Remaking science-policy interfaces in the quest for effectiveness

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of the policy recommendation made in three studies of SEA systems.

Policy recommendation	Swedish evaluation (Balfors et al. 2018)	EU evaluation (European Commission 2016)	EU evaluation (European Commission 2009)
Guidance	Recommended guidance is published on: screening; alternatives; methods; monitoring; coordination between legislation; climate change; and on, the links between SEA and EIA.	Recommended guidance is published on: case law; developing and assessing alternatives; relationship between the SEA Directive and other Directives and how to mitigate overlaps; developing, evaluating, and maintaining assessment methods (including indicators and monitoring); clarification of the terms not defined in the legislation; clarification of the screening procedure (type of plans and projects subject to mandatory or potential SEAs); clarification of tiering and the relationship between different levels of assessment; examples of best practices; and transboundary cooperation.	Member States suggested guidance is needed on: screening; alternatives; monitoring; examples (e.g. on methods, on best practices, etc.); sectorial guidance; coordination between legislation; on the links between SEA and EIA (general and for specific project categories); and, climate change.
Training and capacity development	National and/or regional networking and ‘learning’ forums. Accreditation scheme. Compulsory training in universities.	Training of practitioners (p. 120) and ‘smaller, less aware authorities’ (p. 124).	Forums for knowledge sharing between nations.
Data	(Annotated) database of SEA reports.	Improve availability of basic (baseline) data and information. National or regional data exchange networks.	–
Procedures	Alternatives (definition) Screening (clarification of application).	Screening (clarification of application). Scoping. Consultation (innovative methods).	Consolidation and greater harmonisation of the EIA and SEA legislation. Reconsider relationship between EIA and SEA.
Cost effectiveness	Demonstration of the benefits of SEA.	Tracking compliance costs and benefits. Demonstration of the value of SEA.	–
Resource limitations	Collaborative between planning authorities.	Database for baseline data Centralised support organisation to support screening and scoping.	–
Legislative change	–	–	Consolidation and greater harmonisation of the EIA and SEA legislation; reconsider relationship between EIA and SEA.
Others	Early multi-stakeholder workshops; quality review of documentation by an independent body.	–	No amendments to legislation until further experience develops.

Figure 1. A representation of the science-policy interface.

Source: (UNEP 2017)

Figure 1. Science-policy relations.

Notes: The figure depicts four models of research-policy relations: 1. Research informs policy; 2. Policy and politics shape research; 3. Research and policy are coproduced; and 4. Research and policy are autonomous domains.Source: adapted from (Boswell and Smith 2017)

Balfors B, Antonson H, Faith-Ell C, Finnveden G, Gunnarsson-Östling U, Hörnberg C, … Wärnbäck A (2018). Strategisk miljöbedömning för hållbar samhällsplanering Slutrapport från forskningsprogrammet SPEAK [Eng. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable planning: final report from the SPEAK research program]. Stockholm. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6810-3.pdf?pid=21969.

 Google Scholar

European Commission. (2016). Study concerning the preparation of the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC). Luxembourg. doi:10.2779/725510

 Google Scholar

European Commission. (2009). Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). doi:10.2779/725510

 Google Scholar

UNEP. 2017. Strengthening the science-policy interface: A gap analysis. Nairobi: United Nations Environment. http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/htmain.htm.

 Google Scholar

Boswell C, Smith K. 2017. Rethinking policy “impact”: four models of research-policy relations. Palgrave Commun. 3(1). doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar