development of several plans, policies and strategies in New Zealand and Australia at a local and regional level. With a background in sustainability assessment and with elements of SEA, the approach could provide a useful way to communicate the purpose and value of strategic assessment to a wider audience within New Zealand.

REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT At the level of national policy-making, a form of SEA can be discerned in the regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) used at Cabinet level by the New Zealand Government since the 1990s. As with other countries, the initial impetus was to protect businesses from unnecessary proliferation of regulations, but by 2007 the RIA had taken on a wider scope, to include consideration of environmental and social aspects along with economic costs and benefits. However, in 2009, with a change in government from centre-left to centre-right in political orientation, administration of the RIA process was moved from the Ministry for Economic Development to the Treasury. Perhaps linked to the global financial crisis of the previous year, the emphasis of the RIAs was on narrow regulatory and economic imperatives, in marked contrast with the evolution of RIA in the European Commission into the much broader Integrated Assessment (Morgan and Gerry, 2014; see also Chapter 5 by Marot et al., 2021). Although Treasury guidance documents for the RIA process refer to environmental and social impacts of proposals, in practice they have focused on economic and regulatory issues. Morgan and Gerry (2014) examined 60 RIAs produced in New Zealand between 2009 and 2013 for proposals that had potential social and environmental implications. The study found problems with the basic process in most cases when compared with good impact assessment principles (little or no scoping; weak impact identification; emphasis on economic impacts, lack of environmental or social impacts; a focus on direct impacts only; little or no consideration of monitoring, etc.). The current expectation is that regulatory proposals will include an RIA. Agencies are expected to test the scope of their impact assessments with Treasury early in the policy development cycle. Updated guidelines released in 2017 suggest that the purpose of the assessment is more transparent and robust policy-making. The RIA is now expected to include consulta-

338  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment tion with stakeholders, a balanced analysis of impacts and independent quality assurance, using a template that includes analysis of the status quo and all options considered, consultation with “affected parties” (including other agencies) and plans for monitoring, evaluation and review. In support of their guidance on RIA, the Treasury have developed a Living Standards Framework (LSF). They consider the LSF to be “a flexible framework that prompts our thinking about policy impacts across the different dimensions of wellbeing, as well as the long-term and distributional issues and implications”.1 The LSF framework includes the four capital stocks that support well-being: natural, social, human, financial and physical. They have also developed a set of indicators over 12 domains in a “dashboard” for practical application, including the analysis of distributional impacts across and between generations. In this way, the Treasury have provided a possible framework for undertaking integrated RIAs in the future. Overall, RIA has potential for enhanced SEA of national policy and regulatory proposals at Cabinet level, given this significant re-think of the model promoted and supported by the Treasury. While there is still concern at the national level for risk assessment and cost–benefit analysis, the new emphasis on the LSF signals a shift in approach. Recent examples of national policy initiatives that have required an integrated RIA under the new framework include the proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity and the revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (part of a broader policy package for the environmental management of freshwater). Both these policy developments will, in turn, require enhanced assessment of regional and local policies and plans as they variously respond to the new national directions.

SEA AND LAND TRANSPORT PLANNING While the RMA is the main pillar of environmental management in New Zealand, it is not the only means for protecting environmental values. There has been a trend in New Zealand since the 1990s for legislation “to place general obligations on decision-makers to consider environmental impacts within policy and plan development” (Wilson and Ward, 2011, p. 64), the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 being two examples. In terms of national influence, and the potential to benefit from SEA, land transport planning is particularly important. The Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) dealt mainly with safety, licensing, and rules governing land transport nationally, but also required regional councils to produce regional land transport strategies (RLTS). These were to identify future transport needs in a region and set out a strategy for responding to those needs with a mix of transport types “[h]aving regard to the effect the transport system is likely to have on the environment” (LTA 1998, 175(2)(b)). In 2003 the LTA was amended and the RLTS took on greater importance. Regional councils were now required to incorporate sustainability principles into their land transport strategies, and, among other things, to avoid adverse impact on the environment, examine reasonable transport options, and provide for public participation, so “[m]irroring SEA principles” (Wilson and Ward, 2011, p. 65). Ward, Wilson and Sadler (2005) examined the land transport 1 See https://​treasury​.govt​.nz/​information​-and​-services/​nz​-economy/​higher​-living​-standards/​our​ -living​-standards​-framework.

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  339 strategies from three regions of New Zealand, which had been prepared prior to the 2003 amendment, to identify how SEA principles and methods could be incorporated into the new RLTS processes to improve the strategies. A further study of regional transport planning processes in New Zealand, in 2008, examined the degree to which essential SEA principles were embedded in practice (McGimpsey and Morgan, 2013). Those planning processes included not only the RLTS but also linked processes under Acts such as the RMA and the Local Government Act 2002. The main planning approaches employed in regional land transport planning were evaluated with reference to 32 criteria of SEA good practice from the research literature. The study concluded that although the evaluation found that the existing framework contained many SEA elements, the low quality of some key elements and the lack of structure and coherence meant that, overall, the existing framework could not be regarded as being equivalent to SEA (McGimpsey and Morgan, 2013). Many of the weaknesses identified were similar to those highlighted in Ward, Wilson and Sadler (2005), involving, among others, scoping, environmental analyses, public participation and monitoring. This suggests there had not been any real uptake of SEA thinking since the 2003 changes to the LTA. Significant changes to land transport planning took place in 2008 with the establishment of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to provide a single national agency to plan and manage all aspects of national land transport, including planning and funding state highway development. The legal requirement for land transport strategies, both national and regional, was moved to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) which had as its purpose the provision of an integrated approach to land transport funding and management, and improved social and environmental responsibility in land transport funding, planning and management. These changes supported the development of a policy and plan process that would come closer to delivering SEA outcomes, albeit from within the established procedures. However, in 2013, amendments to the LTMA seemed to undo those positive changes. The purpose of the Act was reduced to contributing to “an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest” (LTMA 2003, s3). The only reference in the Act to social and environmental considerations is that NZTA must exhibit “a sense of social and environmental responsibility” in its activities (LTMA 2003, s96(1)(a)). The 2013 amendments also simplified the planning process. National and regional land transport strategies were abolished, and regional land transport plans (RLTP) became the main planning vehicle at the regional level consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, and feeding into the national plan. Although the 2013 changes to the LTMA seemed to weaken the prospect of utilising SEA in land transport planning processes, in fact NZTA as an agency has retained on its website the environmental and social principles that marked the pre-2013 LTMA, and has developed tools that suggest it has adopted SEA-style approaches in its own decision-making processes. For example, it has introduced a screening process to inform the consideration of project options at the Business Case stage (23 questions across six categories: general; natural environment; cultural and historic heritage; human health; social; urban and landscape design), which also helps identify where more detailed assessments will be needed later. Regional land transport plans, on the other hand, generally follow more traditional approaches (see also Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). Although environmental sustainability features in most plans, it is usually from the perspective of recognising natural hazards to transport networks, and the effects of transport emissions on local air quality and climate change. Social aspects tend to include issues such as access to transport, effects of

340  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment network disruption, and health considerations. Although the regional councils use consultation, especially with stakeholders, when developing the plans, there is little sense of more collaborative involvement of local communities, unlike the examples discussed above for water and land plans; nor is there evidence in the plans of more rigorous analysis of the wider implications of transport options, and recognition of distributional and cumulative impacts of those options. Interestingly, the draft Government Policy Statement for the period starting 2021 is based on a framework of five broad transport outcomes: environmental sustainability is one and is summarised as: “Transitioning to net zero carbon emissions, and maintaining or improving biodiversity, water quality, and air quality”. Climate change is one of the four strategic priorities in this draft, a signal that this will be a dominant aspect of any environmental sustainability considerations. The positive attitude of NZTA, together with the simpler planning framework, and the prospect of a Government Policy Statement with more explicit environmental sustainability aims, suggests that New Zealand’s land transport planning processes could at last be fertile ground for SEA development. However, unless there is more formal recognition of SEA principles and practice, and a programme of capacity building, that opportunity may not be taken up.

SEA AND NON-STATUTORY PROCESSES Other kinds of environmental and social reporting processes occur in New Zealand, which can be very similar in their processes and outcomes to SEA. The two main examples are outlined here: first, the reporting function of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE); second, Royal Commissions. The position of PCE was established in 1986, when the New Zealand environmental administration was radically overhauled. Modelled on the Scandinavian ombudsman role, the PCE has a mandate to report on environmental management issues and is accountable to Parliament, not the Government of the day. Over the last three decades, the office of the PCE has undertaken a number of investigations into key policy areas and considered the environmental implications of possible future pathways (Table 21.1). These are not overtly based on an SEA model, but often follow similar structure and process in examining a policy, and achieve similar outcomes. Royal Commissions are a form of public inquiry, appointed by and reporting to the Governor-General, with the report being tabled in Parliament. Twenty Royal Commissions have sat in New Zealand since 1900, with six since 2000. In recent decades, the Commissions have tended to report on important social issues, and also civil or natural disasters. Two significant inquiries have been the Royal Commission on Social Policy (1986–88), which had direct relevance for the development of social impact assessment at the policy level in New Zealand, and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which reported in 2001 (Box 21.1).

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  341 Table 21.1

A selection of environmental reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

Title

Date

Evaluating the environmental impacts

2012

Comments Hydraulic fracturing was still new to New Zealand ten years ago. Given

of fracking in New Zealand: An interim

controversy overseas, the PCE examined the evidence of environmental

report.

problems resulting from its use. Risks can be managed, especially with tighter regulation, but fracking is still to earn its social licence from the New Zealand public.

Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators,

2011

poisons and silent forests.

1080 poison is widely used by the Department of Conservation to control introduced predators, but is opposed by many recreational hunters due to by-kill. This report broadly supported the use of 1080 compared with other options, on environmental grounds

Some biofuels are better than others:

2010

Thinking strategically about biofuels.

New Zealand should only produce biofuels that benefit the environment, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions; they should be wood based, and produce biodiesel rather than ethanol.

Wind power, people, and place.

2006

Options for wind power development should contribute to New Zealand environmental and social sustainability. Landscape impacts in particular can be managed by regional councils with better procedures.

Growing for good: Intensive farming,

2004

protections do not seem adequate to cope with these effects.

environment. Just cruising? Environmental effects of cruise ships.

Intensive agriculture, in particular, has effects on the environment, especially fresh water. New Zealand’s natural capital is being affected, and existing

sustainability and New Zealand's 2003

No significant environmental effects were identified, but the potential does exist, so recommendations were made to improve management, especially by regional councils.

Note: All reports available on the PCE website: https://​www​.pce​.parliament​.nz/​publications.

BOX 21.1 ROYAL COMMISSION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION The inquiry was set up to investigate and report on the strategic options for New Zealand to address genetic modification (GM) and to recommend changes to existing legislative, regulatory, policy, or institutional arrangements for managing GM and related matters. The Commission considered all aspects of GM: from cultural, ethical and spiritual matters, to environment and health, and social and economic. Effects on the environment, but also on food, agriculture and medicine, were investigated. Its investigation involved scoping meetings; background papers from experts; a public opinion survey; 15 public meetings throughout New Zealand; a Māori consultation programme involving 28 workshops and 12 hui; a Youth Forum; a public submission process (resulting in more than 10,000 written submissions); and formal hearings lasting 13 weeks and involving approximately 400 witnesses (Royal Commission on Genetic Modofication, 2001). Their major conclusion was: … that New Zealand should keep its options open. It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimising and managing risks. At the same time, continuation of the development of conventional farming, organics and integrated pest management should be facilitated. (p. 2)

342  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO), administered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, remains the main regulatory framework for managing GM, including GMOs. Following the Royal Commission, the moratorium on release of genetically modified organisms into the environment continued. Somewhat ironically, decisions on the proposed release of GMOs were subsequently moved to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) when it absorbed ERMA in 2011. This was considered to be unsatisfactory by many environmental groups and organic food producers, who were concerned about risks to exporting high-end food products marketed as GE free. As a result, these groups have led a campaign to have bans on trials or release of GMOs inserted into district and regional council plans, in effect comprising ad hoc SEAs. The council decisions to add such provisions have been upheld by the Environment Court and High Court, despite challenges arguing that GMOs are governed by other legislation. A key argument here is that local communities and districts should have the power to direct what happens in their local environments. While Royal Commissions can provide a mechanism for examining the social and/or environmental implications of policy choices at a strategic level in great depth, they are usually reserved for highly contentious topics and occur intermittently, so cannot be seen as a routine pathway to SEA-style treatment of government policy.

STATUS OF SEA IN NZ: MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, FUTURE PROSPECTS Given confusion about the mandate for SEA under the RMA, it is ironic that an opportunity to practise SEA existed between 2002 and 2010 but was largely overlooked by local governments. Under the Local Government Act 2002, one of the two key purposes of local government was to promote “the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of communities, in the present and future” (LGA 2002, s10(b)). The Act required councils to consider the likely impacts on each of the four well-beings when making decisions. This opened the door to SEA-type analyses of proposed policies and plans, but again at best produced ad hoc considerations based on narrow planning practice, not well-grounded approaches based on SEA theory and principles. In 2010, the National (centre-right) government amended the Act and removed the reference to the four well-beings, and the need to consider the impacts of council decisions on those aspects, closing the door on that pathway of SEA development. Then, in 2019, as the political wheel turned again, the Labour–NZ First coalition government reinstated the previous definition of local government, including the four well-beings and the requirement that councils consider the impacts on them of their decisions. The door has been opened again, and the question is how to encourage councils to recognise the opportunity that SEA provides to carry out those functions efficiently and effectively across a number of planning functions, including their long-term plans which guide decisions such as investments in community assets, including public transport, water infrastructure and waste disposal. This may be an opening that the Integrated Assessment tool (Ward et al., 2019) can take advantage of. New Zealand missed another opportunity to institutionalise SEA when the government of the day introduced the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act). The Act introduced a sustainable management regime for

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  343 natural resource development in the marine environment of the EEZ, including a requirement to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. To that end the Act requires proponents to produce an impact assessment as part of the resource consent process, and made the Environmental Protection Authority the administering agency (as noted earlier the EPA has since also taken on other functions, including administration of the HSNO Act). However, despite the fact that many submitters on the EEZ Bill recommended that SEA should be a necessary step in the process, the Act lacks any mechanisms for the strategic-level assessment of resource development options. This means there is no way to signal to potential developers (such as sea-bed mining companies) where the marine environment is too sensitive to develop. A proposal to mine phosphate from the seabed of the Chatham Rise, off the east coast of South Island, was eventually refused consents by the EPA because the Rise is of high ecological importance, although the company had invested millions of dollars preparing the proposal. Some form of strategic assessment would almost certainly have helped avoid this negative situation. With climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies to the fore in national thinking in recent years, New Zealand amended its Climate Change Response Act in 2019 to … provide a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies that— i. contribute to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels; and ii. allow New Zealand to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. (Climate Change Response Act 2002, s3(1)(aa))

The legislation established a Climate Change Commission with two main functions. The first is to advise the government on mitigating climate change and on climate change adaptation strategies, and second to monitor government progress on emissions reduction and adaptation goals. With respect to adaptation, the Commission will have responsibility for preparing a national climate change risk assessment, which will inform the development by the Climate Change Minister of a national adaptation plan. The Commission then has responsibility to report on implementation of that plan. The processes introduced by the changes to the Act refer to effects and impacts in a number of contexts, but overall there is no recognition that impact assessment, and SEA in particular, have a role to play in those processes. For example, the Act (section 5M) specifies that in carrying out its functions and duties the Climate Change Commission must consider, among other things, and where relevant, economic, social, cultural, environmental, and ecological circumstances; differences between sectors and regions; the distribution of benefits, costs, and risks between generations; and the Crown–Māori relationship. It is notable that economic effects are placed ahead of social, cultural, environmental, and ecological circumstances (and that environment and ecology seem to be separate concepts!), and specific effects on Māori are referenced, but not those on non-Māori communities. In relation to emissions budgets, the Commission and Minister must have particular regard to: “the principal risks and uncertainties associated with emissions reductions and removals” but only regard to “the likely impact of actions taken to achieve an emissions budget and the 2050 target, including on the ability to adapt to climate change” (section 5ZC(2)). Reflecting the risk-based approach underpinning the Act, risks are seen to be of greater import than impacts of the actions to reduce emissions. Impacts are mentioned, but well down

344  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment a list of ten items, and it is not clear whether the intention is to focus on economic impacts, as signalled elsewhere in the legislation, or to include cultural, social and environmental impacts; the latter are not listed explicitly as they are in other parts of the Act. The impression that economic impacts are the central concern is reinforced by a requirement that the emissions reduction plan to be prepared by the Minister must include: “… a strategy to mitigate the impacts that reducing emissions and increasing removals will have on employees and employers, regions, iwi and Māori, and wider communities, including the funding for any mitigation action; …” (Climate Change Response Act 2002, s5ZG(3)(c)). This implies there will need to be some form of strategic assessment, but given the language of the Act it is likely to be an economic assessment, tempered by concerns for the ability of local communities to maintain their economic viability in the face of changes to existing industrial or resource activities, including land-use change. The risk assessment language flows into national adaptation planning. The national adaptation plan has to address the risks identified in the national risk assessment, and in its preparation the Minister must take into account “the economic, social, health, environmental, ecological, and cultural effects of climate change, including effects on iwi and Māori” and “the distribution of the effects of climate change across society, taking particular account of vulnerable groups or sectors” (section 5ZS(4)). But there is no explicit requirement for the Minister to take account of the potential impacts of the plan itself on people, communities or the environment. Risk assessment certainly makes sense in the context of recognising the differential geographical and social effects of climate change across the country and identifying priorities for adaptation planning. However, the emphasis on addressing risks in adaptation planning is likely to promote the search for cost-effective responses to specific physical impacts (e.g. inundation). It does not encourage more integrated, strategic thinking about possible adaptation responses to the effects of climate change, and in particular does not lead to exploring the wider implications of those responses for people, communities and the natural environment. Not only does the Act fail to recognise impact assessment methods, especially SEA, in the new processes, but the language of the Act and the emphasis on a risk-based approach could act as barriers to the use of SEA in response to climate change.

DISCUSSION In this section, we make some observations on where New Zealand sits with respect to SEA theory and international practice. SEA literature recognises a spectrum of forms from the rationalist EIA-style SEA through to deliberative, participatory forms, involving open dialogue about proposals in the context of environmental and sustainability objectives, and promoting social and organisational learning (Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Lobos and Partidário, 2014; Sadler, 2016). Owens et al. (2004) note that in practice all forms of policy appraisal, including SEA, tend to have elements from both ends of the spectrum, in varying levels of importance, but the spectrum is a useful way to characterise the main forms of SEA for our purpose. In New Zealand, the RMA 1991 went a long way towards instituting the integrated system of assessment and decision making that Tetlow and Hanusch (2012) believe is the basis for effective SEA. Moreover, the system is similar to that proposed for Canada by Noble (2021) in Chapter 19 of this book, with the principles of environmental protection and sustainable

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  345 management intrinsic to RMA processes at all levels of decision-making from national to regional and then local. However, with the introduction of an effects-based approach to environmental management, planners no longer produced directive spatial or sectoral plans that could be subject to formal SEA, as found in other jurisdictions. Additionally, there was no clear mandate for a specific SEA step in policy- and plan-making under the RMA. The result, noted earlier, is an “informal and loose style of SEA” (Dixon, 2005, p. 159) that in theory sits towards the participatory end of the SEA spectrum. The problem is that the majority of policyand plan-makers do not recognise the SEA dimension of the processes created. Perhaps, as a consequence, practice often lacks some of the key components of SEA, such as public participation in scoping, and an assessment of the wider impacts of policy and planning options. Institutionalised SEA, such as practised in the EU under the SEA Directive, generally leans towards the EIA-style, with clear requirements for information provision and with decision-making oriented to the use of that information. The main institutional instrument for SEA in New Zealand, the section 32 evaluation reports, fits with this picture, especially as the reports are almost always produced at the end of the decision process, to account for the way a decision had been reached. Consequently, they usually focus on how the needs of the situation were assessed and options generated and then analysed, with an emphasis on the quantitative analysis of costs and benefits. Whilst they are made public, the reports generated are technical in nature and not written for public consumption; they do not have the form or character of SEA reports produced in other jurisdictions. In particular, many emphasise the accountability function at the expense of the substantive assessment of the non-economic costs and benefits. By way of contrast, the various ad hoc processes discussed here, such as those developed for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and subsequent collaborative planning processes, show many of the features of the deliberative, participatory form of SEA, especially with their emphasis on bringing sustainability principles into the generation and evaluation of options, and open dialogue between implementers, affected groups and decision-makers, as suggested by Lobos and Partidário (2014). The devolved nature of resource and environmental management in New Zealand means SEA practices can vary significantly between authorities using them. Land and water plans have seen some of the most innovative thinking in recent years, with the use of participatory processes, modelling and scenario methods, to examine what will happen under existing plans, suggest changes and shape new plans, within a strong environmental and sustainability context. This information has then informed subsequent section 32 reports, improving their substantive content. While the outputs may still have problems, the outcomes of the plan-making process have been much improved in terms of their involvement of stakeholders and impetus towards greater sustainability. These experiences suggest that, with support for improved practice, improved SEA processes can develop around institutionalised processes that otherwise have not performed well. These institutionalised processes often suffer from the three generic problems identified in Sadler and Dusík (2016): poor or inconsistent compliance, unsatisfactory quality, and shortcomings in reports that limit their utility for decision-makers. Improved SEA performance in New Zealand, for institutionalised and ad hoc approaches, relies heavily on a limited number of SEA champions in regional and local authorities, and the practitioner community. New Zealand lacks central government recognition of the need for, and value of SEA in strategic decision processes and new or amended environmental legislation and regulation. There seems

346  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment to be a well-entrenched commitment to the use of risk assessment as the primary analytical process for informing developments and the selection of mitigation and adaptation measures. This perspective is rooted in the protection of national and regional assets, especially infrastructure, which has obvious economic implications for government. It is a perspective reinforced by technical advice from scientists who are more comfortable, and familiar with, risk assessment than assessment of the potential consequences of policies and plans on society and the natural environment. The need to think about implications of potential courses of action in a systematic way is a major challenge.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter we have discussed a variety of processes that can be considered as forms of SEA, although the personnel involved in the processes may well be unaware of SEA as a concept. These various examples show that environmental, social and sustainability considerations are often included in discussions and decision-making processes—both statutory and non-statutory, at policy and plan level—but those processes are essentially ad hoc in nature, with no common, coherent framework of SEA-type principles to guide those considerations. Without such a framework, there is little opportunity to transfer experiences and learning between the practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders in those various settings. Moreover, without a generic label, practitioners will not look for assistance from elsewhere. If the section 32 report, for example, was seen as a particular form of SEA, practitioners would be more inclined to look at practices and experiences in other countries, including Australia (see also Chapter 18 by Burdett and Cameron, 2021) and the Pacific Islands, consult literature on SEA and promote improvements in practice. In building a regional community of practice it is very relevant that the Pacific island nations are actively developing SEA practice and guidelines, in response to development generally but also the challenges posed by climate change. New Zealand has missed opportunities in the past to develop SEA processes, but there will be opportunities in the future: climate change emission reduction and adaptation processes are obvious candidates. At the time of writing, plans being prepared to drive economic recovery from the Covid-19 crisis are another possibility. All will involve major strategic decisions that have significant ramifications for the natural environment, people, communities, and the social, cultural and economic fabric of the nation. The challenge facing the small SEA community in New Zealand is to demonstrate the value of this evidence-based, deliberative, participatory process to ensure environmental and sustainability thinking is embedded in strategy development and appraisal in coming years. It will require more champions, lobbying and capacity building, and the development of a coherent generic model, to provide a unifying framework of theory and principles.

Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand  347

REFERENCES Burdett, T. and Cameron, C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 18). Chapin, F.S., Kofinas, G. and Folke, C. (eds) 2009. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World. New York: Springer. Dixon, J. 2002. All at SEA? Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand, in: S. Marsden and S. Dovers (eds), Strategic Environmental Assessment in Australasia, Sydney: The Federation Press. Dixon, J. 2005. New Zealand, in: C. Jones, M. Baker, J. Carter, S. Jay, M. Short and C. Wood (eds), Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning, pp. 158–73, London: Earthscan. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fookes, T. 2000. Environmental assessment under the Resource Management Act 1991, in: P.A. Memon and H.C. Perkins (eds), Environmental Management and Planning in New Zealand, Wellington: Dunmore Press. Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington, DC: Island Press. Jackson, T. and Dixon, J. 2006. Applying strategic environmental assessment to land-use and resource-management plans in Scotland and New Zealand: a comparison. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(2): 89–101. Jenkins, B. 2019. Changing water management practice in Canterbury to address sustainability limits. Policy Quarterly, 15: 29–36. Lobos, V. and Partidário, M. 2014. Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48: 34–46. Marot, N., Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Golobič, M., Muthoora, T. and González, A. 2021. Territorial impact assessment: a policy assessment-like strategic environmental assessment in action, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 5). McGimpsey, P. and Morgan, R.K. 2013. The application of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: Regional transport planning in New Zealand. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43: 56–64. Memon, P.A. 2005. SEA of plan objectives and policies to promote sustainability in New Zealand, in: M. Schmidt, E. João and E. Albrecht (eds), Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment, pp. 269–87, Berlin: Springer. MfE [Ministry for the Environment] 2017. A Guide to Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991. https://​www​.mfe​.govt​.nz/​sites/​default/​files/​media/​RMA/​guide​-to​-section​-32​-of​-resource​ -manangemnt​-amendment​-act​-1991​.pdf. Morgan, R.K. and Gerry, J. 2014. Regulatory impact assessment in New Zealand. Paper presented at the 34th annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Viña del Mar, Chile. Morgan, R.K. and Whitby, C. 2019. SEA in New Zealand: do s32 reports pass the test? Poster paper presented at the 37th annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Brisbane, Australia. Noble, B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Canada, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 19). Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Owens, S., Rayner, T and Bina, O. 2004. New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environment and Planning A, 36: 1943–59.

348  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) 2011. Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. https://​www​.pce​.parliament​.nz/​media/​1294/​evaluating​-the​-use​-of​-1080​.pdf. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany, in: T.B. Fischer and A. González (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2). Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 2001. Report. https://​ www​ .mfe​ .govt​ .nz/​ publications/​ hazards/​report​-royal​-commission​-genetic​-modification. Sadler, B. 2001. Environmental impact assessment: An international perspective with comparisons to New Zealand experience, in: J. Lumsden (ed.), Assessment of Environmental Effects: Information, Evaluation and Outcomes, pp. 1–47, Christchurch: Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury. Sadler, B. 2016. SEA effectiveness in a no-analogue world, in: B. Sadler and J. Dusík (eds), European and International Experiences with Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, pp. 17–54, Abingdon: Routledge. Sadler, B. and Dusik, J. (eds) 2016. European and International Experiences with Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future Prospects, Abingdon: Routledge. Sadler, B., Ward, M. and Frame, R. 2008. A framework for sustainability appraisal in New Zealand, Landcare Research Contract Report: LC 0708/090, Landcare Research, Lincoln. Taylor, C.N. and Mackay, M. 2016. Practice issues for integrating strategic social assessment into the setting of environmental limits: Insights from Canterbury, New Zealand. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34: 110–16. Taylor, C.N., Baines, J. and Perkins, H. 2010. Strategic SIA for urban retail developments. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Geneva, 8–11 April. Tetlow, M.F. and Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30: 15–24. Ward, M., Dalziel, A. and Wilkie, R. 2005. SEA experience and opportunities in New Zealand, in: B. Sadler (ed.), Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Policy Level: Recent Progress, Current Status and Future Prospects, pp. 76–87, Prague: Regional Environment Centre (REC) for Central and Eastern Europe. Ward, M., Quigley, R., Banwell, K. and Timms, S. 2019. Integrated assessment: A guide. https://​www​ .cph​.co​.nz/​wp​-content/​uploads/​IntegratedAssessmentGuide​.pdf. Ward, M., Wilson J. and Sadler, B. 2005. Application of strategic environmental assessment to regional land transport strategies. Land Transport New Zealand Research Report 275. https://​www​ .nzta​.govt​.nz/​assets/​resources/​research/​reports/​275/​docs/​275​-Application​-of​-strategic​-environmental​ -assessment​-to​-regional​-land​-transport​-strategies​.pdf. Wilson, J. and Ward, M. 2011. SEA in New Zealand, in: B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusík, T. Fischer, M.R. Partidário and R. Verheem (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, pp. 59–73, London: Earthscan.

22. Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa: ‘The Road Not Taken’ Francois P. Retief, Carli Steenkamp and Reece C. Alberts

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN The journey of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in South Africa is not typical and is reminiscent of the famous poem by Robert Frost (1916) entitled ‘The Road Not Taken’. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; … I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I– I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Similar to the traveller described in the poem, South Africa has pondered the ‘road’ to be taken for SEA since the mid-1990s. The typical ‘road’ for SEA internationally has been for countries to follow a brief period of voluntary practice with the introduction of formal SEA legislation. However, South Africa has chosen a different road or “… the one less traveled” by achieving more than two decades of voluntary SEA practice with still no formal SEA legislation in sight. The failure to legislate SEA has meant a less certain and/or prescribed ‘road’ but has also provided opportunity for more flexibility and innovation in its application, which has arguably “… made all the difference”. To contextualise the ‘road’ chosen, some understanding is required of the South African context, as SEA systems typically develop within specific contexts, shaping the local SEA understanding and practice. South Africa is well known for its exceptional natural beauty and cultural diversity and is sometimes fittingly referred to as a ‘world in one country’ and ‘the rainbow nation’. As the third most biologically diverse country in the world it has a proud history of conservation and biodiversity management, but it is also known for its turbulent political past tainted by inequality and social injustice. Therefore, the local imperative to achieve both high rates of economic development and conserve its rich and unique biodiversity is extreme. All this culminates in an exceedingly challenging decision-making context for environmental assessment in general and SEA in particular (Bond et al., 2016; Retief et al., 2013). Moreover, the so-called global megatrends shaping international environmental assessment thinking (such as climate change, urbanisation, demographic change, technological innovation and resource scarcity) are all highly relevant and applicable to the South African context (Retief et al., 2016). 349

350  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment With regard to environmental assessment, South Africa has a long and proud history with voluntary project-level Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) dating back to the 1970s (Kidd et al., 2018: 973). However, EIA was only formally legislated in 1997 and has since gone through numerous and extensive legal revisions (in 2006, 2010 and 2014). With over 4,000 EIAs conducted annually, the South African EIA system can be considered mature and well established, even when compared with developed country systems (Kidd et al., 2018; Lee and George, 2000; Retief, 2010; Retief et al., 2011; Wood, 2003). Furthermore, the EIA profession is particularly active as reflected by the over 1,000 members registered with the local South African chapter of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), and the recent establishment of a professional assessment registration authority, that is, the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPASA) which is the first compulsory register of its kind internationally. However, notwithstanding the formalisation and progression of the EIA system in terms of legislation and practice, SEA has followed a parallel but different evolutionary path. Thinking around the introduction of SEA in South Africa was first introduced in the form of discussion documents in the mid-1990s, which led to four national SEA guidelines (CSIR, 1996; DEAT, 2000, 2004, 2007). However, the theory and practice of SEA has not translated into formal SEA legislation, and therefore SEA is still conducted on a voluntary basis to this day. Owing to the voluntary nature of SEA, its substantive purpose is not agreed and tends to vary depending on the particular context in which it is applied. The most common broadly defined reasons for conducting SEA has been to promote the integration of sustainability in strategic-level decision-making and strengthening of project-level EIA. South Africa therefore provides an ideal opportunity to reflect on different applications and understandings of SEA in a developing country with a mature voluntary SEA system. Moreover, as already alluded to, by not being legally straightjacketed, the voluntary nature of SEA has produced a high level of diversity in SEA practice. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to update and refresh our understanding of SEA in the South African context by reflecting on the SEA system characteristics, extent of practice and effectiveness. The next section deals with the South African SEA system characteristics and extent of SEA practice (i.e. enabling provisions, lead agents, number of SEAs, tiers and scales). The section updates the only previous survey conducted on the status and extent of SEA practice in South Africa by Retief et al. (2007) for the period 1996–2003. This update relies on a literature review and a follow-up survey of relevant stakeholders. The latter section is then followed by a discussion on the effectiveness of SEA, building on the original effectiveness research by Retief (2007a) and Retief et al. (2008) and more recently by Cape et al. (2018) and Fischer et al. (2020; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021; and Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021). The effectiveness discussion is framed around generally accepted effectiveness ‘elements’, namely procedural and substantive, as well as pluralism as an ‘influencing factor’ (see, for example, Bond et al., 2013; Pope et al., 2018; Retief, 2007b; Sadler and Verheem, 1996). The chapter concludes with a view to the future of SEA in South Africa.

SEA SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND EXTENT OF PRACTICE In order to provide a baseline overview of the status and extent of the South African SEA system, this section describes enabling factors and conditions that facilitate the initiation of voluntary SEA and also identifies those lead agents responsible for implementing voluntary

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  351 SEA. Based on the outcome of the updated 2019 survey, the number, tiers and scales of SEA are also presented. Enabling Provisions and Lead Agents SEA practice in South Africa generally seems to question the notion held in the literature (e.g. Buckley, 2000; Wood, 2003) that SEA would only happen if introduced through explicit SEA legislation. It seems that voluntary SEA practice can also be facilitated through implicit legislative provisions, policies, environmental management systems (EMS) and corporate environmental responsibility. Examples of sectoral enabling provisions and facilitating factors for voluntary SEA practice in South Africa are summarised in Table 22.1. Table 22.1

Examples of enabling provisions for voluntary SEA practice

Sector

Enabling provisions for voluntary SEA practice

Conservation

National Environmental Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) allows for the formulation of a national

and biodiversity

biodiversity framework, bioregional plans and a biodiversity management plan. The Act also states that

management

these plans should be aligned with the planning system and related strategic and land use plans. SEA could thus be used as a potential environmental tool to inform these plans.

Land use planning

Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) requires that provincial and municipal strategic spatial plans should reflect a strategic assessment of environmental implications.

Water management

The requirements of the National Water Act (NWA) originally prompted the relevant national department to develop SEA as a decision support tool for the management of water uses in catchments. Draft SEA guidance has been developed and the intention is that SEA should inform the National Water Resource Strategy and be applied widely to inform Catchment Management Strategies.

Industrial sector

A combination of corporate environmental and social responsibility and the need to ensure legal compliance to environmental legislation led to the ad hoc application of SEA to strategic-level decision-making in the industrial sector.

Transport sector

Road Infrastructure Strategic Framework for South Africa, prepared by the national department responsible for transport, indicates that SEA should be developed as a tool to assist with incorporating environmental concerns into road planning and management processes.

Port development

National Commercial Ports Policy recommends that SEA should be used for the proactive integration of environmental issues with social and economic issues at the policy and planning level. Moreover, it states that SEA should ensure close alignment with development planning processes.

Energy sector

The national electricity utility – Eskom’s Integrated Strategic Electricity Planning (ISEP) process – forms part of its environmental management system and applies an SEA approach to integrate environmental issues on a continuous basis.

Mining sector

Similar to the industrial sector, a combination of corporate environmental and social responsibility and the need to ensure legal compliance to environmental legislation led to the ad hoc application of SEA to strategic-level decision-making in the mining sector.

Source: Retief et al. (2007) updated.

Explaining the existence of voluntary SEA practice (see also Chapter 23 by Montaño et al., 2021) requires an understanding of those key stakeholders responsible for initiating, conducting and implementing SEA, amidst the lack of formal institutional arrangements. In most cases, SEA involves a lead agent responsible for managing the SEA and a consultancy to conduct the SEA, with few SEAs conducted exclusively ‘in house’ by government. The lead agent usually takes responsibility to formalise the institutional context within which the SEA would be conducted and implemented. Figure 22.1 provides a breakdown of the different lead

352  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment agents responsible for the implementation of SEAs between 1996 and 2018. It shows that provincial environmental departments acted as lead agents for the majority of SEAs (35%) followed by national governments (23%). The national department responsible for water management has over the years tailored SEA for the water management sector, but these initiatives have waned over the past decade amidst incompetence and debilitating corruption within the President Zuma administration. However, in recent years, the national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has managed to take the lead in successfully initiating and implementing a number of high-profile energy-related SEAs (see, for example, Fischer, 2018). These SEAs were managed ‘in house’ and conducted with the assistance of external specialist inputs (mainly from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research – CSIR). All nine of the provincial environmental departments have been involved with SEA practice in their region. However, in the provinces, the human resources for SEA largely rely on the extension of existing EIA responsibilities of personnel to include SEA on an ad hoc basis.

Figure 22.1

Lead agents for the implementation of SEAs in South Africa, 1996–2018

Note: n = 65.

Various local, metropolitan and district municipalities have been involved with SEA during the first decade of practice, especially those located in environmentally sensitive regions that experience high development pressure such as Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Western Cape. These SEAs were usually planning-related, with special reference to spatial and land-use planning. It is meaningful to note that during the early years of SEA, various companies in the private sector, primarily involved with mining and industry, explored the application of SEA. This suggested at the time that SEA was perceived to have a positive potential added value for the private sector, especially in dealing with sustainability demands (Retief et al., 2008: 508). However, the application of SEA by the private sector seems to have waned in recent years as is evident from the energy-focused SEAs (Fischer et al., 2020) and Figure 22.1, which illustrates that the public sector is designing and implementing the majority (78%) of SEAs in South Africa.

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  353 Number of SEAs Figure 22.2 estimates the total number of SEAs (and Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs) – to be dealt with in the next paragraph) conducted in South Africa between 1997 and 2018. The exact number of SEAs conducted in South Africa is unknown, since no central registry exists. Furthermore, in South Africa an often confusing plethora of definitions, understandings and approaches to strategic-level environmental assessment exists. Internationally, such diversity gave rise to the term ‘para-SEAs’, which is a term used for processes that may not explicitly be called SEA but have some SEA characteristics or elements (see, for example, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005: 9–17). In order to focus and clearly delineate the research, these ‘para-SEAs’ were excluded from the analysis and only cases specifically entitled ‘strategic environmental assessment’ were considered. Some might consider this a potential limitation to the research since para-SEAs have been shown internationally to potentially score better on SEA criteria than many SEAs (Fischer, 2002). It is therefore recommended that future research might want to extend the remit and sample of SEAs to include para-SEAs for the South African context. The exact extent of what this would include is uncertain, except to say it would potentially involve hundreds of strategic-level instruments such as Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs) and their various sector plans, Catchment Management Strategies (CMSs), State of the Environment Reports (SoERs), Environment Outlook Reports, Conservation Plans (C-Plans), Bioregional Plans, etc., all of which, it could well be argued, include SEA characteristics or elements.

Figure 22.2

Number of SEAs and EMFs, 1997–2018

Sources: Cilliers and Retief (2017); Retief et al. (2007).

Figure 22.2 shows that the first SEAs were conducted in 1996 and, after an initial period of gradual escalation, the number of SEAs increased more rapidly after 2000 to reach a total of 50 by 2003. The number of SEAs compared well with other countries, especially in view of the voluntary SEA system (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Wood, 2003). At that stage there

354  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment was no reason to believe that SEA practice would decrease. On the contrary, it was expected to dramatically increase in the wake of expected formal SEA legislation linked to, for example, land-use planning and water management (see, for example, the optimistic projections by Retief et al., 2007). However, this was not to be and SEA retreated dramatically with only 15 SEAs seemingly conducted in the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018. When comparing this number with the most recent numbers of SEAs conducted internationally (see, for example, Arbter, 2019; McLauchlan and João, 2019; Tokarczyk-Dorociak et al., 2019), South African SEA practice is lagging far behind. Apart from SEA not being legislated, the decrease may (as was the case in Spain; see, for example, Arce-Ruiz et al., 2019) also (amongst many other reasons) be a result of the economic downturn the country has been experiencing, combined with incompetence and debilitating corruption as mentioned previously. It is therefore clear that contextual factors significantly influence SEA practice. In the South African context, the reason for this dramatic turn of fortune for SEA can most probably be explained by the 2006 legislating of another related and similar (uniquely South African) strategic-level environmental management instrument, namely the Environmental Management Framework (EMF). In its broadest sense, EMF could be understood as a strategic environmental management instrument aimed at proactively dealing with conflict between sensitive natural environments and development activities (De Villiers and Hill, 2008; Marais et al., 2015). Its main purpose is to (i) inform EIA screening decisions, (ii) provide a strategic context for project-level EIA decision-making and (iii) incorporate strategic environmental considerations with municipal strategic and land-use planning. Importantly, all of the latter objectives could be read into the aim of SEA as described in the relevant SEA guidelines (DEAT, 2000, 2004, 2007) and therefore the boundaries/understanding between SEA and EMF overlap. EMF is therefore so similar to understandings of SEA that a distinction should arguably never have been made. If SEA and EMF are to be considered together, then the number of SEAs and EMFs over the past two decades suggests a healthy extent in practice. Cilliers and Retief (2017) found that 45 EMFs were conducted between 2007 and 2015, possibly displacing the need for SEA (see Figure 22.2). However, notwithstanding the clear similarity between EMF and SEA, and the introduction and further strengthening of EMF through specific guidelines (DEA, 2012) and regulations in 2010, voluntary SEAs again emerged separate from EMF from 2014 onwards, initiated by the national DEA. This re-birth of explicit SEA was specifically related to energy planning and development. Therefore, even though SEA has seemingly being displaced by a similar substitute, it still emerged as a distinct, separately defined tool of choice to deal with sectoral challenges, in this case energy planning, while EMF continues to provide a strategic context for the development of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs). The latter suggests a particular resilience of SEA to survive and re-emerge even without a legal mandate and after seemingly been displaced. It also less flatteringly suggests an inability by governments to clearly define and conceptualise different environmental management instruments. The added value of SEA in this context seems to have been that it provides a more flexible (non-legislated) option to other already legislated and inflexible strategic-level instruments such as EMF. The need for flexibility seems to be a particular value adding of voluntary SEA.

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  355 Tiers of SEA In the South African context, a tiered approach to SEA (see Chapter 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021) was proposed from the early introduction of SEA (after CSIR, 1996 and Nooteboom, 2000), and attempts have been made to locally define PPPs (DEAT, 2000). In terms of tiering, two distinct features are apparent from South African SEA practice. The first feature is that only 62% of the SEAs can be classified in the traditional manner as being policy, plan or programme SEAs, on the basis of being linked to PPPs. Of these, the large majority is plan SEAs, with only four programme and one policy SEA being conducted between 1996 and 2018. The intent to tier strategic-level decisions with project-level EIA was a key motivating factor for conducting SEA. However, the effectiveness of tiering with EIA has not been generally determined, although Fischer (2018) found that two renewable energy-related SEAs did achieve explicit tiering with EIA decision-making as part of streamlining of EIA processes. The second tiering feature is that the remaining 38% of the SEAs were not integrated or linked to PPP processes. In other words, they could not be understood as explicit policy, plan of programme-linked SEAs. In these SEA cases, the boundary between planning and environmental assessment became blurred and SEAs filled a void between policy- and project-level requirements. The overlap of SEA and planning is not unique to South Africa and has also been highlighted internationally (see, for example, Bina, 2003; Pope et al., 2018; Retief et al., 2008; and see also case studies discussed in Chapter 18 by Burdett and Cameron, 2021). These SEAs provided the strategic context and basis for project-level decision-making, and arguably changed it to a planning rather than an assessment tool (see also Chapter 4 by Partidário, 2021). For example, in many cases, the SEAs set out to provide a sustainability framework (including opportunities and constraints, thresholds, carrying capacity, limits of acceptable change, etc.) at a specific geographic scale. The best recent examples are again the SEAs conducted for the renewable energy sector (see Fischer, 2018). In these cases, SEA filled the void where strategic-level decision-making processes dealing with energy, between policy and project level, were weak or absent. Therefore, in the South African context, the diversity in SEA practice does not allow for SEA to be neatly aligned and classified according to different PPP processes. Spatial Scales of SEA Another distinguishing factor for types of SEA is spatial scale because scale determines the political decision-making context and jurisdictions, as well as the level of data and information required to inform a particular level of decision-making (Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005: 138; see also Chapter 6 by González and Geneletti, 2021). Furthermore, scale directly affects the relative significance of particular environmental issues. As scale changes, issues tend to change (Antunes et al., 2001; João, 2002). A particular pervasive challenge for SEA is to provide relevant data to decision-makers at the appropriate scale and level of detail (González, 2012; Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005). To address this challenge, tools for spatial analysis and presentation of information (such as geographic information system (GIS)) are widely used in SEA practice (González 2012: 11; González and Enríquez-De-Salamanca, 2018: 7–8). When considered against a generic classification of geographic scales from national, provincial, sub-regional to local levels, research shows that SEA practice in South Africa spans all these different scales (Fischer et al., 2020; Retief et al., 2007). However, many examples

356  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment of so-called ‘cross-border SEAs’ were also identified where the SEA focused on resource boundaries rather than political or administrative boundaries, examples of which are presented in Table 22.2. The lack of alignment between political and resource boundaries presents a particular challenge for the implementation of SEA, because while it makes sense from a resourse management perspective (such as water and biodiversity management) it poses serious challenges around cooperative governance and integrated decision-making between different spheres of government. Table 22.2

Examples of SEAs that considered resource boundaries

Type of SEA

Examples of SEAs that considered resource boundaries

Land use and spatial

Rustenburg SEA: The boundaries of the SEA were primarily drawn to include areas of the Magaliesburg

planning

Protected Natural Environment (MPNE) experiencing intense development pressure.

Energy planning

Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme (REI4P)-related SEAs: These SEAs were done on a national level and crossed various municipal and provincial boundaries. The aim was to identify optimal location for wind and solar energy projects based on wind and solar resource availability.

Water management

SEAs for the Mhlathuze catchment and Usutu-Mhlathuze WMA: The extent of water catchments was used to define the extent of the SEAs. This ranged between primary catchment scale and so-called water management areas (WMAs) scale.

Conservation and

SEA for the greater Addo Elephant National Park (gAENP): The scale of the SEA reflects the boundaries

biodiversity management of the proposed new national park based on the biophysical attributes of the different biomes earmarked for protection.

EFFECTIVENESS OF SEA IN SOUTH AFRICA This section provides a brief summary of the effectiveness of SEA in the South African context considered against generally agreed categories of effectiveness, namely procedural and substantive effectiveness as well as ‘pluralism’ as a key ‘influencing factor’. Procedural effectiveness focuses on the actual practices and regulatory compliance (Bond, 2013: 119; Loomis and Dziedzic, 2018: 30), while substantive effectiveness examines the degree to which environmental assessment influences decision-making and if it mitigates negative environmental impacts (Loomis and Dziedzic, 2018: 30). We acknowledge that there are many other effectiveness criteria that could have been included (see, for example, Thérivel and González, 2019; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021) but we consider the latter to be the most feasible for our purposes based on the availability of existing research that dealt with these aspects. The discussion is based on the following research that exists on the effectiveness of SEA in South Africa: ●● The first SEA effectiveness evaluation for South Africa was by Retief (2005). From this research, numerous papers were published on SEA effectiveness in relation to direct outcomes (Retief 2007a; Retief et al., 2008) and process (Retief, 2007c) as well as for different sectors such as conservation (Retief, 2006), water management (Retief, 2007d) and planning (Retief, 2007e). ●● The second effectiveness evaluation was by Fischer (2018). This research focused specifically on SEAs done for the South African renewable energy sector, and provides the most recent update on the subject. Two papers have been published based on the renewable

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  357 energy SEA experience which deals specifically with ‘procedural’, ‘substantive’ and ‘incremental’ effectiveness (Fischer et al., 2020) as well as ‘plurality’ (Cape et al., 2018). Procedural Effectiveness In the South African context, procedural requirements are legally prescribed for EIA but not for SEA. Early research into the quality and effectiveness of voluntary SEA processes suggested an inability to incorporate flexibility into process design (Retief, 2007c). Instead, the understanding of SEA processes considered the need to have to deal with clearly defined steps and phases within a ‘rational’ decision-making framework which need to be ‘independent’ and deliver ‘objective’ results. However, Fischer (2018: 8) found that, “As a practical outcome of the SEA’s effectiveness, the evaluation showed the SEA approach, as applied to the environmental authorisation process of the renewable energy projects, resulted in greater efficiency in resource use, shortened the duration of the project level assessment process and proactively contributed to achieving improved environmental practices.” Therefore, in answering the question of whether environmental assessment achieves procedural effectiveness, the answer from experience in the renewable energy sector would be that the procedural effectiveness discourse in South Africa is not concerned with compliance to specific procedural steps, but rather how to achieve flexibility in procedural design towards achieving context-specific sustainability objectives. Substantive Effectiveness Measured against so-called ‘direct’ effectiveness indicators, the research by Retief (2007c) shows a high degree of ineffectiveness.1 The main areas of weakness were the inability to influence the contents of plans and programmes as well as decision-making in general. One of the main reasons identified for ineffectiveness was an inability to deal with the concept of sustainability, particularly in defining and measuring it, which led to methodological difficulties during scoping as well as follow-up monitoring and evaluation. Moreover, it also led in some cases to a lack of clarity on the exact purpose of the assessment. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that SEA has had no effect, because certain ‘indirect effects’ also emerged, such as highlighting deficiencies and gaps in existing policy as well as examples where SEA facilitated capacity building and raised awareness of sustainability issues (Retief, 2007a; Retief et al., 2008). Moreover, SEAs have also contributed significantly to information generation and sharing. The more recent work by Fischer (2018) suggests promising improvement in substantive effectiveness for the SEA evaluated. It was evident that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) as the decision-maker in this case, was willing to implement the outcomes and all indications are that SEAs will be key in the identification of the location of renewable energy projects and in ensuring the quality of specialist reports for subsequent EIAs. Of course, longer-term follow-up research will be required to verify if this happens but the indications are positive.

1 For a more detailed description of the results and related methodology and indicators, see Retief (2007a, 2007b).

358  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Pluralism The depth and breadth of pluralism (the consideration of divergent views) in South African society is represented by the diversity of cultures, races, socio-economic groupings, languages, etc. At the same time, the country has some of the most liberal and extensive provisions for public participation, access to information and locus standi in the world. The opportunity to, in principle, have your voice heard has been central to the post-apartheid-era democracy. Although, in practice, South Africa could not be described as a mature democracy, there are good examples where public participation and the right to access to information have, through the assessment process, influenced decisions on major developments related to mining and infrastructure (Kidd et al., 2018). Because of the complexity and diversity of South African society, it can reasonably be expected that many different perspectives on the role and purpose of SEA exist. Anecdotal evidence suggests that affected role-players tend to be satisfied with the level of involvement if decisions are in their favour and vice versa. Recent research by Cape et al. (2018) engaged with four different stakeholder groups, namely government, industry, conservation groups, and interested and affected parties (I&APs) in an attempt to determine their value expectations for SEA. Ultimately, a total of 21 different value expectations (VEs) across all four stakeholder groups were identified. As expected, stakeholder groups contrast significantly in terms of VEs, with government concerned more with process and mandate; industry with cost, efficiency and certainty; conservation groups with data and technical aspects; and the I&APs with local-scale issues. In terms of realisation of VEs, the results suggest that SEA does provide opportunities for learning; focusing project-level EIA and providing spatial guidance on the location of projects. However, SEA was less successful in realising integration of decision-making and alignment of policy within government. The research suggests that recognition and better understanding of the pluralistic nature of expected and realised VEs could potentially improve the legitimacy of SEA processes and methodologies if they are designed and implemented to accommodate pluralism.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE This chapter aimed to provide an update of the South African understanding of SEA by reflecting on the SEA system characteristics, extent of practice as well as overall effectiveness. We show that the voluntary basis for SEA produced diverse SEA practice, that SEA retreated dramatically from 2004 to 2018, and that procedural and substantive effectiveness seemed to have improved over the years. Generally speaking, South African SEA practice differs from other international practice by having experienced an extended period of voluntary practice (possibly the longest of any country) with no single agreed purpose for SEA and a flexible non-legislated process. Looking to the future of SEA, we suspect that agreement has to date been reached on the following: ●● The need for SEA: More than two decades of voluntary SEA practice confirmed that a definite need exists for a strategic level assessment instrument, especially one that can provide strategic-level decision-making guidance for key sectors in South Africa such as energy, water management, transport, conservation. As stated in the introduction, for South Africa,

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  359 and many other developing countries, strategic thinking no longer only resonates with vague long-term utopian ideals, but deals with hard-hitting questions related to short-term survival and quality of life. The need for effective SEA has never been more acute. The question within the South African context is not whether SEA is worth pursuing but rather how SEA could be entrenched as an instrument of choice for strategic decision-makers. ●● The need to develop a clear identity for SEA: The voluntary nature of SEA produced diverse SEA practice, which has been positive in terms of facilitating and promoting experimentation with different approaches and methods, but unfortunately also led to overlap and confusion with other strategic-level environmental management instruments such as conservation planning, state of the environmental reporting and EMFs. Distinction from EMF is especially needed. We perceive a particular role for SEA in terms of assessing specific PPPs while EMF continues to provide a strategic context for the development of PPPs. Therefore, EMF remains more of an environmental planning instrument and SEA could then act as a designated assessment instrument (as the name suggests!). ●● The need for SEA legislation: The ‘road not taken’ (or the road avoided) for SEA in South Africa has been the failure to legislate it. The current ‘road’ has, to date, in the words of Robert Frost “made all the difference” in terms of widespread experimentation with SEA practice. However, the time has come to translate more than two decades of SEA practice into effective SEA legislation that allows for process flexibility and ensures integration with the strategic decision-making processes (i.e. PPP) it aims to inform. The initiative taken by the DEA in recent years to reignite interest in SEA (as separate from EMF) and consider possible legislative provisions should be commended and supported (see, for example, Fischer et al., 2020). The exact form of the SEA legislation is still uncertain, but the move towards drafting legislation is positive. In conclusion, the South African SEA journey started more than two decades ago. During this time, interest in SEA has fluctuated and it is still not legislated. Notwithstanding these somewhat mixed fortunes and lack of clear policy and legislative direction, SEA seems to have persevered – a state of affairs well-articulated by the following discussion between Winnie the Pooh and Christopher Robin: “Where are we going?” said Pooh, hurrying after him. “Nowhere in particular” said Christopher Robin. So they began going there. After they had walked for a while, Pooh asked “Have we got there yet?” “No” said Christopher Robin. So they kept on going! (Milne, 1928) For SEA to take its rightful place amongst the different environmental management instruments in South Africa, the need for an agreed purpose and clearly defined legislative mandate is evident. A country such as South Africa cannot afford to continue taking strategic PPP decisions on crucial strategic issues related to energy, water, transport, housing, etc., without an explicit and clear understanding of the potential consequences, which SEA could and should provide.

360  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

REFERENCES Antunes, P., Santos, R. and Jordao, L. 2001. The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine environmental impact significance. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21(6): 511–35. Arbter, K. 2019. SEA in Austria and the participative SEA Round Table model. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 1–11. Arce-Ruiz, R. M., Soria-Lara, J. A. and González-Del-Campo, A. 2019. SEA effectiveness in Spain: insights from practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 327–33. Bina, O. 2003. Re-thinking the purpose of SEA, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge. Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Howitt, R. 2013. Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice, Abingdon/New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Retief, F. 2016. A game theory perspective on Environmental Assessment: what games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57: 187–94. Buckley, R. 2000. Strategic Environmental Assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 209–15. Burdett, T. and Cameron, C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Australia, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 18). Cape, L., Retief, F., Lochner, P., Bond, A. and Fischer, T.B. 2018. Exploring pluralism – different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 69: 32–41. Cilliers, D. and Retief, F. 2017. The extent and status of environmental management frameworks (EMFs) in South Africa, 2006–2015. South African Geographical Journal 99(3): 283–300. CSIR. 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) A Primer. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research report issued by the Division of Water, Environment and Forest Technology, Stellenbosch, Durban. Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. 2005. Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience, London: Earthscan. De Villiers, C. E. and Hill, R. C. 2008. Environmental management frameworks as an alternative to farm-level EIA in a global biodiversity hotspot: a proposal from the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 10(4): 333–60. DEA. 2012. Environmental management framework regulations. Integrated Environmental Management, Guideline Series 6. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs. DEAT. 2000. Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa: guideline document. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. DEAT. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment, integrated environmental management, information series 10. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. DEAT. 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment, guideline. Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series 4. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Faith-Ell, C. and Fischer, T. B. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in transport planning; in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 11). Fischer, D. 2018. Strategic Environmental Assessment – supporting the transition to renewable energy in South Africa, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Fischer, D., Lochner, P. and Annegarn, H. 2020. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment to facilitate renewable energy planning and improved decision-making: a South African case study. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 38(1): 28–38. Fischer, T. B. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment in transport and land-use planning, London: Earthscan. Fischer, T. B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness, in: Fischer, T. B. and

Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa  361 González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8). Frost, R. 1916. Mountain interval, New York: Henry Holt and Company. González, A. 2012. GIS in environmental assessment: a review of current issues and future needs. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14: 1–23. González, A., and Enríquez-De-Salamanca, Á. 2018. Spatial multi-criteria analysis in environmental assessment: a review and reflection on benefits and limitations. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 20(3): 1840001. González, A. and Geneletti, D. 2021. GIS-based strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 6). João, E. 2002. How scale affects environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22(4): 289–310. Kidd, M., Retief, F. and Alberts, R. 2018. Integrated environmental impact assessment and management, in: King, N., Strydom, H. and Retief, F. (eds), Environmental management in South Africa, 3rd edition, Cape Town: Juta Publishing. Lee, N. and George, C. 2000. Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Loomis, J. J. and Dziedzic, M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 68: 29–37. Marais, M., Retief, F., Sandham, L. A. and Cilliers, D. 2015. Environmental management frameworks: results and inferences of report quality performance in South Africa. South African Geographical Journal 97(1): 83–99. McLauchlan, A. and João, E. 2019. Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 299–311. Milne, A. A. 1928. Winnie-the-Pooh, London: Methuen and Co. Limited. Montaño, M., Tshibangu, G. M and Malvestio, A. C. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species? in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 23). Nooteboom, S. 2000. Environmental assessment of strategic decisions and project decisions: interactions and benefits. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(2): 151–60. Partidário, M. 2021. Strategic thinking for sustainability (ST4S) in strategic environmental assessment, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 4). Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Cameron, C. and Retief, F. 2018. Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 70: 34–44. Retief, F. 2005. The quality and effectiveness of SEA in South Africa. PhD thesis, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Retief, F. 2006. The quality and effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as a decision-aiding tool for national park expansion—the greater Addo Elephant National Park case study. Koedoe – Journal of the South African National Parks 49(2): 103–22. Retief, F. 2010. The evolution of environmental assessment debates – critical perspectives from South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 12(4): 1–23. Retief, F. 2007a. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management 9(1): 83–101. Retief, F. 2007b. A quality and effectiveness review protocol for Strategic Environmental Assessment in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management 9(4): 443–71. Retief, F. 2007c. A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 84–100. Retief, F. 2007d. The quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a tool for water management within the South African context. Water SA 33(2): 153–64. Retief, F. 2007e. The quality and effectiveness of spatial planning related Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) within the South African context: a case study. Town and Regional Planning 52: 6–19.

362  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Retief, F., Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A. and King, N. 2016. Global megatrends and their implications for Environmental Assessment (EA) practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61: 52–60. Retief, F., Jones, C. and Jay, S. 2007. The status and extent of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa – 1996–2003. South African Geographic Journal 89(1): 44–54. Retief, F., Jones, C. and Jay, S. 2008. The emperor’s new clothes – reflections on SEA practice in South Africa. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 504–14. Retief, F., Morrison-Saunders, A., Geneletti, D. and Pope, J. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision making in EIA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1): 13–23. Retief, F., Welman, C. and Sandham, L. A. 2011. Performance of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening in South Africa: a comparative analysis between the 1997 and 2006 EIA regimes. South African Geographical Journal 93(2): 1–18. Sadler, B. and Verheem, R. 1996. Strategic environmental assessment: status, challenges and future directions, Report No. 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 181–7. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness, in: Fischer, T. B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on strategic environmental assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K., Kazak, J. K., Anna, H., Szewrański, S. and Świąder, M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Poland. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 279–91. Vanderhaegen, M. and Muro, E. 2005. Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 123–42. Wood, C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review, Harlow: Prentice Hall.

23. Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil: an endangered species? Marcelo Montaño, Ghislain Mwamba Tshibangu and Anne Caroline Malvestio

INTRODUCTION Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is recognised as a tool for the identification and mitigation of the likely impacts of strategic actions and for promoting sustainable development. It is a rapidly developing field of application and research worldwide (Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). Although its main objective is the promotion of the integration of environmental concerns into higher levels of decision-making (Thérivel, 2010; Fischer, 2007), SEA ‘can be applied to positive purpose as a means of promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development, shifting from a “do least harm” to a “do most good” approach’ (Sadler, 2011, p. 2). Throughout its development and application in different countries and contexts, SEA has shown itself able to contribute to the development of stronger institutional contexts (Mulder, 2011). After the major stimulus by its formal adoption in the European Union (EU) in 2001, SEA has become well established at national and local levels in developed countries and in development cooperation programmes (Mulder, 2011). Furthermore, a growing number of developing countries are adopting more responsible approaches to the consideration of environmental impacts of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs; see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021), and many have developed SEA legislation assisted by Multilateral Development Agencies (MDA) (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Tshibangu, 2018; Victor and Agamuthu, 2014). The professional SEA literature is strongly influenced by empirical evidence produced in countries that focus on the systematic and mandatory use of SEA (Fischer and Onyango, 2012). There is currently less knowledge regarding SEA effectiveness in non-mandatory contexts (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019). However, there are various countries in which the instrument is applied without the support of a clearly structured SEA system (see also Chapters 22, 25 and 26 on South Africa, India and Thailand by Retief et al., 2021, Jha-Thakur and Rajvanshi, 2021, and Chanchitpricha et al., 2021, respectively). Nevertheless, the practice of SEA in non-regulated contexts has been expanding in recent years (Loayza, 2012). It is often associated with specific requirements posed by MDAs (Tshibangu and Montaño, 2016), which can stimulate the proliferation of different forms and approaches of SEA, depending on the perspective of those involved in the process. It is in this context that this chapter focuses on the development and practice of SEA in Brazil, an emerging economy whose experience with SEA has been built upon an ‘unregulated and experimental basis’ (Mota et al., 2014, p. 3). Based on evidence provided by recent empirical research, one objective is also to present an overview of the relevant aspects related 363

364  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment to the effectiveness of SEA, and to explore the influence of contextual factors in the use of SEA in Brazil. The chapter is organised as follows: after this introduction, a conceptual description of SEA effectiveness and the influence of contextual factors are presented, followed by the characterisation of the main aspects of the SEA context in Brazil, with particular attention given to the high flexibility in the use of SEA in the country. Also, perceived constraints and benefits of the SEA practice in Brazil are presented. Final remarks and some thoughts on the future development of the SEA system are presented in the last section.

SEA EFFECTIVENESS AND THE INFLUENCE OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS SEA effectiveness is said to be highly influenced by specific characteristics of strategic decision-making, which include the type of strategy that is being developed, its purposes and objectives, and the linkages to other PPPs and projects, amongst other factors (Fischer, 2007; João, 2007; Thérivel, 2010; Bina et al., 2011; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021). Moreover, procedural aspects such as objectives, guidance, methodological approach and timing are often reported as key components of the different dimensions of SEA effectiveness (Acharibasam and Noble, 2014; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Thérivel and González, 2019). Numerous authors have recognised different approaches to the use of SEA in the formulation of PPPs, as evidenced by numerous chapters in this book. However, it has become widely accepted that the effectiveness of SEA systems worldwide would benefit from a set of principles and fundamentals to guide its use in plan-making, differentiated by the extent to which each principle is applied (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2017). According to the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA, 2002; see also Fischer, 2002), an effective SEA process needs to be: (a) integrated – ensuring the assessment of all strategic decisions relevant to sustainable development, addressing relevant biophysical, social and economic aspects and tiered to relevant policies and projects; (b) sustainability-led – focused on key issues of sustainable development and customised to each decision-making process; (c) accountable; (d) participative, informing and involving the stakeholders; and (e) iterative, providing the information early enough to influence decision-making processes. Hence, flexibility and capacity to adapt to the context of application are considered two of the main characteristics of SEA systems, although precisely how it should be adapted still needs clarification (Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadóttir, 2007; Noble, 2009). However, how much flexibility is sufficient is a relevant topic to the design, implementation and revision of SEA systems, both in regulated and non-regulated contexts (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019). Regardless, in order to be effective and to secure an adequate level of integration of environmental aspects in policy and plan-making, it is understood that SEA must be: (i) focused on the development of reasonable alternatives (Fischer, 2007; González et al., 2015; Sadler, 2011; Thérivel, 2010); (ii) supported by evidence (Fischer, 2007); (iii) driven by a baseline- or objectives-led approach (Thérivel, 2010); and (iv) flexible and adaptable to specific contexts of application (Partidário, 2010). The influence of SEA on both decision-making and the participants/organisations that take part in the SEA and planning process is linked to the different dimensions of SEA effective-

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil  365 ness, as summarised by Thérivel and González (2019; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021): contextual, normative, transactive, learning and to the pluralism. Here, a relevant aspect to understand the dimensions of SEA effectiveness is related to the identification of outcomes generated along the SEA process (Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019; see also Chapter 8 by Fischer and Retief, 2021). SEA outcomes can be direct and/or immediate, which facilitates its clear identification. However, they can also be indirect and/or long term and, therefore, more complicated to identify and understand (Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; see also Chapter 7 by Thérivel and González, 2021). Furthermore, the role played by individuals and organisations, in addition to the different approaches applied, is strongly related to outcomes and other effects delivered by this decision support instrument (Kidd et al., 2011). Naturally, differences in the way that these aspects are manifested in different contexts can be expected, and, in particular, in regulated and non-regulated systems. In the case of Brazil, it has been reported that due to the lack of a mandatory and systematic basis, formal objectives and requirements/procedures are leading to a highly dispersed SEA system with a poor capacity to coordinate the use of SEA in the country (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019).

THE CONTEXT OF SEA IN BRAZIL: A FULLY FLEXIBLE APPROACH SEA has been occasionally used in Brazil for more than two decades (the first documented experience dating from 1997), most frequently to respond to the requirements of MDAs (Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019). It has also been applied, on a voluntary basis, by the initiative of private investors or environmental agencies in order to anticipate the likely conflicts expected at the project level (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019). Furthermore, a considerable number of SEAs in the country is devoted to ease the approval of large projects, and basically reproduces the logic (and the gaps) of project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approaches (see also Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al., 2021). The formal introduction of SEA in strategic planning and decision-making has been attempted at federal, state and municipal levels (Figure 23.1), but usually as a recommendation or by establishing a facultative use of SEA – evidence of the general perception of SEA as a flexible instrument to be used at the discretion of decision-makers. As a consequence, there is still no systematic application of the instrument at the federal, state and municipal levels whatsoever.1

1 The State Policy of Climate Change (São Paulo state) and the Municipal Policy of Climate Change (São Paulo city) establish a mandatory use of SEA to evaluate the effects of sectoral policies and the accomplishment of the climate change objectives assumed, respectively, by the state and the city. Despite this, no SEA has been prepared since the promulgation of these laws.

Initiatives to the introduction of SEA within the institutional framework in Brazil at federal, state and municipal levels

Source: Montaño et al.(2013) updated.

Figure 23.1

366  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil  367 Three main aspects of the Brazilian SEA system were recognised by Malvestio and Montaño (2019) and reported as follows: (i) the lack of proper legislation and guidance; (ii) the influence of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice in SEA approaches; and (iii) the strong influence of an environmental licencing culture. The professional literature has, in fact, consistently referred to the absence of regulation and proper guidance as one of the major contextual characteristics of the Brazilian SEA system. This is a characteristic shared by other low- and middle-income countries (Rachid and Fadel, 2012; Tshibangu and Montaño, 2016; Walmsley and Patel, 2011). Montaño et al. (2014), reporting on the institutional framework for the implementation of SEA in Brazil, stressed that the existing legislation is insufficient to clarify contextual factors such as where and how the use of SEA is necessary. Moreover, given the lack of a systematic use of SEA in Brazil, and considering the absence of an SEA database, the number of SEAs prepared in the country is still unclear. Overall, a total of 68 SEAs were conducted from 1997 to 2018 (Table 23.1), as reported by Tshibangu and Montaño (2019), 26 of which applied after MDA requests and 14 were required by federal or state environmental agencies. The energy sector responded with 48% of the total number of SEAs prepared in Brazil during this period, which reflects its relevance within the country’s (non-regulated) SEA system. Table 23.1

Sectoral profile of 68 SEA cases in Brazil between 1997 and 2018

Sector

Regional scale

National scale

Percentage (%)

Energy

28

3

46

Multisector

12

1

19

Transport

8

2

15

Tourism

6

2

12

Land use

3

1

6 1

Natural resources

1

–

Sanitation

1

–

1

Sub-total

59

9

100

Total

68

Source: Tshibangu and Montaño (2019).

Both the practice of SEA in Brazil and its potential to be integrated into strategic levels of decision are fairly well documented in the professional literature (see Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021), thus providing a reasonable body of knowledge, built upon particular aspects of the country’s context. A wide range of aspects related to the effectiveness of SEA in Brazil, the linkage to different planning sectors, and perceived strengths and weaknesses, can be found, for example, in the works of Sánchez and Silva-Sánchez (2008), Malvestio and Montaño (2013), Montaño et al. (2014), Silva et al. (2014), Esteves and Souza (2014), Gallardo et al. (2016), and Malvestio and Montaño (2019). Still, the relative low number of peer-reviewed articles published per decade (Figure 23.2) may be related to the absence of a well-developed and distinct field of SEA training and research in Brazil.

368  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

Figure 23.2

Number of papers devoted to SEA in Brazil published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade

Sources: Tshibangu and Montaño (2019) updated; data extracted from Scopus and ScienceDirect.

Formal training in SEA provided by higher education institutions is mostly offered as a topic in EIA courses (Ramos et al., 2015) which, in their turn, are usually single modules in undergraduate/graduate programmes (Montaño and Souza, 2015). This is not unusual, though, in a developing country context (see e.g. Fischer, 2014). In this regard, Ramos et al. (2015) argue that a stimulus in SEA training and education could offer both much needed support for the dissemination of SEA best practices and a stimulus to the introduction of SEA in decision-making. The low number of SEAs produced in the country (Table 23.1) can explain the lack of a more substantial community of training and practice,2 since it restrains the demand for skilled SEA specialists. This can also explain, in our opinion, the strong influence of the ‘EIA culture’ as one of the most relevant elements to the effectiveness of SEA in Brazil. Still, a number of positive aspects can be attributed to the use of SEA in the country and linked to the contextual aspects previously referred to in this section. According to Malvestio and Montaño (2019) the following perceived benefits were identified by practitioners involved in five cases in the country: (1) promotion of improved communication between sector and stakeholders which would barely work together otherwise, (2) the unification of SEA concepts and purposes (at least on a case-by-case basis), (3) the creation of different opportunities to

SEA appears as a topic in 21 out of 97 undergraduate/postgraduate programmes which included Impact Assessment courses as part of their curriculum, though in only two programmes was SEA adopted as an autonomous course (Ramos et al., 2015). Also, Malvestio and Montaño (2019) found that two consultancy firms were responsible for 10 of the 31 SEAs surveyed at the time, which suggests a low diversity of the community of practice in the country. 2

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil  369 Table 23.2

Contextual aspects and outcomes of SEA in Brazil

SEA cases

Contextual aspects

Identified outcomes of SEA

São Paulo

SEA requested to ease project approval

Project reformulation considering multi-sector

Metropolitan Ring

–– The decision to build the highway had already been integrated actions

Road Programme

taken some years before the SEA –– Need for justification of certain decisions already taken

–– Consideration of each major section of the Ring Road as an independent project to be assessed –– Consideration of SEA recommendations in subse-

–– Poor involvement of the public

quent EIAs, including: definition of spatial bound-

–– Large number of state agencies involved

aries of the projects subject to EIA; main issues to be addressed; selection of alternative corridors

Corumbá Mining and SEA requested to comply with the safeguard policies Involvement of mining companies operating in the Industrial District

of Multilateral Development Agencies

region

–– Applications requested to anticipate EIA conflicts, –– Decision-makers were properly informed about the facilitating its approval

alternatives to be considered –– SEA report was used as a guiding reference document for the industrial complex planning and management –– SEA used as a reference for sustainable development in region planning

Programme for

Restricted public participation and lack of

Tourism Development coordination and synergy between the federal and in the North Coast

state actions

Use of SEA to guide the formulation of a methodological procedure adopted in other regions in accordance to the commitments made with the Inter-American Development Bank –– SEA fostered institutional learning through a better communication between stakeholders

Multimodal

Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and

Consideration of SEA guidelines and

Transportation

tourism activities

recommendations to the project-EIA processes

and Industrial Development in the Cocoa Region Expansion of

SEA required to promote sustainable decision on the Provided the basis for judicial challenges regarding

Eucalyptus and

expansion of eucalyptus forests and biofuels

EIA decisions

Mata Branca Project

SEA required to support regional planning

Strategies recommended in the study were adopted

(Caatinga Biome)

–– Involved a diverse range of actors/participants

and new approaches developed for the continuity of

Sugarcane Plantations in Southern Bahia

sustainable intervention in the Caatinga biome

Source: Tshibangu and Montaño (2019) modified.

agenda-setting between the involved institutions, and (4) opportunities for tiering decisions in subsequent levels of planning (mostly including project-EIA). In their turn, Tshibangu and Montaño (2019) identified specific outcomes from six SEA cases (Table 23.2) and observed a range of effects, varying from easing the involvement of a larger number of stakeholders and interested parties, the use of SEA as a reference to territorial/regional planning or as paramount to methodological approaches replied in other SEA cases, to widening the scope for subsequent project-EIAs and project reformulation (including new environmental management schemes), and also the use of SEA as a basis to guide judicial challenges regarding project-EIA decisions.

370  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Interestingly, according the aforementioned authors, SEA benefits are mainly related to the promotion of changes in planning routines and SEA processes, and only a few could be said as being strictly connected to the influence on the strategic actions (or, in other terms, on the causes of potentially significant environmental effects), thus reinforcing the strong influence of the prevailing aspects of SEA in Brazil. In their turn, constraints are more often related to the planning context and the poor integration of SEA, including institutional resistance, lack of timing, transience of public administration, and poor coordination of the SEA process, amongst others (Malvestio and Montaño, 2019), which, again, seems to be coherent with a dispersed and non-regulated context (as discussed in a number of chapters in this book).

FINAL REMARKS: A LOOK INTO THE FUTURE OF SEA IN BRAZIL Even though there is still no legal mandate for SEA in the country, Brazil has accumulated some experience with the use of SEA. As presented in this chapter, practitioners have recognised that SEA contributes to improved communication between stakeholders along the planning process and delivers a better level of information to lower tiers of decision-making (see, for example, Tshibangu and Montaño, 2019). A relevant aspect of concern, though, is that this experience has been built on voluntary approaches and founded upon an uncertain and experimental institutional basis, meaning that the SEA system has been moulded throughout the years by a fully flexible and blurred structure. Added to that, the lack of clear objectives, standard procedures or guidance to SEA application combined with the absence of a systematic use contribute to the low effectiveness of SEA in Brazil, as frequently reported in the professional literature. Also, the low capacity of the SEA system to promote learning opportunities through practice contributes to restraining even more the ability of the SEA system to self-organise and, therefore, to stimulate proper integration to strategic planning and decision-making. As a consequence, flexibility and adaptability have now impregnated the perception of SEA as a multi-function instrument in the country, which must be taken with extreme caution.3 Based on what we know about the organisation and effectiveness of SEA in Brazil, we understand that, at the time of writing, SEA is in a quasi-dormant state that needs an extra dose of energy to be awakened. There has been a significant decrease in the number of SEAs prepared in the country over the past few years, most certainly related to setbacks in the economic development and political issues, which is worrying due to the lack of experience with the use of this decision support instrument. However, there are opportunities to design and implement a proper SEA system, adapted to its very own context and institutional framework of strategic planning and decision-making. It must be recognised, though, that the mere introduction of formal procedures cannot guarantee the necessary changes in mindsets in a way that SEA could lead per se to better decisions (following Bond et al., 2013 and Fischer, 2006). Nevertheless, a clear definition of approaches

3 Low effectiveness of the Brazilian SEA system was related to an excess of flexibility by Malvestio and Montaño (2019).

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil  371 and methodological procedures is suggested to be the basic aspect of an effective SEA and, particularly, its potential to influence relevant decisions (Bond et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2012). Taking into account the whole picture of SEA in Brazil, we advocate a thorough revision of SEA practice, starting with the definition of a solid framework to guide and support a systematic use of this instrument, but also (and possibly even more relevant) a complete readjustment of SEA objectives in order to move from a reactive and poorly strategic approach focused on the mitigation of negative impacts of large projects to a more proactive and strategic one, focused on the promotion of more sustainable alternatives to strategic actions.

REFERENCES Acharibasam, J.B. and Noble, B.F. 2014. Assessing the impact of strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 32: 177–87. Bina, O., Wallington, T. and Thissen, W. 2011. SEA theory and research: an analysis of the early discourse. In: Sadler, B. et al. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, New York: Routledge. Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A. and Stoeglehner, G. 2013. Designing an effective sustainability assessment process. In: Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders A. and Howitt, R. (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, Oxford: Routledge, pp. 231–44. Chanchitpricha, C., Swangjang, K. and Morrison-Saunders, A. 2021. Addressing the spectrum of strategic environmental assessment potential: evolving practice in Thailand and its effectiveness. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 26). Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience, 1st edition, London: Earthscan. Esteves, A.O. and Souza, M.P. 2014. Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica e as Áreas de Proteção Ambiental [Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Protected Areas]. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. Special Edition, 77–86. Fischer, T.B. 2002. SEA performance criteria – the same requirements for every assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 4(1): 83–99. Fischer, T.B. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 24(3): 183–97. Fischer, T.B. 2007. The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach, London: Earthscan. Fischer, T.B. 2014. Development of an EIA Curriculum for Tertiary Level Institutions in Pakistan – Current Baseline, Development Needs, Outline and Suggestions for Further Action NIAP, IUCN Pakistan, available at http://​www​.commissiemer​.nl/​docs/​mer/​diversen/​pos722​-development​-eia​ -curriculum​.pdf. Fischer, T.B. and Gazzola, P. 2006. SEA effectiveness criteria – equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26: 396–409. Fischer, T.B. and González, A. 2021. Introduction to Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 1). Fischer, T.B. and Onyango, V. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment-related research projects and journal articles: an overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(4): 253–63. Fischer, T.B. and Retief, F. 2021. Does strategic environmental assessment lead to more environmentally sustainable decisions and action? Reflections on substantive effectiveness. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 8).

372  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Gallardo, A.L.C.J., Duarte, C.G. and Dibo, A.P.A. 2016. Strategic environmental assessment for planning sugarcane expansion: a framework proposal. Ambiente & Sociedade 19(2): 67–92. González, A., Thérivel, R., Fry, J. and Foley, W. 2015. Advancing practice relating to SEA alternatives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 53: 52–63. Hilding-Rydevik, T. and Bjarnadóttir, H. 2007. Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 666–84. IAIA [International Association for Impact Assessment]. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment performance criteria. Special Publication Series (1), available at http://​www​.iaia​.org/​publicdocuments/​ special​-publications/​sp1​.pdf (accessed 04/06/2020). Jha-Thakur, U. and Rajvanshi, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in India: trends and prospects. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 25). João, E. 2007. A research agenda for data and scale issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: 479–91. Kelly, A.H., Jackson, T. and Williams, P. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: lessons for New South Wales, Australia, from Scottish practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30: 75–84. Kidd, S., Fischer, T. and Jha-Thakur, U. 2011. Developing the learning potential of strategic environmental assessment in spatial planning. In: Rogerson, R., Sadler, S., Green, A. and Wong, C. (eds), Sustainable Communities: Skills and Learning for Place Making, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, pp. 53–68. Loayza, F. 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment in the World Bank: Learning from Recent Experience and Challenges. World Bank, available at https://​openknowledge​.worldbank​.org/​handle/​ 10986/​27119. Malvestio, A.C. and Montaño, M. 2013. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment applied to renewable energy in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 15(2): 1340007. Malvestio, A.C. and Montaño, M. 2019. From medicine to poison: how flexible strategic environmental assessment may be? Lessons from a non-regulated SEA system. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(5): 437–51. Montaño, M., Malvestio, A.C. and Oppermann, P.A. 2013. Institutional learning by SEA practice in Brazil. UVP Report 27(4+5): 201–6. Montaño, M., Oppermann, P.A., Malvestio, A.C. and Souza, M.P. 2014. Current state of the SEA system in Brazil: a comparative study. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(2): 1450022. Montaño, M. and Souza, M.P. 2015. Impact assessment research in Brazil: achievements, gaps and future directions. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17(1): 1550009. Mota, A.C., La Rovere, E.L. and Fonseca, A. 2014. Industry-driven and civil society-driven strategic environmental assessments in the iron mining and smelting complex of Corumbá, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(2): 1450010. Mulder, J.D. 2011. The protocol on strategic environmental assessment: a matter of good governance. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 20(3): 232–47. Noble, B.F. 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29(1): 66–75. Noble, B.F. and Nwanekezie, K. 2017. Conceptualizing strategic environmental assessment: principles, approaches and research directions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 62: 165–73. Partidário, M.R. 2010. Definição de Critérios e Avaliação de Relatórios Ambientais [Criteria Definition and Environmental Reports Assessment], Lisbon: Portuguese Environmental Agency. Rachid, G. and Fadel, M.E. 2012. SEA systems in the Middle East and North Africa region. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 162: 87–96. Ramos, T.B., Montaño, M., Melo, J.J., Souza, M.P., Lemos, C.C., Domingues, A.R. and Polido, A. 2015. Strategic environmental assessment in higher education: Portuguese and Brazilian cases. Journal of Cleaner Production 106(1): 222–8. Rehhausen, A., Hanusch, M. and Fischer, T.B. 2021. Multi-project-based strategic environmental assessment: practice in Germany. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 2).

Strategic environmental assessment in Brazil  373 Retief, F., Steenkamp, C. and Alberts, R. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment in South Africa: ‘The Road Not Taken’. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 22). Sadler, B. 2011. Taking stock of SEA. In: Sadler, B., Aschemann, R., Dusík, J., Fischer, T.B., Partidário, M.R. and Verheem, R. (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment. New York: Earthscan, pp. 1–18. Sánchez, L.E. and Silva-Sánchez, S.S. 2008. Tiering strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment in highway planning in São Paulo, Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28: 515–22. Silva, H.V.O., Pires, S.H.M., Oberling, D.F. and La Rovere, E.L. 2014. Key recent experiences in the application of SEA in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16(2): 1450009. Tetlow, M.F. and Hanusch, M. 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30(1): 15–24. Thérivel, R. 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, 2nd edition, London: Earthscan. Thérivel, R and Gonzáles, A. 2019. Introducing SEA effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37(3–4): 181–7. Thérivel, R. and González, A. 2021. Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness. In: Fischer, T.B. and González, A. (eds), Handbook on Strategic Environmental Assessment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (chapter 7). Tshibangu, G.M. 2018. An analysis of strategic environmental assessment legislation and regulations in African countries. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 20(1): 1–26. Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2016. Energy related strategic environmental assessment applied by multilateral development agencies – an analysis based on good practice criteria. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 37(3–4): 334–43. Tshibangu, G.M. and Montaño, M. 2019. Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 37: 1–12. Victor, D. and Agamuthu, P. 2014. Policy trends of strategic environmental assessment in Asia. Environmental Science and Policy 41: 63–76. Walmsley, B. and Patel, S. 2011. Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC region, 3rd edition, Pretoria: Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) in collaboration with the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA).

24. Strategic environmental assessment in Chile: an unfulfilled strategic promise Rodrigo Jiliberto H

INTRODUCTION The first nine years of application of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Chile are reviewed in this chapter. The purpose is to explain the difficulties faced by its application and its low level of procedural and administrative performance. The central hypothesis developed is that the current state of SEA in Chile is affected by a distortion of the strategic nature initially granted by the Law 20.417 in 2010 that enforced SEA in the country. This distortion is explained by implementing SEA on the basis of a rigid and standardized procedural verification model that collides with the ambiguity and openness of complex decision-making processes inherent in the formulation of policies and plans. This has had consequences not only administratively, but also substantively, as it has tended to encourage a formalization of the evaluation process and its departure from the final decision. The SEA model applied in Chile, due to its strategic character, is an international rarity and its follow-up deserves attention, particularly for those who believe that SEA should have a strategic orientation (Monteiro et al., 2018; Rozas-Vásquez and Gutiérrez, 2018; Tshibangu, 2018; see also Chapters 4 by Partidário, 2021 and 11 by Faith-Ell and Fischer, 2021). In this sense, the lesson learned from the first phase of SEA application in Chile is that it is not enough to legally adopt a strategic SEA model, in terms of the objectives and guiding concepts of the process, but that a procedural model to run SEA must be developed that fits those strategic purposes.1 In this chapter, first the legal framework of SEA in Chile is explained. Next, a discussion on whether the Chilean SEA model can be considered strategic is provided. It is then explained how the regulatory development of the law that gave rise to SEA is actually a distortion of the original strategic model. Next, the central hypothesis of this chapter is developed, which basically states that the current low performance and disfunctioning of SEA in Chile is due to a procedural contradiction. Subsequently, available data are presented that quantify the performance of SEA in Chile. The central hypothesis is finally supported with a more qualitative validation based on interviews with qualified experts. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF SEA IN CHILE The concept of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Chile was incorporated through the enactment of Law 20.417 in 2010, which amends Law 19.300 on General Environmental 1 The procedural model is understood in this context as simply the set of administrative rules defined to carry out an SEA.

374

Strategic environmental assessment in Chile  375 Bases. This Law also created the Ministry of the Environment, the Environmental Evaluation Service and the Superintendence of the Environment. The law establishes that SEA is the procedure carried out by the respective sectoral ministry, so that environmental considerations of sustainable development are incorporated into the process of formulating policies and plans that have an impact on the environment or sustainability, so that they are integrated into the preparation of the respective policy or plan, and their substantial modifications, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of Law 19.300.2 According to the legal framework, all regulatory urban and territorial plans must be submitted to SEA. In other words, the mandatory application of SEA is limited to urban and territorial planning instruments. The remaining policies and plans that must be submitted to SEA are defined by the Council of Ministers for Sustainability, a body also created in the aforementioned Law.3 Finally, the law establishes that a specific regulation should define the procedure and deadlines under which SEA should be carried out. Regulations for SEA were issued and entered into force four years after the law. Given the delay in approving the Regulations that define how an SEA process should be carried out, it was necessary to generate a set of exceptions for those SEAs that had been initiated prior to its approval. This meant that, until the time of writing this chapter (i.e. August 2019), two different phases of application of SEA have been generated in the country, one without Regulations from the beginning of 2011 until the end of 2015 and the other with Regulations in place from the end of 2015 until now. Finally, the Law determines the scope of the matters to be covered by SEA. In the first place, Article 4 contains definitions of both, conceptual and methodological aspects applicable within the SEA procedure, such as: environmental considerations of sustainable development, sustainable development criteria, follow-up criteria, critical decision factors, environmental objectives, and development options, among others.4 The Law also defines other aspects of the SEA process. In Articles 5 and 8 to 13, it establishes the role played by the promoter of the evaluated policy or plan, the Ministry of the Environment, the Council of Ministers for Sustainability and the participating bodies within the SEA framework. It also defines the administrative requirements applicable to the procedure, such as: SEA information system, territorial decentralization of the procedure taking root at regional levels, constitution of an SEA file, including forms of publicity and reproduction, forms of coordination and consultation with the bodies participating in SEA, and applicable deadlines. The promotor is understood legally as the institution which has the power to enact a policy or plan, and who is responsible for submitting them to the SEA procedure. The promotor is considered here as the decision maker. The Regulations define the stages of the SEA procedure and milestones and requirements to be met. In the design phase of a policy or plan, the SEA procedure is initiated with a formal administrative act. Citizen participation is carried out during the design stage, and reports and meetings are requested with State Administration bodies participating in the evaluation. In the approval phase of the plan or policy, the draft policy or plan is elaborated on, the envi-

Law 20.417 of the year 2010, Article 7 bis second paragraph. In Chile, programmes are not subjected to SEA. 3 Decree 32 of 17.08.2015, published in the D.O. 04.11.2015. 4 The critical decision factor concept is derived from Partidario’s (2012) SEA methodological approach (see also MMA, 2015). 2

376  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment ronmental report is elaborated on, the review and observations to the environmental report by the environmental authority are carried out, and public consultation is conducted. Finally, the procedure is closed and a final version is elaborated on and the policy or plan is approved.

A STRATEGIC SEA MODEL Law 20.417, which defines the Chilean legal framework for SEA, provides for a strategic orientation (Rozas-Vásquez and Gutiérrez, 2018). Unlike many other countries – those belonging to the European Union, among others – that have opted for an EIA-based SEA model (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Monteiro et al., 2018; see also Chapter 2 by Rehhausen et al., 2021), in Chile, the legal framework sees SEA as a tool, not only to support a decision, but also to support its strategic dimension. This constitutes an exception internationally (Leopoldino da Silva et al., 2014).5 The Law makes this clear when it defines SEA as “the procedure carried out by the respective sectoral Ministry, so that the environmental considerations of sustainable development are incorporated to the process of formulation of the policies and plans of general normative character, that have impact on the environment or sustainability, so that they are integrated in the preparation of the respective policy and plan, and their substantial modifications”.6 This definition contains several elements of importance for understanding the Chilean SEA model and its strategic nature. In the first place, as in many other countries, SEA has the task of incorporating environmental considerations of sustainable development into the decision-making processes of policies and plans. But, importantly, in Chile, SEA should not primarily achieve this goal by the identification, avoidance and/or remediation of the possible environmental impacts of decisions (Noble and Nwanekezie, 2017), as is usually expected in the SEA environmental impact-oriented approaches (see also Chapter 1 by Fischer and González, 2021). What the Law understands by environmental considerations of sustainable development is made explicit when defining the obligations at the first SEA stage: “the authority that will dictate the policy or plan shall consider the environmental objectives and effects of the instrument, as well as the criteria for sustainable development”.7 Thus, the environmental considerations of sustainable development consist of (i) the environmental objectives of the policy or plan, (ii) the environmental effects of the policy or plan, and (iii) the sustainable development criteria of the policy or plan. Thus, SEA is understood as a tool whose purpose it is to influence, at an early stage, the strategic dimension of the formulation of a policy or plan. Even the use of the term environmental effects to refer to the consideration of the environmental scope of the decision is semantically softer than the traditionally used ‘environmental impact’. Moreover, the Regulations that develop the Law define the environmental effects as follows: “f) Environmental Effects: Correspond to the implications on the environment and sustainability that would generate the development options proposed by the policy, plan or instrument of territorial planning

In Chile, even if not mandatory, SEA can be applied to policies. Law 20.417 of the year 2010, Article 7 bis second paragraph. 7 Ibid. 5 6

Strategic environmental assessment in Chile  377 submitted to Strategic Environmental Assessment”.8 Here, the effects are transformed into implications of the “development options”, that is, “environmental profile” of the strategic options associated with the formulation of a policy or plan. This is different from the traditional concept of environmental impact. Secondly, consistent with the above definitions, the Law defines the roles of the two central actors of the SEA procedure. First, it gives the promoter9 of the policy or plan a crucial role by defining SEA as “the procedure carried out by the respective sectoral Ministry …”. The promoter also closes the SEA process through an own administrative act. And, secondly, it places the environmental authority into the role of the observer of the process. “At the approval stage, a draft policy or plan containing an environmental report must be prepared, which will be sent to the Ministry of the Environment for its observations, and then submitted for public consultation by the responsible body” (italics added).10 Box 24.1 summarizes the main features of the Chilean SEA model. The Ministry of the Environment has other functions associated with SEA, such as collaborating with sectoral ministries, amongst others. Moreover, in what is essential in terms of decision-making power in the SEA process, the legislator has placed this on the side of the public policy maker, not on the side of the environmental authority.

BOX 24.1 MAIN FEATURES OF THE CHILEAN SEA MODEL • SEA has the purpose of environmentally improving a decision by influencing it top-down; from its objective and criteria definition down to the projects that the decision may entail, rather than improving it bottom-up by assessing the environmental effects of the projects that the decision may entail. • SEA is a decision-oriented assessment process. The object assessed is the decision process, not its final output: it is process assessment, not output assessment as standard environmental impact assessment is. • SEA is a procedure directed by the sectoral decision-maker; the environmental authority is endowed with an observatory role. Source: Own elaboration.

The SEA was then conceived as a tool that should contribute to incorporating the environmental dimension into policies and plans from a strategic perspective; that is, in a top-down approach, from the environmental objectives, the sustainable development criteria down to the “development options” and their environmental implications. Its function is to provide the decision-making process with an environmental and sustainability orientation from top to bottom. It is this hierarchical decisional influence that must ensure its environmental consistency, rather than a bottom-up evaluation of anticipated environmental impacts.

SEA Regulation approved by the Decree 32 of 17.08.2015, published in the D.O. 04.11.2015 The promotor is understood legally as the institution which has the power to enact a policy or plan, and is therefore responsible for submitting them to the SEA procedure. So far, and for analytical purposes, the promotor is considered here as the decision maker. 10 Article 7 bis of Law 19.300 which was modified through Law 20.417. 8 9

378  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment

MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL SEA LEGISLATIVE MODEL However, the SEA Regulation that implements the Act has distorted central aspects of the SEA model. The most relevant bias imposed by the operationalization process of the Law is the replacement of the decisional model of the SEA procedure with a project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure, in which the environmental authority exercises the central power of the assessment procedure and determines standards and contents of the assessment. In this case, it was not an attempt to replace an “integral” determination of the process (process and contents) by the environmental authority as it is in the case of the EIA, but to reinstall, as far as possible, the role of the environmental authority as the authority of the process. It is not easy to give an explanation for this decision, but in part it undoubtedly responds to a rather hierarchical governance model prevailing in the country (Monteiro et al., 2018) and, to the – what could be termed – ‘cultural weight’ of the EIA-based assessment model (Lobos and Partidário, 2014; Noble and Nwanekezie, 2017).11 The aforementioned distortion of the strategic orientation of the SEA model in Chile took place in a subtle way. On the one hand, Article 23 of the SEA Regulations states that the promoter of the policy or plan subject to an SEA process is not obliged to assume the Environment Ministry observations.12 However, on the other hand, Article 22, which regulates the power of the observer, i.e. the Ministry of Environment states that the purpose of the Environment Ministry observations is to determine if “… the policy, plan or instrument of territorial planning adequately applied the Strategic Environmental Assessment” (italics added).13 This Article transforms the Ministry of the Environment into the authority of the SEA process. It is the Ministry of the Environment that decides whether the SEA procedural standard has been properly applied or not. Although the promoter can ignore the observations of the environmental authority (Article 23), this is a politically costly step to take, since it is not a question of ignoring an observation of contents, where the environmental authority indicates its disagreement with the environmental content of the report, but of ignoring a procedural observation of who determines the procedural standard (Article 22). In fact, of the more than 300 SEAs prepared, only in one case has the promoter ignored the environmental authority’s observation.

THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE STRATEGIC MODEL AND THE PROCEDURAL VERIFICATION APPROACH In practice, the distortion in the decisional nature of SEA in Chile has led to the annulment of the strategic potential that the law has granted SEA in Chile. This process has taken place in a complex way.

11 This distortion was already implemented in the first phase of the application of SEA, through the formal strategy of finalizing the observations of the Ministry of the Environment, with the sentence “the Environmental Report (submitted by the promoter to observations of the Ministry of the Environment) complies” or “does not comply with the minimum contents …”. 12 Decree 32 of 17.08.2015, published in the D.O. 04.11.2015. 13 Decree 32 of 17.08.2015, published in the D.O. 04.11.2015.

Strategic environmental assessment in Chile  379 The Ministry of the Environment is placed into the role of guarantor of a procedural logic instead of becoming a defender of environmental values in the processes of formulating policies and plans (advocacy role), which is the role that the law assigns to it, and what is understood by the function of environmental assessment itself (Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006). This has had a decisive institutional effect in Chile, as is subsequently explained. First, the distortion of the spirit of the Law imposes on the Ministry of the Environment the institutional responsibility to define the SEA standard and secondly it verifies its compliance. De facto, the Ministry of Environment has been engaged in this task, leaving the critical judgment on the substantive aspects of the SEA almost completely abandoned; that is to say, the debate of what it means to incorporate environmental objectives and sustainability criteria in the policies and plans that SEA is applied to. Secondly, this distortion of the spirit of the Law obliges the Ministry of the Environment to fulfil its verification function, to develop, under pressure, a legal and methodological framework (regulation and its basic definitions, the suggested SEA methodologies, and the internal evaluation and observation procedures it has developed) that would facilitate it to fulfil its role as guarantor, defining procedural aspects that could be verified in a transparent manner. That is to say, it was supposed to develop a standard verification instrument that would allow it to fulfil this function, even without the need for this evaluation to internalize the aspects dealt with by the policy or plan, or without having to do so in a substantive manner (Rozas-Vásquez and Gutiérrez, 2018). However, this standardization and simplification of the verification function collides with the complexity of the decision-making process which gives rise to an evaluation of policies and plans, first and foremost those of territorial planning that are obligatory in the Chilean case. And that collision is even more inevitable if the nature of the process is strategic. In that case, procedural treatment must be evaluated, such as the consideration of objectives, criteria and policy or planning alternatives in very dynamic decision-making processes. This tends to be abstract and elusive, being able to take multiple forms. This means that the standardization required by the verifying function could only succeed by sacrificing the diversity and dynamics of the decision-making processes that are subject to SEA. This has been a source of multiple misunderstandings and confusion, and widespread dysfunctionality in the application of the SEA procedure, particularly in the case of urban and territorial planning instruments. The definition of sustainable development criteria are “one function of a set of environmental and sustainability policies that allows the identification of the most coherent development option with the planning and environmental objectives defined by the responsible body in the applied instruments”.14 A sustainable development criterion is therefore one for taking decisions according to other policy decisions. Given these efforts of conceptualization of the procedure, it is not surprising that the verifying procedure resulted in the observations of the Ministry of Environment. The use of the basic definitions on many occasions diverts from what the Ministry of the Environment understands should be applied. This has generated great uncertainty and confusion regarding the procedure. Added to this is the fact that, with the purpose of establishing a unified verification framework, methodologically the Regulation is influencing the execution of the SEA, establishing

Decree 32 of 17.08.2015, published in the D.O. 04.11.2015.

14

380  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment a unique methodological approach through which the SEA should be carried out. This was done by incorporating the concept of Critical Decision Factors (CDFs) as the methodological axis of the SEA of a policy or plan. In this way, the Ministry of the Environment could easily assess whether an SEA has been properly applied to the extent that the CDF-centred SEA methodology has been used or not (Partidário, 2012). There are many ways to conduct SEA (Noble et al., 2012; Montaño and Fischer, 2019; Acharibasam and Noble, 2014), even for a strategic SEA (Caratti et al., 2004; Jiliberto and Bonilla, 2009; Noble and Nwanekezie, 2017). However, in Chile, the attachment of SEA to a single SEA methodology has meant an unnecessary limitation of methodological options. This is important not because the methodology in question cannot be applied to a wide range of decisions, but because its practical application can vary ostensibly from case to case. Thirdly, an accumulation of mismatches has been created between the practice of the decision maker and the evaluation standards. This has heavily influenced the central incentive that the SEA has for the promoter of the policy or plan. Although in the Law the promoter’s incentive could be to look for ways to incorporate environmental objectives, sustainable development criteria and the environmental effects of its decisions, its central incentive is to approve the procedural verification process imposed by the Ministry of the Environment.

DATA ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CHILEAN SEA SYSTEM The procedural verification approach imposed has been contradictory to the strategic nature of the regulated SEA model, leading to a practice centred on formal aspects, with a low level of procedural performance and a tendency to distort the use of the SEA by promoters, limiting not only the understanding of what the added value of SEA should be, but also its real added value. Some of the performance indicators of the Chilean SEA system can be elaborated on from the database of the SEA information system of the Chilean Ministry of the Environment (MMA). This, at least in parts, confirms the aforementioned assertion (Rozas-Vásquez and Gutiérrez, 2018). The SEA administrative procedure established by the Regulation starts with an SEA initiation document in which the policy or plan promoter informs the environmental authority of its willingness to initiate the policy or plan formulation process and to carry out its respective SEA. During the design process of SEA, the promoter incorporates its environmental and sustainability dimension according to what is established in the starting document. Next, the promoter produces an environmental report that they send to the environmental authority, which should be complied with. In this case, a complementary environmental report is produced. The process ends with a termination resolution of the SEA issued by the promoter of the policy or plan. The procedure, therefore, establishes the following milestones: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Initial SEA document Environmental Report (ER) Complementary ER SEA Final Resolution

These are the four phases of the SEA procedure in which the information available in the Ministry of the Environment’s database is structured, as shown in Table 24.1.

Strategic environmental assessment in Chile  381 Table 24.1

Status of plans and policies subject to SEA, 2011–19

SEA Procedural Phases

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total

%

Initial SEA document

3

9

14

5

6

4

12

22

20

95

27%

Environmental Report

5

15

7

18

3

1

5

7

1

62

18%

Complementary ER

27

31

38

25

14

11

5

1

0

152

43%

SEA Final Resolution

2

5

5

6

8

8

6

3

0

43

12%

Total

37

60

64

54

31

24

28

33

21

352

100%

Number of Years

Source: Prepared by the author based on data from the strategic environmental assessment information system of the Ministry of the Environment Chile (https://​eae​.mma​.gob​.cl/​).

In the period 2011–19, a total of 375 public policy instruments were subjected to SEA, of which an overwhelming majority, 323, are formulations or modifications of territorial planning instruments (86%). Twenty-three of these have abandoned the SEA process, so the database reports a total of 352 evaluated cases. At the same time, it is important to distinguish the application of the procedure in the regulatory context, before and after the entry into force of the Regulation in 2015, four years after the beginning of the application of SEA. Of the total number of policies and plans evaluated up to 2019, 70% have done so in the initial phase 2011–15 when a Regulation was not yet available, and 30% from that moment on. Table 24.2 shows the procedural moment and the year in which a particular procedural step was taken, which has remained the current status for each of the 352 SEAs. Thus, for example, there are three plans for which SEA was started in 2011 and then did not continue the application of the procedure in accordance with the decisions of the planning process. As is shown in Table 24.3, the situation of plans and policies submitted to SEA between 2011 and 2019 (August 2019), in the almost nine years of application of the SEA in Chile, is that 12% have terminated the SEA procedure. Furthermore, of the 152 plans that are in the ER complementary SEA phase, 121 have already obtained a favourable final observation of the MMA, subtracting from it the Final Resolution cases to which they have probably not acceded because the Plan has not yet been formally approved by the authority of the case. According to this, then, of the total number of submitted SEAs in the period 2011–19, 46% have completed the SEA procedure. This means that 54% of the plans or policies submitted to SEA in the period have not completed their SEA. By 2019, 187 SEAs had not finalized their procedure. They are halted at one of the previous three SEA phases (Table 24.2). So, 95 SEAs are halted in the Initial SEA document phase. Those 95 SEAs might have remained at this phase for between one and nine years. Table 24.2

Distribution of non-finalized SEA procedure among SEA phases

SEA Procedural Phases

Total

%

Initial SEA document

95

27%

Environmental Report

62

18%

Complementary ER

30

43%

Total

187

100%

Source: Prepared by the author based on data from the strategic environmental assessment information system of the Ministry of the Environment Chile (https://​eae​.mma​.gob​.cl/​).

382  Handbook on strategic environmental assessment Table 24.3 shows the proportion of SEAs halted at each of the SEAs in nine time intervals (years of application of SEA in Chile). For example, 3% of the 95 plans or policies whose SEAs are halted in the Initial phase are there between eight and nine years, 13% are there between seven and eight years; 3% of the last 8–9-time interval plus 4% of the 7–8-time interval. Consequently 100% of them are stopped in this phase for less than one year. Table 24.3

Accumulated time of delay of SEA procedures by SEA procedure phases, 2011–19

SEA Procedural 8–9 years

7–8 years

6–7 years

5–6 years

4–5 years

3–4 years

2–3 years

1–2 years