Strategic environmental assessment effectiveness in Portugal

Figures & data

Figure 1. Database search: year of publication.

Figure 2. Database search: geographical region of publication.

Figure 3. Environmental statements registered in APA between 2007 and 2017 (source: REA 2018).

Table 1. Effectiveness consideration in the research methods.

Categories	Questionnaire focus	Conversational dialogue focus
Contextual	All aspects below	All aspects below
Procedural	Preparedness of planning process to SEA Influence of SEA in the decisions	Preparedness of planning process to SEA
Substantive	Added value of SEA Cultural and political context of SEA Influence of SEA in the decision Strategic dimension of SEA	Added value of SEA Influence of SEA in the decisions
Transactive	Costs and benefits of SEA Costs resources	Costs and benefits of SEA
Normative	SEA for sustainability Influence of SEA in the decisions	Proactivity of SEA
Pluralism	Usefulness of public participation for SEA Technical and institutional capacity for SEA	Usefulness of public participation for SEA
Learning and Knowledge	Technical and institutional capacity for SEA	Technical capacity for SEA

SEA: Strategic environmental assessment.

Figure 4. Political context and decision-making culture that frame SEA.

Figure 5. Technical capacity for SEA.

Figure 6. Institutional capacity for SEA.

Figure 7. Usefulness of public participation.

Figure 8. Effectiveness of SEA in Portugal.

Table 2. Top three responses in open questions regarding SEA effectiveness in Portugal.

Most important criteria for an effective SEA
Promotion of public participation and institutional cooperation	29.5%
Be integrated with the decision-making process and contextualized	29.5%
The political willingness of decision-making and power dynamics	19.7%
Most common difficulty that may impede an effective SEA
The political and cultural context of SEA (decision, planning, and power distribution)	29%
The attitude of legal compliance	22.6%
Institutional and technical capacity for SEA	21%

SEA: Strategic environmental assessment.

Figure 9. Added value of SEA (word cloud).

Table 3. Concluding analysis on the effectiveness of SEA in Portugal.

Effectiveness categories	Concluding core aspects
Contextual	SEA practice, as well as its institutional climate and culture, remains influenced by the conventional thinking of impact assessment driven by a logic of effects assessment, as established through the regulatory requirements SEA mostly seen as a regulatory procedure – national legislation needs improvement in clarity of regulatory procedures Good practice guidance with limited influence in the dominant perception of SEA – methodological orientations are followed in its form but not in its philosophy Predominant rationale: SEA as a big EIA Centralized decision-making culture Reduced collaboration between teams and between entities involved in decision-making Low motivation for entities to enhance SEA application Low practice of dialogues and public participation culture, only consultation, and too late, low public empowerment The political and cultural context of SEA (decision, planning, and power distribution) may impede SEA effectiveness SEA needs to be better integrated with decision-making and contextualized Capacity-building needs – SEA skills available in environmental authorities, planning and SEA consultants for running current reactive form of SEA, but not enough for making SEA different
Procedural	SEA seen as a regulatory procedure, a compliance instrument mandated by law SEA starts late SEA and planning processes are independent, parallel but separated SEA useful in making relevant information available to the public
Substantive	SEA largely seen as an information provider SEA effective in balancing environmental, social, and economic factors but unable to promote and achieve reductions in deprivation and equity between generations SEA effective with long term, but ineffective with short-term, environmental protection
Transactive	Costs vary according to the plan, benefits vs costs depend SEA skills available in environmental authorities, planning and SEA consultants for running current conventional SEA practice
Normative	SEA applies late and mostly to technical reactive plans, with predefined planning solutions – plans not very strategic Centralized decision-making culture not very receptive to environmental information Low practice of dialogues: between teams, between consultants and planners, between entities, with the public Added-value of SEA is largely about integration of environmental issues in the plan and adding environmental information A minority see the connection between SEA and EIA, or the influence of SEA on EIA A much smaller group recognize SEA added-value in establishing priorities, define, discuss, and assess strategic options, increase transparency, set monitoring plan, provide clarity to the planning process, help with learning, with public participation and with changing the vision of the plan Three top strategic changes SEA brings to a plan: integration of environmental issues, prioritization in planning, and assessment of strategic options Top five added value of SEA: sustainability, change, engagement, decision-making, and governance
Pluralist	Low practice of dialogues and public participation culture, only consultation, and late Public participation mostly ineffective Low capacity of the public to contribute to SEA Opinion of minorities and marginalized groups largely seen as non-useful Recognized capacity in obtaining the opinion from the public Promotion of public participation and institutional cooperation seen as an effectiveness criterion
Knowledge and learning	Low level of experience and moderate familiarity with the SEA instrument Insufficient interaction between planners and SEA consultants Relationship between teams seen as essential to change mentalities Continuous links between processes enhance the potential of SEA and help learning about SEA institutional capacities Need for effective communication, adjusting information and language Low level of interaction between general public and planners/SEA consultants leads to reduced sharing and mixing of different knowledges (local/tacit)

SEA: Strategic environmental assessment.

Table

SEA allowed the integration of environmental aspects

SEA added environmental information

SEA helped with the establishment of priorities

SEA contributed to the discussion and definition of strategic options of development

SEA contributed to alter the vision of the plan

SEA promoted the engagement and the contribution of the public

SEA helped the planning team in learning processes

Table

SEA produced information that was used by planners in the review and discussion of changes

SEA allowed to alter planners vision in relation to future developments

SEA contributed to make the plan more environmental and social integrated, enhancing environmental protection

SEA was consulted and read by the public and other sectorial entities

SEA allowed to alter the public and other sectorial entities vision in relation to future development

The connection between SEA and EIA was established

The influence of SEA and EIA processes was clear and useful

Table

a)

b)

c)

Table

	1	2	3	4	5
Obtain relevant information from the public
Provide relevant information to the public
Obtain public’s opinion during the preparation of the plans
Clearly integrate during the preparation of the plans the opinions and informations obtained from the public
Recognize the importance of minorities and marginalized groups

Table

	1	2	3	4	5
Environmental authorities
Other authorities with environmental responsibilities
Responsible for the preparation of plans
Planning consultants
SEA consultants

Table

	1	2	3	4	5
Clarity of the legislation
SEA guidance useful and sufficient
Capacity of the public to contribute to SEA
Collaboration between entities for decision-making
Motivation of entities to enhance SEA
Planning practices to integrate SEA

Table

	Promote	Achieve
Short-term environmental protection
Long-term environmental protection
Reductions of deprivation
Economic dynamics
Equity between generations
Balance between environmental, social, and economic factors

Table

Very ineffective

Partially

Very effective

Table

Integrates environmental issues in the Plan	46.3%
Helps to prioritize (through the establishment of change of priorities)	14.8%
Identifies and assesses strategic development options	13%
SEA doesn’t make any change to the plans	13%
Increases transparency and access to environmental information	9.3%
Helps to set a monitoring programme	7.4%
Provides clarity to the planning process	7.4%

¹ Top seven themes with most frequency of response.

Table

Promotion of public participation and institutional cooperation	29.5%
Be integrated with the decision-making process and contextualized	29.5%
The political willingness of decision-making and power dynamics	19.7%
Identification of environmental and sustainability issues	16.4%
Be clear and transparent on its results	14.8%
The technical capacity for SEA of authorities and other stakeholders	13.1%
Establishment of a monitoring scheme and follow-up programme	11.5%

Table

The political and cultural context of SEA (decision, planning, and power distribution)	29%
The posture of legal compliance	22.6%
Institutional and technical capacity for SEA	21%
Lack of dialogue and cooperation between all stakeholders (including SEA and planning teams)	19.4%
No public participation	12.9%
No contextualization of SEA and prioritization	11.3%
Late start of the SEA in the planning process	9.7%

²Top seven themes with most frequency of response.

³Top seven themes with most frequency of response.

REA. 2018. Relatório do Estado do Ambiente Portugal 2018. Amadora: Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, https://rea.apambiente.pt/.

 Google Scholar