The effectiveness of the SEA process in Slovenia

This article focuses on the analysis of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) effectiveness in Slovenia. Apart from some general information on the SEA legal framework and guidance, the article mainly explores the political context, substantive, transactive, normative, knowledge/learning and pluralist effectiveness of SEA in Slovenia. An online questionnaire was prepared to collect information and views related to the stated aspects of SEA effectiveness from key stakeholders involved in the process. The survey results indicate that SEA in Slovenia is only partially effective. The most commonly recognised problems related to the substantive effectiveness of SEA are linked to weak control over the implementation of the mitigation measures and their effectiveness. With regard to transactive effectiveness, the SEA extends the planning process and is mostly assessed to have a low cost–benefit ratio. Personnel and organisations involved in SEA processes have very diverse skills and efficiency. In relation to normative effectiveness, neglect of social and economic components occurs. SEA does not seem to be very successful in changing the way of thinking, which has a negative impact on knowledge effectiveness. Pluralist effectiveness could be also improved, especially with regard to better integration of views from the public into the planning process.     

Factors affecting SEA effectiveness in Estonia

This study addresses the key aspects of the Estonian SEA system and the main factors affecting the effectiveness of SEA. Five dimensions of SEA effectiveness (substantive, pluralist, transactive, normative and transformative) have been examined. The study is also complemented by semi-structured interviews of key actors of the SEA systems (public authorities, SEA experts and environmental NGOs), but also on the authors’ own experiences in analysing and participating in the SEA process. The paper concludes that SEA has become a relatively routine process at national government and local government levels, and effectiveness is affected by the level of assessment of cumulative effects (especially those of climate change, biodiversity loss and green area network), consideration of alternatives and extent of public participation. One of the significant impediments to the effectiveness, however, is the missing SEA follow-up.     

Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in Portugal

Discussions on effectiveness have been around in impact assessment for many years, blending multiple perspectives. This paper is about the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in Portugal. The adopted framework was set by the editors of this special issue and this paper is contributing results obtained through a questionnaire shared with SEA professionals in Portugal, and also from discussions held in a workshop promoted by the Portuguese national authority on SEA. We have tried to understand the influence of SEA in development processes and the perception on SEA added-value to both environmental authorities and other relevant stakeholders in Portugal. Results are mixed and somehow reveal some confusion between expectations with what SEA aims to achieve, and with what it is actually delivering, which question its effectiveness, as expressed by some opinions that SEA ‘magic may be fading away’. However, other outcomes, such as the recognized need for better communication and increased capacity-building, support the conclusion that most SEA practice and experience in Portugal are yet far from SEA full capacity and potential.     

From medicine to poison: how flexible strategic environmental assessment may be? Lessons from a non-regulated SEA system

Empirical research dedicated to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is mostly grounded on SEA systems guided by legal requirements, clearly stated procedures and systematic use of SEA to policy- and plan-making. Nevertheless, a considerable parcel of SEA practice is currently occurring in countries with no specific legislation or guidance to be followed, i.e. non-regulated SEA systems. Therefore, it is important to understand how SEA is performing in these countries and to establish whether related SEA systems are subject to the same premises and perspectives of effectiveness that have been reported in literature so far. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the state-of-practice in Brazil, based on best practice analysis of SEA reports and interviews, reporting empirical evidence regarding the use of SEA and its related timing, procedural performance and key players involved. Main findings reveal an isolated instrument, embroidered in a disperse and unclear framework, poorly coordinated and highly sensitive to circumstances. Provision of a structured system, indicating clear purposes of SEA, systematic procedures and stakeholder’s responsibilities are suggested as potentially relevant measures to balance current system’s flexibility, thus fostering SEA effectiveness.     

Recognising ‘learning’ as an uncertain source of SEA effectiveness

Strategic environmental assessment’s (SEA’s) capacity to profile significant environmental effects is thought to help make public-sector decision-making more sustainable. Acknowledgement is growing that ‘learning’, that links to but transcends individual assessments, is a key source of SEA effectiveness. Such learning is largely positioned as wholesome, moral, as ‘good’. The Scottish Parliament went further than the European Commission to require all public bodies to engage with SEA. More than 14 years of evidence – including from the Scottish Government SEA Database (an online registry), a survey and interviews – provides a unique opportunity to study the role of learning in SEA. The paper argues that application of SEA requires systematic reinforcement and maintenance of learning. But the learning fostered by SEA is not guaranteed to prioritise or protect ‘environment’ – for that to happen SEA must also be embraced as disruptor of the prioritisation of economic goals.     

Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice

This article explores the diversity of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in Canada and lessons for improving the effectiveness of SEA. There are multiple dimensions to effectiveness, but core to SEA effectiveness is its strategic nature. SEA under the Canadian federal Cabinet directive is approached largely as an impact assessment tool, and effectiveness evaluated based on compliance. Practice is entrenched in project-based assessment principles, but with no mandatory provision for public engagement, which limits the potential effectiveness of SEA. External to the Cabinet directive, across Canada’s provinces and territories, SEA and SEA-like practices are occurring in diverse forms and represent the more advanced and exemplary cases. A common challenge to SEA effectiveness, however, is that applications are often limited by their ad hoc nature and disconnected from any larger and formal system of participatory and integrated policy, planning and development decision making.     

SEA in Austria and the participative SEA Round Table model

This article firstly gives an overview of Austria’s SEA practice. Secondly it explores the effectiveness of a specific SEA approach, the SEA Round Table. The SEA Round Table is a participative SEA model, involving members of public administration, environmental NGOs and external experts throughout the entire SEA process. This SEA team seeks consensus on an environmentally sound plan or programme. The effects of this SEA Round Table approach are presented by a series of four SEAs carried out for the last four Viennese waste management plans from 1999 to 2018. These four case studies are quite specific SEA cases, which do not allow conclusions on overall SEA effectiveness in Austria. However, some of the outcomes give an idea of how SEA can actually contribute to more environmentally sound plans, which are also easier to implement.     

Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice in Slovakia is about 20 years old. EIA was first introduced in Slovakia based on the Environment Law of 1992. The practice in EIA started developing shortly after the Law No. 127/1994 Coll. came into force. The first group of experts was certified as being EIA/strategic environmental assessment (SEA) professionally qualified persons. During 20 years, the numbers of EIA procedures were performed and number of EIA practitioners has considerably increased. Many discussions arise about EIA procedure effectiveness and quality in Slovakia. The task of this study has been to investigate EIA system applications in Slovakia and evaluate its effectiveness. In this paper, the views of professionally qualified persons are examined closely, using a questionnaire survey. Data from the questionnaires are analysed to find information relating to current EIA/SEA and EIA/SEA practice and the future for EIA. The objective of this study was to assess the potential for improving the effectiveness of EIA in Slovakia, and finally the recommendations for improvement are presented. The results of this research suggest that the use of new legislation should be extended in Slovakia in order to improve EIA effectiveness.     

Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Germany? – meta-review of SEA research in the light of effectiveness dimensions

SEA practice in Germany has been growing since its introduction and so has the number of SEA research projects and publications. This paper provides a meta-review of German SEA effectiveness research published between 2004 and 2018. In this context, we discuss: (1) What is the status quo of SEA application in Germany? (2) What dimensions of SEA effectiveness have been addressed in research to date? and (3) How effective is SEA in Germany? Our findings indicate that there is room and need for SEA improvement, for example, with regards to the practice of screening, transparency, and quality management. With a focus of previous SEA research on the dimension of procedural effectiveness, future research should aim at other dimensions and their interactions (substantive, transactive, knowledge and learning, legitimacy).     

Investigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was introduced in Thailand in 2005, aiming to direct decision-making at the strategic level (policy, programme, plan) towards sustainable development. Given reforms to the SEA requirements in 2018, it is timely to evaluate emerging SEA experience in the Thai context to inform future practice. The effectiveness of 14 SEAs was investigated based on a version of a recently published framework which substitutes ‘legitimacy’ for normative effectiveness and pluralism, modified through the addition of disaggregated sub-criteria associated with each dimension of effectiveness (procedural, substantive, transactive, and legitimacy), to facilitate a richer understanding of the effectiveness of practice. This more detailed effectiveness framework enabled a comprehensive evaluation of practice, and should be transferable to other contexts. The findings suggest that SEA in Thailand currently partially achieves procedural, substantive, and transactive effectiveness. Achieving some elements of substantive effectiveness where practice is currently weak is considered to be particularly challenging, and also determinative in the achievement of legitimacy. Consequently, the majority of SEAs evaluated in this study failed to achieve legitimacy.     

Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Poland

The paper presents the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of SEA obtained as a result of a survey with the participation of stakeholders. In Poland, several hundred SEAs are conducted annually at the local and regional levels and several at the national level. Although the survey demonstrated that SEA is evaluated as effective or quite effective, the respondents pointed to several irregularities in the non-procedural dimension of effectiveness. The main ones in terms of substantive effectiveness are that SEA is rarely used to help develop plans/programmes and procedures are highly politicised. Moreover, low effectiveness in terms of variant assessment and cumulative impacts and nearly non-existent monitoring of the actual effects of implementing plans/programmes influence substantive effectiveness significantly. The respondents pointed to the problem resulting from the fact that plan-makers are unwilling to take into account the SEA recommended changes. They also emphasised that there are certain attempts to put pressure on SEA consultants to make the conclusions less stringent. Respondents indicate that in Poland the costs associated with conducting SEA often outweigh the profits. The research shows that the society is properly informed about SEA, but public involvement is still low.     

Outcomes and contextual aspects of strategic environmental assessment in a non-mandatory context: the case of Brazil

Within the ample body of literature devoted to strategic environmental assessment (SEA) outcomes and the assessment of its effectiveness, it is accepted that the performance of SEA systems is influenced by contextual aspects. Procedural aspects, objectives, guidance, approach, timing, amongst others, are reported as key components of the different dimensions of SEA effectiveness but their linkage to SEA outcomes is yet to be adequately investigated. In this paper, contextual aspects and related outcomes of a non-mandatory SEA system were identified through systematic literature review and personal interviews with key actors of SEA, aiming at the identification of the influence of contextual factors on SEA effectiveness. The findings indicate three main aspects that may explain the lengthy process of introduction of SEA in plan- and policy-making in the country: (i) lack of proper SEA legislation, (ii) the influence of Environmental Impact Assessment practice and (iii) the influence of the environmental licensing culture. Nevertheless, SEA contributes to improving communication between stakeholders along the planning process and to providing a better level of information for lower tiers of decision-making. In spite of the minor influences on the nature of the strategic action, valuable lessons credited to SEA have been learnt.     

Towards a better understanding of SEA effectiveness in Ireland

The first review of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) effectiveness in Ireland examined how a number of selected case studies performed procedurally. The findings pointed not only to deficiencies in the consideration of alternatives, monitoring and SEA Statements, but also in its capability to lead to more informed and sustainable decisions. Six years on from that review, this paper revisits some of the case studies and appraises non-procedural effectiveness via stakeholder interviews to obtain a more comprehensive account of SEA effectiveness across the life of the reviewed plans. The case studies illustrate a general openness to SEA. Overall, consulted experts agreed that SEA contributes significant knowledge to planning decisions. SEA iterations tend to be more efficient as a result of learning; in some cases, the process led to internal organisational restructuring, facilitating better environmental integration in subsequent plans. There is limited implementation of monitoring across the case studies, so while the review points to positive outcomes of SEA (e.g. new data and knowledge, mitigation by avoidance), it remains to be evidenced whether it ultimately prevents adverse environmental effects.     

Effectiveness of English local plan SA/SEAs

Fourteen years since the implementation of the European SEA Directive, the effectiveness of the English system of Local Plan sustainability appraisals/strategic environmental assessments (SA/SEAs) is analysed, based on 15 case studies, five interviews, and questionnaires of 11 planners. Substantively, SA/SEA leads to fine-tuning of plan policy wording and a more robust choice of development sites, but to only limited wider influence on the plan. Normatively, there seems to be a direct conflict between the requirement that Local Plans must provide enough housing for ‘objectively assessed need’, and environmental protection. From a pluralist perspective SA/SEA reports are very long, and although the statutory consultees often comment on them, the public do so only infrequently. It is in the transactive dimension that the largest changes have taken place: both consultants and planners have had to do more with less. This does not yet seem to have negatively affected the other effectiveness dimensions, but may not be sustainable over time.     

Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in the Czech Republic

The widespread application of SEA over the last 15 years in the Czech Republic has allowed for a gradual accommodation of SEA procedural steps into the standard bureaucratic routine of public authorities. In this paper, we discuss results of a small-scale survey among Czech SEA practitioners focusing on issues related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the SEA. The results suggest a moderate progress driven primarily by the accumulation of practical experience among both SEA consultants and the planners, and there is certainly no shortage of examples where SEA positively affected a plan. On the other hand, continuation of many negative general environmental trends (e.g. excessive conversion of virgin land for development, continuation of environmentally harmful agriculture and forestry policies, etc.) seem to conform the notion that the SEA, as currently practiced, in the Czech Republic fails to deliver to its full potential.     

Towards a more effective approach to the development and maintenance of SEA guidance

Written guidance can contribute to the development of effective SEA, delivering relevant information for those involved in policy, plan and programme making processes. Generally speaking, guidance should aim at setting best practice standards. However, to date, how guidance is impacting on SEA effectiveness and how it is best developed and maintained has not been explored to any great extent. As a consequence, it has remained unclear how a key ingredient of effective SEA, namely the support of an enabling context, should be approached. In this paper, we look at the perceived relevance of written guidance for the delivery of effective SEA, based on a two-stage survey with 26 practitioners (all with over 10 years of experience) from the UK and the Republic of Ireland, conducted between 2015 and 2017. Survey participants included representatives of the regulatory, consultancy and academic sectors. Our findings indicate that guidance can promote SEA effectiveness if it: (a) aims to go beyond basic legislative requirements; (b) is able to respond to the specific situation of application; (c) can establish a minimum standard for SEA; and (d) is able to stimulate the advancement of quality standards within a tiered approach to SEA.     

Survey of current methods and guidance for strategic environmental assessment

This paper examines methods promoted and used in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice, practitioner choices about methodology and the nature of SEA guidance. Results show that SEA is not challenged by a lack of methods, but the range of methods promoted and used is restrictive. A major challenge to practice is making the ‘right choices’ about methods and methodology. Much SEA guidance is focused on flexibility in SEA, providing high-level principles, and is too generic to facilitate such choices. It is assumed that there is sufficient expertise amongst SEA practitioners, and that practitioners will simply know what methods and methodologies are best. Our results indicate that more detailed operational guidance is needed at the practitioner level on how to make sound methodological choices and how to select the best available methods for the SEA tier and context at hand.     

First steps toward best practice SEA in a developing nation: lessons from the central Namib uranium rush SEA

The intent of this study is to contribute to the discussion of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) best practice based on experience gained in a recent SEA initiative: the central Namib (Namibia) uranium rush SEA. We evaluate this SEA process against internationally established characteristics of ‘best practice’ SEA to improve and strengthen future practice in Namibia. The study draws primarily on the final assessment report as well as inputs from six informants involved in the assessment. The results reveal some elements of good practice as well as areas for improvement, and in particular, the need for improved baseline data collection; adequate consideration of alternatives; committing to preferred scenario/options; enforceability; and a more robust institutional capacity. We offer insight into how consideration of these factors may help to strengthen SEA practice in Namibia. Overall, the SEA may not represent a ‘best practice’ example according to international standards, but it does suggest a potentially bright future for SEA practice in Namibia.     

Strategic environmental assessment in Romania: between benefits and constraints

This paper offers an overall picture of the importance of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Romania and its opportunities and constraints. The role, scope and effectiveness of SEA in Romania are presented in two good practice examples and examined in order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the procedure at national and local scale. In practice, the number of SEA procedures is very high due to the legislation in force, and it is increasingly effective in decision-making about programmes and plans. SEA can be viewed as a great opportunity for the implementation of sustainable development in practice. It also continues to be an important procedural and decisional instrument for management and monitoring of socioeconomic development, spatial planning and environmental protection in Romania.     

Systems thinking and SEA

Abstract

Systems thinking seeks ‘how things work’ in an explicit way, considering not only the elements of systems (or processes) but most importantly the relationships between them. Its suggested contribution to SEA is that practitioners and researchers who are either (a) not entirely satisfied by reductionistic approaches based on behaviour or statistics (e.g. ‘black boxes’ or ‘composite points’), or (b) pro-active enough to seek understanding about the SEA process, SEA systems (e.g. per country), as well as the ‘object systems’ of SEA (physical and social structures) will be able to fulfil their curiosity or need for unequivocal and transparent documentation in what respects structure and function.