Would you do SEA if you didn't have to?– Reflections on acceptance or rejection of the SEA process

Abstract

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is undertaken in more than 60 countries worldwide. Support to the SEA process can range from formal legal requirements to voluntary ‘ad hoc’ approaches. In the cases where SEA is legally required, such as in Europe where the SEA Directive sets a framework for SEA legislation in 28 countries, practitioners may engage with SEA but in a reluctant way. This paper reports on a unique survey of 203 key people responsible for implementing the SEA legislative requirement in Scotland. The majority (53%) of the 187 practitioners who answered the hypothetical question ‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’ said ‘Yes’. However, results suggest that the responses were much nuanced. Practitioners were asked to explicate their reasoning and, irrespective of whether the answer was ‘yes’ or ‘no’, common themes were evident in accompanying remarks. This paper enables reflection on reasons for acceptance or rejection of the SEA process by discussing: the perception that a similar process to SEA is already being done, the problem with lack of resources, the call for a ‘leaner process’ and the difficulties of undertaking SEA when conditions are already determined at a higher ‘tier’.

Keywords::

• attitudes towards SEA
• practitioners
• resources
• leaner impact assessment
• tiering

1. Introduction: the role of SEA in mainstreaming environmental awareness and protection

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is the environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes which has as its broad aim the inclusion of environmental considerations into strategic decision-making. SEA has been recognised as taking place in more than 60 countries worldwide (IAIA 2011; Fundingsland Tetlow & Hanusch 2012). Several countries have legal requirements in place for SEA, the most widespread being that driven by a European Union (EU) Directive requiring SEA in all 28 EU Member States. However, even where SEA is not a formal legal requirement, voluntary SEA practice can take place. This is the case in South Africa, where between 1996 and 2003 (in the space of 7 years), 50 SEAs have been undertaken on a voluntary basis (as documented by Retief et al. 2008). It is also possible for formal legal SEA procedures and informal ‘ad hoc’ SEA-type processes to take place side by side, such as in the case of Canada (Noble 2009).

The EU SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) came into force in July 2001 and became an active part of the law in many European Member States in July 2004. The SEA Directive requires that SEA is undertaken of certain plans and programmes (although different member states refer to plans and programmes in a variety of ways) in a range of sectors primarily concerned with land use.

Although public-sector organisations might have been familiar with SEA-type processes before the SEA Directive was implemented (e.g. Wright 2007), many organisations unfamiliar with environmental assessment had to engage with SEA. This need was intensified in Scotland as SEA was to be applied widely (McLauchlan and João 2012 explore the breadth of Scottish SEAs), and therefore organisations not previously required to do SEA under the provisions of the SEA Directive, had to engage with SEA in Scotland for the first time. In a situation where SEA is compulsory, how do people respond to the widespread duty for it to be done?

This paper reports on a unique survey of practitioners who were compelled to ‘make SEA work’ in Scotland immediately after the SEA Directive was implemented. All practitioners attended SEA short courses and, as a result of the training, were informed about what SEA entailed as described in SEA guidance and practitioner guides to SEA (particularly Thérivel 2004). Therefore, these courses could be seen to impart an ‘orthodox view’ of how SEA should be done. People who chose to do training, and then answered the survey, had a practical interest in the training because they were going to do (or were likely to do) SEA directly as part of their work. By obtaining survey answers straight from 187 people responsible for SEA, this research offers unique perspectives from the people required to undertake SEA in this compulsory context.

With the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the EU SEA directive in 2014, acceptance or rejection of SEA is highly relevant to SEA's role in mainstreaming environmental awareness and protection across the EU. It is also of particular concern to SEA undertaken within Scotland because of the strong legal duty coupled with great political support (as described in McLauchlan and João 2012).

To put the survey results in context with regard to SEA activity in Scotland, and with the aim to motivate views about widespread application of SEA, the survey findings are also discussed in relation to information derived from Scottish Government sources related to SEA application in Scotland in the 9 years since the SEA Directive has been active, 21 July 2004–20 July 2013 (derived from Scottish Government 2013). This is described in Section 2.

2. Context – SEA activity in Scotland

SEA has been met with enthusiasm, at least on the part of the Scottish administration (McLauchlan and João 2011, 2012). There was a great deal of political activity and discussion around passing an Act of Parliament to broaden the requirements of the SEA Directive, including consultation (e.g. SEEG 2004) and meetings of committees in the Parliament itself (e.g. Scottish Parliament 2005).

In addition, a standalone unit, the SEA Gateway, was set up ‘to manage the administration of the necessary documentation and to offer advice on managing the SEA process’ (Scottish Executive 2006, 2.2.21). The SEA Gateway's data-gathering role means that detailed information regarding SEA activity in Scotland is available. The EU Directive does not require centralised information about SEA to be made available and Scotland's approach to providing information starkly contrasts with other countries. Canada has a central registry for EIA upon which research in Scotland drew to suggest that making information publicly available about SEA could support ‘transparency’ (McLauchlan and João 2005). However, paradoxically, Noble noted in 2009 that ‘the majority of SEAs at the federal level are not publicly available’ and ‘there is no central registry for SEAs as there is for EIA’ (p. 74).

Table 1 lists the number of organisations taking forward SEA in Scotland (21 July 2004–20 July 2013) compared with the total number of organisations in each category – Scottish Government, Local authorities, Consultation authorities and Other public authorities. Information was derived from Scottish Government sources about SEA undertaken in Scotland. The information reported does not include details about SEAs (or the organisations that undertook them) that went through Scottish consultation processes but that relate to more than one part of the UK or other parts of the EU (even where this includes Scotland). Three ‘private’ plans are also not included in the figures.

Table 1 The number of organisations taking forward SEA in Scotland (21 July 2004–20 July 2013) compared with the total number of organisations in each category.

	Number of public authorities in each category
Categories of public authorities	Total	Total that have engaged with some aspect of the SEA process	Engagement with SEA by each group (number of SEAs initiated or completed)
Scottish Government^a	1	1	175
Local authorities^b	32	32	1004
Consultation authorities^c	3	3	66
Other public authorities^d	363	51	132
Total	399^e	87	1377

Note: Information sourced from Scottish SEA Database (Scottish Government 2013).

a SEA undertaken by Scottish Government includes those SEAs taken forward by the Scottish Executive (The Scottish Parliament has not undertaken SEA directly).

b Defined by Section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994.

c Experts consulted on SEA as identified in the SEA Act, namely Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Historic Scotland is actually part of the Scottish Government but this has been counted separately.

d Other public authorities are all other bodies exempting those referred to above.

e The total figure of public authorities (November 2007) was derived from a list supplied by the Scottish Information Commissioner – this does not necessarily take in all organisations that can be described as public authorities in the terms provided by the SEA Act (as discussed in McLauchlan and João 2012).

It can be seen in Table 1 that there has been a large amount of SEA activity in Scotland. However, the ‘Other public authorities’ category which have engaged with SEA falls far short of the total number of organisations. Admittedly, this category is broad, ranging from Universities and other Higher Education Institutions, to Licensing Boards which regulate the sale of alcohol (Section 5 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005). Indeed, the number of ‘Other public authorities’ is difficult to ascertain because determining what is a ‘public authority’ rests on what ‘public’ actions an organisation takes forward (as discussed in McLauchlan and João 2012). The division between public and private is also difficult to determine – one of the three private organisations listed in Scottish Government (2013) data is a private airport which is certainly providing some sort of public service.

Table 1 also shows the number of SEAs undertaken by each group and by far the largest numbers have been started by Local authorities – the main organisations responsible for governing at the local level. Local authorities are the focus of this paper as they have clearly undertaken most SEAs. Table 2 provides the number of SEAs undertaken by Local authorities in Scotland organised by the stages they have reached (21 July 2004–20 July 2013). This includes plans and programmes excluded from SEA during the pre-screening and screening processes.

Table 2 Snapshot of the stages reached by plans and programmes taken forward by Local authorities entering the Scottish SEA process (21 July 2004–20 July 2013).

	The number of plans and programmes that have reached defined stages of the SEA process
SEA stage reached	Voluntary^a	Scottish SEA regulations	Scottish SEA Act	Total
Pre-screening statement prepared	–	–	362	362
Screening determination	–	8	178	186
Screening	–	4	146	150
Scoping	1	2	49	52
Environmental report	–	6	116	122
Final environmental report	–	3	5	8
Post adoption	2	26	96	124
Total	3	49	952	1004

Notes: This includes plans and programmes that were excluded from SEA via pre-screening and screening (screening determination). Information sourced from Scottish SEA Database (Scottish Government 2013).

a Authors of these reports claimed that these did not require SEA under the SEA Regulations.

As Table 2 indicates, in parallel with a formalised system, voluntary SEA can be done, again emphasising that people may consider SEA to be beneficial whether or not it is required by a legislative commitment. It is possible that other voluntary SEA or ‘SEA-type’ activities are being undertaken but have not been captured by this database.

Reviewing disparity between the aspirations for SEA to be rolled out to all public bodies and SEA in practice enables reflection on buy-in to the SEA process – prompting the question, ‘Would you do SEA if you did not have to?’. Arguably, the data indicate that not all organisations required to do SEA are undertaking this process. Practitioners engaged with SEA were surveyed for their opinions about SEA. The next section details how responses to the questionnaire were gathered to inform this paper.

3. Method

All of the SEA activity described in Section 2 was accompanied by people being trained to take part in SEA. Between December 2002 and June 2009, the first author of this paper trained 532 people on 29 different SEA courses, making it one of the main training providers in the UK during this time period. Twenty-seven out of the 32 Scottish Local authorities attended these courses, as well as the 3 Consultation authorities, 14 NGOs, 18 environmental consultancies, together with representatives of the NHS, 4 English Local authorities, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency and others.

This training provided a unique opportunity to gather practitioners' views on SEA. From May 2004, attendees of the SEA training courses run by the first author of this paper were asked to fill a reflective questionnaire with the title ‘Stumbling blocks on the use of SEA to improve the strategic action’. Time was allocated at the end of each course, so participants could fill the questionnaire and hand it back before leaving. Many (51%) did so. By asking practitioners to fill a questionnaire at theend of each course, it meant that participants understood the possible approaches to SEA as recommended by guidance (ODPM et al 2005) and the key practitioners' book ‘SEA in Action’ (Thérivel 2004). Table 3 provides the title of each course, date, location and number of people who attended.

Table 3 Training courses undertaken by the first author December 2002–June 2009.

Courses run by first author of this paper between 2002 and 2009					If answered question (number of yes, no and depends)^a
Title	Place	Length	Date	No. people attended	Yes	N/A, both, don't know, depends	No
SEA: exploring the potential for Scottish enterprise	Scottish Enterprise	1-day	17 December 02	12	–	–	–
SEA–principles, data needs and methodologies	Univ. Strathclyde	3-days	12–14 May 04	30	–	–	–
Implementing SEA @ The Highland Council	Highland Council	2-days	10–11 June 04	12	–	–	–
SEA–principles, data needs and methodologies	Univ. Strathclyde	3-days	8–10 September 04	18	–	–	–
Implementing SEA	Highland Council	2-days	16–17 September 04	15	–	–	–
Key principles of SEA	Clackmannanshire Council	1-day	2 December 04	22	15	0	7
Key principles of SEA	EPA, Ireland	1-day	23 February 05	20	10	3	2
SEA–principles, data needs and methodologies	Univ. Strathclyde	3-days	11–13 May 05	19	3	2	1
SEA–principles, data needs and methodologies	Univ. Strathclyde	3-days	7–9 September 05	34	12	14	3
Best value SEA^b	South Lanarkshire Council	1-day	22 November 06	25	6	1	3
Best value SEA	Scottish Link	1-day	29 November 06	24	2	3	0
Best value SEA	Dumfries and Galloway Council	1-day	13 December 06	26	8	2	7
Best value SEA	Angus Council	1-day	20 December 06	16	6	3	2
SEA: capacity building seminar	Midlothian Council	Half-day managers and directors	25 January 07	10	–	–	–
SEA: capacity building seminar	Midlothian Council	1-day	25 January 07	27	4	4	5
Best value SEA	Univ. Strathclyde	1-day	9 May 07	12	0	1	0
Best value SEA	Perth & Kinross Council	Half-day managers & directors	10 September 07	20	–	–	–
Best value SEA	Perth & Kinross Council	2-days	10–11 September 07	29	16	1	4
Data needs and data quality issues for SEA	Perth & Kinross Council	1-day	13 September 07	21	3	0	1
Best value SEA	Clackmannanshire Council	Half-day managers and directors	3 April 08	14	–	–	–
Best value SEA	Clackmannanshire Council	1-day	3 April 08	20	7	1	3
Best value SEA	Univ. Strathclyde	1-day	14 May 08	17	4	0	1
SEA in practice	Scottish Housing Best Value Network	1-day	11 June 08	19	2	2	4
Best value SEA	Stirling Council	Half-day managers and directors	24 June 08	8	–	–	–
Best value SEA	Stirling Council	1-day	24 June 08	17	1	0	1
SEA in practice	Scottish Housing Best Value Network	1-day	26 August 08	11	0	0	1
Best value SEA	Highland Council	Half-day managers and directors	25 November 08	7	–	–	–
Best value SEA	Highland Council	1-day	25 November 08	17	1	0	5
Best value SEA	South Lanarkshire Council	1-day	16 June 09	10	–	–	–
Total				532	100	37	50

Note: Data from question ‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’ filled out by participants at the end of each course.

a In total, 203 people answered the questionnaire but 16 did not answer this question.

b Change of title inspired by Partidário's (2000) proposal for improving the added value of SEA.

From reviewing responses to early surveys and from discussions within the courses, it was evident that some people undertook training because they were told to and there was some reluctance on behalf of participants to engage with SEA. Therefore, the following question was added from December 2004:

• If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it? Yes/No.

• Please explain your answer.

This paper reports on survey responses to this particular question, including a review of the types of organisations they represent. This excludes the 59 managers that were trained in morning sessions. Therefore, from the 532 people who were trained between December 2002 and June 2009, 386 were asked to fill out a questionnaire with the question above and 187 responded to the question (i.e. 48% return rate for this question).

Of the 187 people who answered the question, the majority (79%) reported to have a role associated with SEA. This included undertaking SEA, developing indicators and providing data-sets, and coordinating roles to ensure plans received an SEA if required. Only three people said that they did not have a role associated with SEA and had done the training just for information. Twenty-eight people (15%) said that it was likely that they would have a SEA role in the future but they did not know yet what that SEA role was going to be. Finally, nine left the question ‘What is/will be your role related to SEA within your organisation’ blank.

The training courses, although providing a balanced overview of the costs and benefits of SEA, were broadly in favour of SEA and encouraged its use. There was some evidence to suggest that the training was inspiring people to alter their views: ‘Before the course I would have said No [to SEA] as it is just one more “cumbersome” thing to do in an already complicated process. Won over by idea that it will improve the plan’ (3 April 2008). Other factors could have influenced the responses gained. People may feel passionate about protecting the environment – as one response stated: ‘Personally interested in improving/protecting the environment now and for those who will come after’ (10–11 September 2007). While others might have felt that the environment is not the top priority:

While individual staff members might favour the [SEA] process, it is unlikely that there would be any enthusiasm for it at the local level politically, and there would be no means to support carrying out the process. Financially greater priority would be given to social and economic considerations. (2 December 2004)

Undoubtedly, therefore, the context of the training, personal views and job conditions of participants would have influenced their responses.

In all cases, the first author of this paper was invited to give courses or people's organisations had sent them to university-based short courses. So the practitioners who took part in the SEA training courses already had some form of commitment to, or interest in, SEA. Importantly, the people who answered the survey were those grappling with the need to do SEA. Undertaking the survey enabled these people to reflect on the orthodox approach to SEA when confronted with the requirements in detail for the first time in relation to their own professional experience.

All methods are bounded, in that data collection requires decisions to both include and exclude participants, topics and outcomes. This study gained views from people that both had to ‘make SEA work’ and were also (as a result of the training) informed about what an orthodox approach to SEA entailed. Therefore, this data – which was only possible to collect during the formative stages of the development of SEA through engagement by practitioners in the SEA training – provides a unique insight into perspectives on SEA acceptance and rejection.

4. Analysis of responses to question “If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?”

The professionals involved in the survey were self-selecting as they were those people in Scotland likely to have the greatest engagement with SEA. Therefore, their views about acceptance and rejection of the process are very important to SEA application. The extensive SEA training was used as a platform for data collection. Table 3 shows the list of training courses undertaken by the first author of this paper between December 2002 and June 2009, including title, place, length, date, number of people who attended and number of people who answered the question ‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’.

Although yes/no was asked for the question, sometimes (20%) people ticked both or wrote ‘don't know’, ‘depends’ or N/A. Figure 1 shows that there was strong support for SEA with the majority answering Yes (53%) and only 27% answering No.

Figure 1 Answers to the question ‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’ from 187 people.

Table 4 presents information about the types of organisations that answered the question. As identified earlier, local authorities are clearly the largest group (totalling 136 responses), reflecting that training courses were often undertaken with groups of local authorities. The second largest group is consultation authorities (26), which includes ‘authorities with environmental responsibility’ (as specified in the SEA Directive) not only from Scotland but also from England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The majority of consultation authorities replied ‘yes’ (16) or ‘maybe’ (8) as SEA would set ‘a framework for environmental protection for the future’(23 February 2005) and they want to be seen to ‘lead by example’ (7–9 September 2005).

Table 4 Responses to the question organised by the type of organisation.

	‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’
Organisation type	Yes	N/A, both, don't know, depends	No	Total no.
Government bodies	1	2	1	4
Local authorities^a	75	17	44	136
Consultation authorities^b	16	8	2	26
Other public authorities	1	1	2	4
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO)	3	3	0	6
Environmental consultancies	3	4	1	8
Other private-sector organisations	1	2	0	3
Total	100	37	50	187

a Includes one English Local authority that said Yes.

b Includes ‘authorities with environmental responsibility’ (as specified in the SEA Directive) from Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The next largest number of responses came from NGOs (6), and environmental consultancies (8). Most NGOs were trained in a course run for Scottish Environment Link in 2006. The responses indicate that NGOs, rather than undertaking SEA, often have a role in examining how SEA has been carried out. Hence the number that stated this question was ‘not applicable’.

NGOs' responses are particularly notable because they do not have to do SEA but arguably take forward plans and programmes intended to have large (beneficial) impacts on the environment. Whelan and Fry (2011) argue that proposals specifically aimed at delivering environmental benefits should not be exempted from environmental assessment. This is because benefits are not proven until tested and proposals intending to do good can still cause harm. Arguably, NGOs are in a situation where they perhaps should be doing SEA but are not required to because their plans are not directly public sector.

Importantly, and as specified in Section 3, most survey respondents (94%) were involved in SEA – 79% had a role directly associated with SEA and 15% were likely to have a role in future. Only a minority of the survey respondents reported that they were interested in SEA but might not have a direct role (such as NGOs that may be part of consultation processes).

Due to their high volume of responses, reflected in their central role in carrying out SEA, the 135 responses from Scottish Local authorities are now analysed in greater detail (i.e. excluding the response from the English Local authority).

As it can be seen in Box 1, some of the same reasons are coming through for doing SEA, not doing SEA, or where there is uncertainty about whether or not it should be done. The following key themes are now analysed in more detail:

• Lack of resources

  Box 1: Representatives of Scottish Local authorities’ key justifications for saying they would ‘do’, ‘not do’ or were uncertain about doing SEA if they did not have to.

  Key justifications for doing SEA even if it was not compulsory	Key justifications for not doing SEA	Key justifications for uncertain answers
  • It is good practice, worthwhile, good idea (27)• The environment matters (16)• Yes, but smaller, less stringent SEA needed (11)• Doing it already (8)• No justification given (6)• Because training tells me so (5)• Relevant higher order plans (1)	• Lack of resources (27)• Doing it already (6)• Environment is not always top priority (4)• Other; No justification given (3)• Smaller, simpler SEA needed (3)• Relevant higher order plans (1)	• Doing it already (7)• Other; No justification given (6)• Smaller SEA needed (2)• Relevant higher order plans (1)• Resources needed (1)

• It is already being done

• Calls for a ‘leaner’ process

• What is the point at lower ‘tiers’?

4.1. Lack of resources

Representatives of 27 out of 32 Scottish Local authorities attended SEA courses run by the first author of this paper between 2002 and 2009. Twenty-seven Scottish Local Authority representatives out of 135 (20%) referred to resources, workload, staffing or time issues to justify their ‘no’ answer (see Box 2).

Box 2 – References made to workload, time and staffing made by 33 respondents out of 135.

No (27)• Resources/including staff resources are already stretched. But it is a valuable tool. (2 December 2004)• Time and resource constraints. May do a smaller/less intensive assessment as good practice. (2 December 2004)• We ought to, but local authorities have so much to do that statutory duties come first. (2 December 2004)• Traditional do not allow time/resources for long term planning. (22 November 2006)• While I agree in principle, and probably implement the approach already (normally), I may not be as fastidious due to time and resource constraints. (22 November 2006)• Given current level of resources, basic staffing and financial it places another drain on delivery. (13 December 2006)• We all seem to have expanding workloads and fewer resources anything that is not compulsory is in danger of staying at the bottom of the tray! (13 December 2006)• Pressure to perform with limited resources and large geographical, can lead to work being prioritised. If not required it may not get done. (13 December 2006)• Lack or resources – though thinking would influence PPP [Policies, Plans & Programmes]. (13 December 2006)• Sorry, just being honest, too much other work to do. (20 December 2006)• Resource issues. (20 December 2006)• No time. (25 January 2007)• Too many tasks to perform means priority system needed. If not a priority couldn't justify doing it. (25 January 2007)• Too much else to do … other legislation etc. (25 January 2007)• Not enough time. (13 September 2007)• Because of resource implications. (3 April 2008)• Not having seen the benefits as yet and due to all other pressures to produce strategies, plans, monitoring, updates etc etc feel that is yet another layer. (3 April 2008)• Workload pressure is severe. The work and decisions would be made but unlikely to be recorded in a formal manner. (3 April 2008)• Lack of time/resources/expertise. (11 June 2008)• Laziness! (11 June 2008)• LA has environmental policies but is reaction to external pressures. Too few staff and other worries means that we focus on things that need to be done. (11 June 2008)• Not with present commitments. But I can see the benefits. (25 June 2008)• Too many other priorities/one less would be helpful. (26 August 2008)• Takes time and people. Don't have much to go around. Doing an SEA is not part of my core role. (25 November 2008)• I would follow the process in my mind but not engage in increased workload. (25 November 2008)• Lack of staff time and budgetary pressures. (25 November 2008)• Our resource is primarily put to areas where we must carry out work/action. (25 November 2008)

Yes (5)• If it is good practice to do so we would go as far as possible to implement within the resources available. (2 December 2004)• If in an ideal situation with time and staff resources would be very valuable regardless of being compulsory. (13 December 2006)• Have argued for this for years but SEA doesn't apply to the most important plans – financial! It doesn't address the barriers to sustainability – resources, financial and economic considerations taking priority. (20 December 2006)• But informally and probably not as thoroughly due to time constraints. (10–11 September 2007)• A positive response is with the proviso that adequate resources are made available however public bodies should take the lead on ensuring our services do not have a detrimental effect on the environment. (10–11 September 2007)

Maybe (1)• Maybe – requires resources. (13 December 2006)

Interestingly, people who said ‘Maybe’ or were uncertain, said that they would do it if there were enough resources, and people who said ‘Yes’ also made the proviso that they would do it if resources were available. So some of the Yes answers are really ‘Yes, as long as …’; while some of the negative answers point to the value of SEA implying that ‘I would do it if I could’ as can be seen in the following quotes (our emphasis):

No: ‘Resources/including staff resources are already stretched. But it is a valuable tool.’ [2 December 2004]

No: ‘We ought to, but LAs have so much to do that statutory duties come first.’ [2 December 2004]

No: ‘While I agree in principle, and probably implement the approach already (normally), I may not be as fastidious due to time and resource constraints.’ [22 November 2006]

No: ‘Not with present commitments. But I can see the benefits.’ [25 June 2008]

The finding that resources influence whether or not, and how, SEA is undertaken is not novel. For example Thérivel's (2004) practitioners' guidance to SEA continually reiterates that good SEA is underpinned by the need for appropriate resources. However, this takes on a different significance when it is related to the Scottish aspirations for widespread application of SEA in order to integrate the environment into decision-making. Despite SEA being legally required, it is not being done routinely of all plans and programmes even within the subgroup that have engaged most, i.e. the local authorities (see Section 2).

Lack of resources raises questions about the feasibility and desirability of such a broad application of SEA and how SEA can accelerate environmental integration into strategic-level decision-making. Such questions are particularly relevant to impact assessment practitioners and organisations supporting impact assessment practice such as the IAIA (e.g. IAIA 2011). However, if it is necessary to integrate the environment into strategic decision-making, are other mechanisms already fulfilling SEA's integration aims?

4.2. It is already being done

The possibility that something similar to the SEA process was already being done was discussed throughout the development of Scottish SEA. It may be that SEA, because of its association with the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their campaign activities (see McLauchlan and João 2012), was positioned as a new or novel thing. In total 21 (out of 135) people gave as a justification that SEA-type processes are already being done – here are some examples:

Yes: ‘It's my view that planning already does the SEA process although it's not formalised in a report’ (13 December 2006)

Yes: ‘The planning process has been doing this implicitly anyway – SEA just makes it explicit and transparent and subject to consultation’ (22 November 2006)

No: ‘Possibly no because the concepts espoused by SEA are supposed to be integral to the work we already undertake’ (13 December 2006)

No: ‘Would not be documented as SEA but environmental issues would be considered’ (10–11 September 2007)

Maybe: ‘Would be taken into account in land-use planning terms anyway! This is just another layer of bureaucracy’ (20 December 2006)

Maybe: ‘Working in Development Control we are already multi-disciplined and carrying out widespread consultation’ (25 January 2007)

Local Authority planning departments, as a result of policy on sustainability, have been doing something similar to SEA prior to the directive, as was evidenced within the first Scottish SEA guidance (David Tyldesley and Associates 2003). However, as the responses indicate, other mechanisms less directly related to SEA are also undertaken within the public and private sectors, and have been so for a (relatively) long time. For example, 62 out of 89 (69.7%) of respondents to a 1998 postal questionnaire by Wright (2006) indicated that ‘they used procedures other than SEA to ensure that environmental and/or sustainability issues were taken into account at the strategic level without using SEA’ (Wright 2006, p. 132). This outcome could be subject to response bias; people filling out the questionnaire may have designated this as a ‘desirable’ response. Although, the responses on which this paper is based also may contain bias – as people may react to the training in the extreme, prompting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses. This further justifies why the comments are crucial in considering different perspectives on SEA.

Although SEA or SEA-type procedures may be used, there is contradictory evidence regarding the benefits of regulatory versus voluntary SEA. Noble (2009) suggests that if SEA is being undertaken voluntarily, practitioners must recognise benefits of doing SEA (a finding supported by empirical research undertaken my Morrison-Saunders and Pope 2012). In addition, legislation can produce an approach where legal requirements are fulfilled but the SEA may have ‘limited influence over or contribution to PPP development or downstream actions’ (Noble 2009 p. 73). Leading to the conclusion that formalisation of SEA need not necessarily be better than voluntary approaches. This is in contrast to Retief et al.'s (2008) experience of the ‘developing’ country context in South Africa. Retief et al. (2008) note that although SEA is routinely undertaken on a voluntary basis, SEA is deemed ineffective because ultimately there is no requirement to ensure that outcomes are implemented or, indeed, monitored.

The findings from the questionnaire thus far indicate that there are concerns about resources and that there is potential for duplication of work. Certainly, Local Authorities have to undertake a large number of potentially related assessments, perhaps the most prominent being related to ‘equalities’ (Scottish Government 2011). The same plan or programme may also be subject to SEA and other appraisals: transport strategies in Scotland require SEA, a transport appraisal and an equality impact assessment (McLauchlan and João 2011). Using the metaphor of a jigsaw, Pope et al. (2013) note the ambiguous relationship between different forms of impact assessment, questioning how well they fit together. This prefigures one of the other major responses to the questionnaire that SEA in some way perhaps should be ‘streamlined’.

4.3. Calls for a ‘leaner’ process

A justification or comment that was often mentioned was for a smaller, leaner, less stringent SEA. In total, 16 people (out of 135) referred to this, and in 11 cases the ‘Yes’ was really ‘Yes, but a smaller SEA’. The results are presented in detail in Box 3.

Box 3 – Comments by 16 respondents regarding the need for a smaller, leaner, less stringent SEA.

No (3)• Not to the same degree and certainly not so well documented. (10–11 September 2007)• Appears to be bureaucratic. Do it in a simpler way. (10–11 September 2007)• Personally I would always look to carry out a similar exercise however I believe my employers would prefer the more straightforward approach. (7–9 September 2005)

Yes (11)• In some form, but probably not to extent suggested. (2 December 2004)• I think it's likely that a ‘simpler’ version may be used but might not be able to the level of a full SEA. (13 December 2006)• But informally not as a separate stand alone process. (13 December 2006)• But possibly in a less stringent way. (13 December 2006)• Yes, although not necessarily in accordance with the guidelines. (20 December 2006)• But informally and probably not as thoroughly due to time constraints. (10–11 September 2007)• But not necessarily in full form. I work/manage air quality, noise, contaminated land and therefore environmental thought to the fore. (10–11 September 2007)• Not in an SEA but in a ‘Best Value’ context – It may be light on the process by may still address environmental issues. (10–11 September 2007)• Would consider the options probably as part of course without it being as formal as an SEA. (3 April 2008)• But less comprehensively. (25 June 2008)• I would only for major projects that clearly impact on the environment. EIAs should be progressed for others and EqIA [equality impact assessment] can identify social and health impacts. (25 November 2008)

Maybe (2)• Where necessary/obvious but not screening for all. (20 December 2006)• Not in the formal sense – but we would in some aspects regarding general policy on sustainability. (11 June 2008)

The call for a leaner, more streamlined SEA relates to discussions about SEA being orientated towards its context or the form of SEA being suited to purpose (Verheem and Tonk 2000). This is of great relevance to Scotland where the broad application of SEA meant that it was predicted to be applied more readily to decision-making at higher ‘tiers’ of policy. This lead to discussion among practitioners about the form of assessment that is appropriate at this ‘higher’ level. However, SEA has not routinely been applied at the policy level – a point picked up by questionnaire responses (as discussed in Section 4.4).

A leaner SEA process is also a key recommendation from the first review of Scottish SEA practice after 10 years of experience: ‘There is scope to promote flexible approaches within the context of Schedule 3 of the SEA Act to enable simpler, more proportionate processes and outputs’ (SEPA et al. 2011, p. 113). In addition, and considering impact assessment overall, the European Commission (2012) is targeting a ‘simplification exercise’ of the EIA Directive. This relates to current discussions on simplifying environmental assessment processes, both at project and strategic levels.

4.4. What is the point at lower ‘tiers’?

The final theme stems from responses related to the ‘level’ at which SEA should be applied, echoing Thérivel's (2004, p. 33) observation that the SEA Directive is limited because it ‘does not apply to policies, which set the framework for plans or programmes: as such, SEAs are required for [plans and programmes] whose predecessors do not require SEA, with all the possible inconsistencies and conflicts this raises’. Interestingly, no matter whether the response was ‘no’, ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ to the overall question, practitioners still indicated the value of SEA at higher tiers, as the following quotes exemplify:

No: ‘Why bother at local level when national government and European policies are not subject to SEA’ (13 December 2006)

Maybe: ‘Probably for higher “umbrella” plans only e.g. Local plan.’ (11 June 2008)

Yes: ‘I think now it is worthwhile for “higher order” plans, not say conservation area appraisals or supplementary planning guidance.’ (2 December 2004)

In the Canadian context, Noble (2009) identifies that there was a need for action at the strategic level to be ‘tiered down’ or integrated into plans or programmes taken forward by agencies working at a more local level. In contrast, the survey respondents analysed in this paper referred to a lack of SEA at higher strategic ‘tiers’, meaning that ‘high-level’ policy intended to be reflected in local authority plans, programmes and strategies had not been subject to assessment.

The conceptual foundations of SEA are built on the need for assessment at ‘higher tiers’, at a ‘strategic level’. This stems from debates which are presented in Lee and Wood (1978) influential article ‘EIA-A European Perspective’ outlining the need for environmental assessments at planning stages above projects. The premise that consideration for the environment would cascade from policy to projects appeared in documents related to the SEA prepared for or by the Scottish Minister who championed the SEA Act (Finnie 2005).

This model endures despite wide acknowledgement of the limits of tiering and the amorphous nature of the policy process, not least by Thérivel (2004), groups associated with IAIA (e.g. Arts et al 2005), and also within Scottish SEA guidance (Scottish Executive 2006). As Pope et al. (2013, p. 3) observe, neat, linear tiering between strategic decision and project decision ‘does not work in practice and is probably conceptually flawed anyway, and at best operates in unpredictable and non linear ways’. Although people closely involved with SEA may have a nuanced understanding of tiering, the word has a strong hierarchical connotation evoking an ordered triangular layered model. Therefore, the vocabulary used in SEA, together to what it evokes, requires further examination.

5. Conclusions

The overview of survey responses from people engaging with SEA in Scotland (2004–2008) to the question ‘If SEA was not compulsory, would you do it?’ suggests broad support for the SEA process. Those being asked this question were the optimal sample as they were professionals required to engage in SEA that had (through the training) some idea of what an orthodox approach to SEA entails. Thus, as a result of doing the training, it was possible for them in their professional capacity to make an informed assessment of whether or not ‘they would choose to do SEA’.

Although 53% of the 187 people who answered the question said ‘Yes’, many of the people who said ‘No’ noted the benefits of SEA. However, some of the ‘Yes’ replies also came with caveats and were actually ‘Yes, but smaller SEA’ or ‘Yes, as long as there are enough resources’. As such, it was clear that many common themes arose, irrespective of whether the answer was ‘yes’ or ‘no’. These themes related to a lack of resources, the perception that SEA is already being done, calls for a ‘leaner’ process or recognition that SEA also needs to be done at the higher level decision-making.

SEA does take up resources, but it also inevitably alters the way that the environment is considered as part of decision-making. Processes to include the environment in decision-making that pre-date SEA have a different approach and thus would inform decisions in a different way to SEA. Notably, in many cases, SEA introduced the need for comparatively rigorous reporting and requirements for consultation into plan, programme and policy-making. Research in other countries and contexts provides contradictory opinions about the benefits that arise from maintaining SEA as a voluntary mechanism or having it driven by legislation.

So what is the character of SEA and can it be made leaner? Smooth administration of SEA is enabled by prescribed standards in reporting and consultation. In Scotland, these approaches, and the training referred to in this paper, reflect orthodox SEA practice: the approach advocated drew from available government guidance and influential practical texts on SEA (e.g. Thérivel 2004). Doing SEA differently, including making it ‘leaner’ would require testing and challenging this orthodoxy.

The decline in training uptake since 2009 could signify less interest in SEA. However, this change may result from organisations now having in-house knowledge: training may have been concentrated within a certain time period because capacity to do SEA is now built collaboratively with colleagues. It is clear from official figures that a more limited range of organisations than expected has engaged with SEA. What is happening can only be determined by further investigating who has engaged with the SEA process, and the form of such engagement.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the input provided by the 532 people who attended the SEA courses, in particular all the people who answered the questionnaire. The SEA database available from the Scottish Government is an excellent publicly available resource enabling consideration of the breadth of SEA practice.

Notes

^1. Email: [email protected]