Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding

Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is vital in order to know to what extent the tool fulfills its purposes and produces expected results. However, the studies that have evaluated the substantive effectiveness of SEA produce varying outcomes as regards the tool's contribution to decision-making and have used a variety of approaches to appraise its effectiveness. The aim of this article is to discuss the theoretical concept of SEA substantive effectiveness and to present a new approach that can be applied for evaluation studies. The SEA effectiveness evaluation framework that will be presented is composed of concepts of, and approaches to, SEA effectiveness derived from SEA literature and planning theory. Lessons for evaluation can be learned from planning theory in particular, given its long history of analyzing and understanding how sources of information and decisions affect (subsequent) decision-making. Key concepts of this new approach are ‘conformance’ and ‘performance’. In addition, this article presents a systematic overview of process and context factors that can explain SEA effectiveness, derived from SEA literature. To illustrate the practical value of our framework for the assessment and understanding of substantive effectiveness of SEA, three Dutch SEA case studies are examined. The case studies have confirmed the usefulness of the SEA effectiveness assessment framework. The framework proved helpful in order to describe the cumulative influence of the three SEAs on decision-making and the ultimate plan.     

Multi-actor involvement for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial plans

Integrating an ecosystem services (ES) approach into Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of spatial plans potentially enhances the consideration of the value of nature in decision making and policy processes. However, there is increasing concern about the institutional context and a lack of a common understanding of SEA and ecosystem services for adopting them as an integrated framework. This paper addresses this concern by analysing the current understanding and network relations in a multi-actor arrangement as a first step towards a successful integration of ES in SEA and spatial planning. Our analysis focuses on a case study in Chile, where we administered a questionnaire survey to some of the main actors involved in the spatial planning process. The questionnaire focused on issues such as network relations among actors and on conceptual understanding, perceptions and challenges for integrating ES in SEA and spatial planning, knowledge on methodological approaches, and the connections and gaps in the science-policy interface. Our findings suggest that a common understanding of SEA and especially of ES in a context of multiple actors is still at an initial stage in Chile. Additionally, the lack of institutional guidelines and methodological support is considered the main challenge for integration. We conclude that preconditions exist in Chile for integrating ES in SEA for spatial planning, but they strongly depend on appropriate governance schemes that promote a close science-policy interaction, as well as collaborative work and learning.     

“Ripe for decision”: Tiering in environmental assessment

Tiering of information and decisions from more strategic plans to more specific projects (and sometimes the other way) can streamline plan-making and assessments, and improve decisions at each planning tier. In particular, it can lead to more consistent and comprehensive impact mitigation at the lower tiers. In practice, however, tiering of assessments is carried out only sporadically. This paper reviews the international literature and case studies on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) tiering, and presents the findings of interviews with 14 SEA/EIA experts. It concludes that a conscious and explicit transfer of information from the SEA level, and an explicit receipt of this information at the EIA level are necessary prerequisites for effective tiering. SEAs must be carried out with local actions in mind, in order for mitigation measures to support environmental protection on the ground. Lower-tier decision-makers must also be willing to be bound by decisions by the higher-tier SEA, focusing on implementation of these decisions.     

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA.     

The art of underperforming SEA – Symptomatic narratives from Germany

SEA spread around the world as has SEA effectiveness research. International SEA evaluations show mixed findings on SEA effectiveness. In this article, the quality and procedural effectiveness of SEA in Germany is analysed pursuing the hypothesis that SEA is influenced by planning and administrative traditions that tend to counteract to more ambitious SEA approaches. Three SEA case studies were analysed according to a set of criteria and indicators based on international research outcomes involving SEA integration into decision-making, scoping, selection and assessment of alternatives, cumulative effects assessment, tiering, public participation, and monitoring. The analysis draws on documents analysis and interviews with representatives from responsible agencies and involved SEA consultancies.The analysis shows that SEA is facilitating informed decision-making as the responsible agencies used the SEA, the interaction with consultancies, and the participation processes as a source of information. However, the case studies show various degrees of SEA quality in Germany based on the evaluated criteria and indicators. Results demonstrate that procedural effectiveness is limited. Unclear legal regulations, an expert-based planning approach instead of a collaborative approach, and organisational constraints limit the SEA quality. Furthermore, SEA performance is highly influenced by administrations' legalistic tradition, the expert-based planning culture, the home-grown planning system, and the bounded importance of SEA consultancies in the era of staff cuts and under-resourced agencies. Thus, the recommendations aim to strengthen a more collaborative planning approach, to build SEA capacity within SEA responsible agencies, and to clarify SEA regulations.The overall question for SEA evaluation research and practice may be how more collaborative planning approaches can effectively be implemented in planning and SEA practice through institutional learning.     

Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal

Biodiversity, soil, water, air, climate, landscape and other components are typically analyzed in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) when looking for the effects of a given project on the biological and ecological components of the environment. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) tends to follow the same general pattern, when looking for the environmental effects of plans and programs. In both cases, ecosystem services are often not explicitly considered. We developed a framework to analyze environmental assessment (EA) practice and infer about ecosystem services based on existing evidence from EIA and SEA reports and supporting information. Our framework addresses the relations between ecosystem services and the environmental factors assessed in EIA and SEA, considering the relevant conceptual frameworks such as the ES cascade model and the DPSIR framework applied to ES provision. We base our proposals on results from a preliminary meta-analysis of recent EIA and SEA reports from several types of plans and projects in Portugal, in which implicit assessments of ES were clearly predominant. We discuss the implications of those results and the opportunities to infer about ecosystem services, and conclude on the need for more dedicated and explicit efforts to ecosystem services assessment in EIA and SEA.     

Mind the gap in SEA: An institutional perspective on why assessment of synergies amongst climate change mitigation, adaptation and other policy areas are missing

This article takes its point of departure in two approaches to integrating climate change into Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): Mitigation and adaptation, and in the fact that these, as well as the synergies between them and other policy areas, are needed as part of an integrated assessment and policy response. First, the article makes a review of how positive and negative synergies between a) climate change mitigation and adaptation and b) climate change and other environmental concerns are integrated into Danish SEA practice. Then, the article discusses the implications of not addressing synergies. Finally, the article explores institutional explanations as to why synergies are not addressed in SEA practice. A document analysis of 149 Danish SEA reports shows that only one report comprises the assessment of synergies between mitigation and adaptation, whilst 9,4% of the reports assess the synergies between climate change and other environmental concerns. The consequences of separation are both the risk of trade-offs and missed opportunities for enhancing positive synergies. In order to propose explanations for the lacking integration, the institutional background is analysed and discussed, mainly based on Scott's theory of institutions. The institutional analysis highlights a regulatory element, since the assessment of climate change synergies is underpinned by legislation, but not by guidance. This means that great focus is on normative elements such as the local interpretation of legislation and of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The analysis also focuses on how the fragmentation of the organisation in which climate change and SEA are embedded has bearings on both normative and cultural-cognitive elements. This makes the assessment of synergies challenging. The evidence gathered and presented in the article points to a need for developing the SEA process and methodology in Denmark with the aim to include climate change in the assessments in a more systematic and integrated manner.     

Experts' perspective on the performance of Chinese technical guidelines for Plan Environmental Impact Assessment

This research was to evaluate the Technical Guideline (HJ/T130-2003) effectiveness based on data resource from a questionnaire survey and interviews on EIA experts. The result demonstrated that the guideline served mainly as a quality control measure for PEIA products, and only a small proportion of experts considered it effective due to its inconsistency with the newly released Chinese PEIA Regulation (2009) and poor practicability. Current status of SEA implementation in China was also studied in terms of application fields, effectiveness evaluation, and major issues to affect SEA, to conclude that SEA implementation in China is premature, and with limited effectiveness. The major problem was the lack of effective methodologies and technical tools. Recommendations for revising the PEIA Guideline and advices to improving SEA implementation in China were accordingly proposed.     

Experts' perspective on the performance of Chinese technical guidelines for Plan Environmental Impact Assessment

This research was to evaluate the Technical Guideline (HJ/T130-2003) effectiveness based on data resource from a questionnaire survey and interviews on EIA experts. The result demonstrated that the guideline served mainly as a quality control measure for PEIA products, and only a small proportion of experts considered it effective due to its inconsistency with the newly released Chinese PEIA Regulation (2009) and poor practicability. Current status of SEA implementation in China was also studied in terms of application fields, effectiveness evaluation, and major issues to affect SEA, to conclude that SEA implementation in China is premature, and with limited effectiveness. The major problem was the lack of effective methodologies and technical tools. Recommendations for revising the PEIA Guideline and advices to improving SEA implementation in China were accordingly proposed.     

SEA screening of voluntary climate change plans: A story of non-compliant discretion

Screening within Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the first critical stage involving considerations on whether an assessment is carried out or not. Although legislation and guidance offer practitioners a legal and logical approach to the screening process, it is inevitable that discretionary judgement takes place and will impact on the screening decision. This article examines the results of discretion involved in screening of climate change plans (CCPs) in a Danish context. These years voluntary CCPs are developed as a response to the global and local emergence of both mitigation and adaptation, and the voluntary commitment by the local authorities is an indication of an emerging norm of climate change as an important issue.This article takes its point of departure in the observation that SEA is not undertaken for these voluntary CCPs. The critical analysis of this phenomenon rests upon a documentary study of Danish CCPs, interviews with a lawyer and ministerial key person and informal discussions between researchers, practitioners and lawyers on whether climate change plans are covered by SEA legislation and underlying reasons for the present practice.Based on a critical analysis of mandatory SEA and/or obligation to screen CCPs according to significance criteria, the authors find that 18 out of the 48 CCPs are mandatory to SEA and 9 would require a screening of significance and thereby potentially be followed by a SEA. In practice only one plan was screened and one was environmentally assessed. The legal, democratic and environmental consequences of this SEA practice are critically discussed. Hereunder is the missed opportunity to use the broad environmental scope of SEA to avoid a narrow focus on energy and CO₂ in CCPs, and the question whether this practice in Denmark complies with the EU Directive.     

Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of academic research

This paper examines the strategic environmental assessment (SEA)–sustainability relationship over the past decade, from 2000 to 2010, focusing in particular on the incorporation of sustainability in SEA. A total of 86 papers from the academic literature containing the terms ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ and ‘strategic environmental assessment’ were identified and reviewed. Several common themes emerged by which SEA can support sustainability, including providing a framework to support decision making for sustainability; setting sustainability objectives, ensuring the consideration of ‘more sustainable’ alternatives, and integrating sustainability criteria in PPP development; and promoting sustainability outcomes through tiering and institutional learning. At the same time, our review identified many underlying barriers that challenge SEA for sustainability, including the variable interpretations of the scope of sustainability in SEA; the limited use of assessment criteria directly linked to sustainability objectives; and challenges for decision-makers in operationalizing sustainability in SEA and adapting PPP development decision-making processes to include sustainability issues. To advance SEA for sustainability there is a need to better define the scope of sustainability in SEA; clarify how to operationalize the different approaches to sustainability in SEA, as opposed to simply describing those approaches; provide guidance on how to operationalize broad sustainability goals through assessment criteria in SEA; and understand better how to facilitate institutional learning regarding sustainability through SEA application.     

Ecosystem services inclusive strategic environmental assessment

A consistent framework to address biodiversity, ecosystem services and their societal values is now established with the MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) and the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). These and other studies point to the urgency in considering actions that can revert the process of degradation of biodiversity values and its supporting ecosystems. Safeguarding livelihoods is a common objective in ecosystem approaches as well as in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) effort to promote sustainability. Human activities, as direct and indirect development drivers, are crucial targets for SEA to have a strategic contribution in influencing priorities, by showing strategic reasons for change. Rather than keeping only a control and mitigation role on the assessment of effects and impacts of development on the environment, SEA has the capacity to understand the decisional and development context and to drive development opportunities into pathways that are inclusive of environmental and sustainability priorities. The development opportunities provided by ecosystem services can be explored in SEA through strategic approaches to enhance the value of the benefits and avoid the negative impact of human actions on ecosystem services. SENSU, a research team at IST-Portugal, advocates the strategic-based and collaborative oriented approach in SEA based on Partidario (2007) SEA framework of critical decision factors (CDF). A methodology to allow the consideration of ecosystem services in SEA is being developed and tested. This paper will share research advances on how ecosystem services can be incorporated into SEA as a fundamental component of strategic assessment in support of decision-making.     

Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating the environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning processes

Integration of environmental assessment tools has long been promoted as best practice with the potential to bring environmental benefits. In this research, we set out to evaluate the effectiveness of integration of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and mine closure planning using a simple effectiveness criteria framework, applied to current regulatory provisions and practices in Western Australia. The effectiveness criteria for the integration of EIA and mine closure planning, compiled from existing reviews of integration and effectiveness concepts in the impact assessment literature, considers procedural, transactive, substantive effectiveness and overall process legitimacy. Data analysis consisted of a literature review, examination of regulatory and guidance material and interviews with 12 experienced EIA and/or mine closure practitioners with an industry or regulatory focus. The results provide strong, positive examples of procedural, transactive and substantive effectiveness due to the integrated framework. These include behavioural changes, improved knowledge and learning and better provision for closure at an early stage of mine planning. A trajectory of improvement was noted by everybody interviewed. However, a key driver for effectiveness is the enthusiasm of key facilitations, and tension exists due to the different motivations of the two lead regulatory agencies which poses a challenge for the integrated framework. While it can reasonably be argued that the effectiveness of early mine closure planning cannot yet be realised, due to a paucity of completely closed mines in Australia this study nevertheless demonstrates clear benefits and opportunities result from early stage integration of EIA with mine closure planning.     

The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems: A case study in France

While the development of maritime economic activity is increasingly encouraged, the consideration of its impacts constitutes a real challenge. The limitations of the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy have been widely discussed in scientific literature, yet data on marine biodiversity offset practices remains scarce. In this study, we investigated the use of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) as suitable instruments to achieve the No Net Loss objective. Drawing on a French approach developed for the initial assessment of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive, we examined the pressures and impacts related to various marine development projects and the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in limiting these. An analysis of 55 recent French environmental impact studies showed that only 7% of the proposed measures had the aim of offsetting predicted degradation of sites of remarkable biodiversity. This can be partly explained by the lack of a clear definition of ‘significant impact’, which varies greatly depending on what is impacted, in turn allowing socio-economic activities to benefit more easily from offset. Furthermore, offsetting does not always constitute the final step of the mitigation hierarchy, highlighting the need to reinforce avoidance and reduction steps. Although we acknowledge the role of EIA in mitigating the negative impacts of development projects, synergies with other European marine environmental policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Maritime Spatial Planning directive (MSP) should be developed in order to improve current practices.     

Avoiding climate change uncertainties in Strategic Environmental Assessment

This article is concerned with how Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice handles climate change uncertainties within the Danish planning system. First, a hypothetical model is set up for how uncertainty is handled and not handled in decision-making. The model incorporates the strategies ‘reduction’ and ‘resilience’, ‘denying’, ‘ignoring’ and ‘postponing’. Second, 151 Danish SEAs are analysed with a focus on the extent to which climate change uncertainties are acknowledged and presented, and the empirical findings are discussed in relation to the model. The findings indicate that despite incentives to do so, climate change uncertainties were systematically avoided or downplayed in all but 5 of the 151 SEAs that were reviewed. Finally, two possible explanatory mechanisms are proposed to explain this: conflict avoidance and a need to quantify uncertainty.     

Bridging the divide between theory and guidance in strategic environmental assessment: A path for Italian regions

Clear and effective legislation is a requisite to bring sustainable development from theory into practice. This paper develops a methodology to investigate how Italian regional legislation disciplines the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), the procedure used in the European Union (EU) to pursue sustainable development of policies, plans, and programs (PPPs). Our case study is the Italian regional level, examined to identify eventual flaws and areas for improvement for each regional legislative framework. For this purpose, this study refers to a selection of analytical criteria recurring in the international debate on sustainability assessments. Statistical multi-dimensional analysis is used to identify Italian regions with similar SEA legislation. We recognize four taxonomies, depending on the way regional legislation provides information about i) legislation and guidelines, ii) integration between SEA and PPPs, iii) sustainability goals, iv) technical organization, v) participatory organization, and vi) monitoring. The results suggest that Italian administrators should cooperate to improve legislation at the regional level. Acknowledging the institution-centred nature of SEA, this methodology could drive the EU to better support SEA development in countries with diversified traditions.