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

Figures & data

Table 1. Procedural performance assessment: criteria and grades.

Procedural performance criteria	Grades
Screening	A (Satisfactory) The task is generally well performed, and clearly presented on the SEA report, with no omissions B (Somewhat satisfactory) Some parts were accomplished, but the whole task is not clearly described in SEA report or there are significant omissions C (Not met) The task was not accomplished at all or it was not mentioned in SEA report
1) Clearly justifies the need for SEA application. ^(f)
2) Describes the content and purposes of the SEA object (PPP). ^(a, d, e)
Scoping
3) Identifies relevant Policies, Plans and Programmes and analyses the links with the SEA object. ^(a, c, d, e, g)
4) Clearly describes the current state of environment (baseline). ^(a, d, e, f)
5) Identifies and justifies key environmental issues, relevant to the SEA (significant issues that may be the focus of the assessment). ^(c, d, f)
6) Clearly presents the SEA purposes and objectives. ^(a, b, d, f, g)
7) Clearly defines objectives for sustainability. ^(a, b, d, e, f, g)
8) Defines indicators and uses them to support the assessment. ^(d, g)
Assessment and Monitoring
9) Presents the likely environmental evolution without SEA object (do nothing alternative). ^(a, d, e, g)
10) Presents strategic alternatives. ^(a, b, c, f, g)
11) Identifies and evaluates possible environmental consequences of the alternatives presented. ^(a, b, e, f, g)
12) Presents mitigation measures. ^(a, b, e, g)
13) Proposes a strategy for monitoring the environmental effects. ^(a, b, e, f, g)
Consultation and Transparency
14) Interested authorities are consulted through the many SEA process stages (scoping, assessment and report). ^(a, b, c, f, g)
15) Public consultation was carried out through the many stages of SEA process (scoping, assessment and report). ^(a, b, c, f, g)
16) The SEA report is available to the public and easy to access. ^(a, c, h)

a) CEC (2001); b) Fischer (2007); c) IAIA (2002) d) Polido and Ramos (2015); e) UNECE (2003); f) Retief (2006); g) Therivel (2010), h) Therivel and Minas (2002).

Figure 1. Strategic level of SEAs.

Figure 2. Number of SEAs by sector.

Figure 3. Proponents of the strategic action.

Figure 4. Institutions requiring SEA.

Figure 5. Procedural performance: score frequency vs. best practice criterion.

Figure 6. Procedural performance evaluation: scores frequency in Group #1 (SEAs prepared according to IDB’s requirements).

Figure 7. Procedural performance evaluation: scores frequency in Group #2 (same approach and methodological guidance).

Table 2. SEA benefits and constraints perceived by key-players.

Perceived SEA benefits		Constraints
Communication		Planning context
	Promote communication between sectors and stakeholders that barely work together		Resistance of some institutions
			Structure of public administration
	Unification of concepts and purposes		Transience of public administration
			Pressure to assess only individual projects
Information
	Gathering and sharing information	SEA system
	The use of scenario analysis to support future decisions		Dependency of individual initiatives
			Late start (timing)
Creation of opportunities			No space for discussing alternatives
	Promote ‘room’ for institutions with low budget to include their agenda in discussions Support subsequent/complementary decisions		Lack of knowledge No guarantee to the use of SEA recommendations Lack of definition of responsibilities for monitoring and follow-up

Table 3. Interviews excerpts organized by themes, categories and subcategories.

Theme	Category	Subcategory	Interview excerpt
Perceived SEA benefits	Communication	Promote communication between sectors and stakeholders that barely work together	‘In the end of the day putting people from transport, energy, environment, water resources in the same room is a [SEA] benefit in itself.’ (Consultancy Firm)
		Unification of concepts and purposes	‘I feel the main benefit of this process was the unification of some understandings about concepts and purposes.’ (Secretary of Development). ‘During the elaboration of the studies, the first reports and their involvement, they understood: it is important because we cut out part of the [actual] EIA for projects and we can focus it in what it should do […]’ (Secretary of Environment)
	Information	Gather and share information	‘The demand was to verify the chances to expand the hydropower plants through an environmentally-sound path.’ (Consultancy Firm). ‘[…] social actors never know anything; within the public sector […] there is no correct information about the process, about what will happen […].’ (Consultancy Firm) ‘There was a great expectancy in the municipal councils, but also a great ignorance.’ (Secretary of Development)
		Draw scenarios that support future decisions	‘During the elaboration of the studies, the first reports and their involvement, they understood: it is important because we cut out part of the [actual] EIA for projects and we can focus it in what it should do […]’ (Secretary of Environment)
	Creation of opportunities	Promote ‘room’ for institutions with low budget to include their agenda in discussions	‘[…] the secretariats that have low budget and that need more institutional and political autonomy saw in SEA a tool to subsidize their own programmes’ (Secretary of Development)
		Support subsequent/complementary decisions	‘[…] as the decision was [already] made, what would be the medium and long-term scenarios that might come with this decision? What are the policies that other sectors will implement to mitigate or enhance this future scenario? That is the importance of the assessment.’ (Secretary of Environment).
Constraints faced	Planning context	Resistance of some institutions	‘[…] the government is so segmented that when you start acting in a theme that it transversal, that have interactions with other institutions, people get bothered.’ (Secretary of Development) ‘Inside state government there was interest [in applying SEA], but it was not homogeneous.’ (Secretary of Environment)
		Structure of public administration	‘[…] the government is so segmented that when you start acting in a theme that is transversal, that have interactions with other institutions, people get bothered.’ (Secretary of Development)
		Transience of public administration	‘transience of public administration, especially of decision makers’ (Secretary of Environment)
		Pressure to assess only individual projects	‘The SEA did not help the environmental licensing. There is a big pressure for licensing individual projects.’ (Secretary of Environment)
	SEA system	Dependency in individual initiatives	‘the merit is for these people, who had the vision to instigate a good discussion’ (Consultancy Firm)
		Late start (timing)	‘[…] as the decision was [already] made, what would be the medium and long-term scenarios that might come with this decision? […].’ (Secretary of Environment). ‘SEA tried to meet some demands that we had in the government […]. One of them was to understand the developing process of the port […], but also the consequences of the investments in petroleum and gas.’ (Secretary of Development)
		No space for discussing alternatives	‘Discussion of alternatives has been the main failure of Brazilian SEAs, as the decision is already done. […] You will remain discussing a million of alternatives, but not the main ones, because the decision is [already] made.’ (Consultancy Firm)
		Lack of knowledge	‘In the beginning, the environmental licensing sector did not support SEA. Consultants also do not understand it’ (Consultancy Firm)
		No necessity (guarantee) to use the SEA information and recommendations	‘As it does not have legal power, it is voluntary, the decision-makers are not considering anything, they are just getting informed […].’(Consultancy Firm)
		Absence of responsibilities for monitoring and follow-up	‘[mechanisms for monitoring] were cogitated, but as it was the end of the government mandate and we even had got budget for the SEA itself, it was decided to consider that later, within the different departments’. (Secretary of Development)

[CEC] Commission of the European Communities. 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. Off J Eur Commun L. 197:0030–37.

 Google Scholar

Fischer TB. 2007. Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan.

 Google Scholar

[IAIA] International Association for Impact Assessment. 2002. Strategic environmental assessment performance criteria. Spec Publ Ser. (1). [accessed 2018 Jun 04]. http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/sp1.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Polido A, Ramos TB. 2015. Towards effective scoping in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. (June):1–13. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.993155.

 Google Scholar

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2003. The protocol on strategic environmental assessment. 2018 Jan 25. www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.htm.

 Google Scholar

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. 49:103–122.

 Google Scholar

Therivel R. 2010. Strategic environmental assessment in action. 2nd ed. London: Earthscan.

 Google Scholar

Therivel R, Minas P. 2002. Measuring SEA effectiveness: ensuring effective sustainability appraisal. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 20:81–91.

 Google Scholar