Strategic environmental assessment of urban plans in Australia: the case study of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to understand the procedural effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of urban planning in Australia. The SEA has been practiced in Australia over the last two decades under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999. After the reform of EPBC Act in 2006, the application of SEA in urban sector has been widened. By evaluating the procedural practice of SEA of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan using a set of evaluation criteria, the study shows that most of the procedural requirements were confirmed by the SEA of the plan. There were some shortcomings including, among others, inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts, socio-economic impacts and the analysis of alternatives at different stages of SEA. The possible reasons behind these shortcomings were explained based on the context of SEA in Australia. Furthermore, this study explored some key features of SEA system in Australia those may influence the SEA practice. The findings of the study can be useful to the application of SEA of urban planning in addition to practitioners, academics and policy makers in Australia or elsewhere.

KEYWORDS:

• SEA
• Australia
• process
• effectiveness
• urban planning

1. Introduction and background

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is an emerging tool to assess the impacts of policies, programs and plans (McGimpsey and Morgan 2013; Lobos and Partidario 2014). One of the key shortcomings of project level environmental impact assessment (EIA) is that it does not adequately address cumulative impacts (Tang 2009; Sadler 2011; Bidstrup et al. 2016). It is well recognized that the SEA can capture the cumulative impacts more rigorously than EIA (Bragagnolo et al. 2012; Bidstrup et al. 2016; Foley et al. 2017). Australia introduced EIA immediately after the introduction of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 that initiated EIA in the USA (Kelly et al. 2012; Kabir and Momtaz 2013; Momtaz and Kabir 2018). While EIA has a strong legislative mandate in most countries, SEA is still in its infancy (Dixon 2005; Kelly et al. 2012) and relatively a less explored area.

The SEA in Australia is applied under section 146 of the EPBC Act 1999. Although, the SEA has been applied in Australia for 20 years, it was mostly limited to fisheries sector (Marsden 2013b). The application of SEA in other sectors¹ (except fisheries) instigated after the reform of the Act in 2007 (Ashe and Marsden 2011; Morgan 2016) and the SEA’s application has increased in the last few years. In Australia, so far 16 SEAs have been undertaken in difference sector since 2007 and most of the SEAs were undertaken for urban plans (Mineral Council of Australia 2018). Indeed, the application of SEA is prominent in urban planning not only in Australia but also in other developed countries (Jones et al. 2005; Tao et al. 2007; Che et al. 2011a; Fischer and Onyango 2012; Marsden 2013a; Rega and Bonifazi 2014). Despite the recent progress of application of SEA in urban sector in Australia, literature indicates that the understanding of how SEA is performing in Australia is limited as there is a lack of scientific research and information on the effectiveness of SEA. With this in mind, the aim of this research is to understand the SEA process of Australia particularly in the urban development sector through the analysis of a case study.

It is to be noted that the main focus of this research is to assess the procedural effectiveness of SEA (to what extent the SEA of an urban plan comply with the procedural requirements) of urban planning rather than incremental or substantive effectiveness (to be discussed later). According to Doren et al. (2012), evaluation of procedural effectiveness can provide insights into the quality of SEA process. Understanding of procedural effectiveness of SEA is important as it makes the foundation of incremental and substantive outcomes (Doren et al. 2012; Bond 2015). Even though all types of effectiveness are essential for ensuring sustainability is integrated into the decision-making processes (Polido and Ramos 2015), procedural effectiveness is the starting point to an effective SEA.

This paper is divided into six sections. Section 2 reviews literature on SEA effectiveness with particular focus on the criteria of effectiveness following introduction. Section 3 outlines the methodology of the study. Section 4 gives a brief overview of the SEA process in Australia. Section 5 analyzes the SEA report of a major urban plan in Australia. Finally, Section 6 describes the results followed by discussion and conclusions.

2. Effectiveness of SEA – a brief overview

The concept of SEA effectiveness is evolving since the early identification of key elements of effective SEA in the late 1990s. The addition of more specific criteria to evaluate the practice of SEA in different contexts has further added to its strength (Retief 2007; Therivel et al. 2009). Literature indicates that in general, there are three types of effectiveness: procedural, incremental and substantive (Cashmore et al. 2010; Bina et al. 2011; Loomis and Dziedzic 2018). The procedural effectiveness of SEA consist of effective compliance with the procedural requirements. Procedural requirements include early integration of screening and scoping; assessment of impacts; analysis of alternatives; monitoring and evaluation; and community participation (Rehhausen et al. 2018; Rega et al. 2018). Other effectiveness criteria of procedural effectiveness may include transparency and community awareness (Rehhausen et al. 2018; Rega et al. 2018). For example, authors have analyzed three federal level SEA case studies in Germany using a set of criteria and indicators including SEA integration into decision making, tiring, scoping, selection and assessment of alternatives, cumulative effects assessment, public participation, and monitoring (Rehhausen et al. 2018). The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) has provided a SEA performance standard and indicated that it should be integrated, sustainability-led, focused, accountable, participative, and iterative (IAIA 2002). The idea of procedural SEA effectiveness is to examine whether the legislative requirements have been fulfilled on a case-by-case basis, from screening to impact monitoring and follow-up plans.

Incremental effectiveness refers to the contribution of SEA in the medium and long-term with respect to issues such as social, organizational, institutional learning and capacity building (Jha-Thakur et al. 2009). It also considers learning outcomes such as positive change of value about the role of SEA among the practitioners, academics and communities. In a case study in the Netherlands, vanBuuren and Nooteboom (2009) underscored that the SEA facilitated a process of learning and reflection by delivering undisputed information about the various benefits and disadvantages of different alternatives (vanBuuren and Nooteboom 2009). In addition to learning, transformation of individual, professional and organizational norms and practices in support of sustainable development (Jha-Thakur et al. 2009; Therivel et al. 2009) is expected as an incremental outcome of SEA application. Furthermore, SEA is expected to promote individual attitudinal and value changes and contribute to the establishment of inclusiveness and democratic practice (Bina 2008).

Finally, substantive effectiveness includes effects of the SEA procedure in the decision makers’ understanding or awareness of environmental and sustainability issues and in the extent to which such issues are considered throughout the decision making. This echoes with Sadler’s (1996) broader objective of SEA ‘to integrate environmental and sustainability factors into the mainstream of development policy making’ as called for by the Brundtland Commission and Agenda 21 (Sadler 1996). Importantly, substantive effectiveness focuses on whether the SEA is making changes in the real world in terms of the achievement of sustainable development goals (Cashmore et al. 2007; Nykvist and Nilsson 2009; Doren et al. 2012; Partidario 2015).

Although SEA has been practiced for over 20 years worldwide, the practice of SEA still has its shortcomings. By examining the application of SEA in different contexts, authors identified some weaknesses in SEA application as stated in Table 1. The table indicates some common shortcomings in SEA procedures of few counties, as an example particularly where SEA practice exists.

Table 1. Shortcomings in SEA applications.

	Shortcomings of application of SEA	References
1	SEA is unable to influence PPP contents or decision-making in South Africa	Retief (2007)
2	Sustainability focuses SEA results to the plan contents of English local-level spatial plans, however, there are inadequate information related to sustainability	Therivel et al. (2009)
3	Failing to generate reasonable alternatives as part of the planning process	West et al. (2011)
4	Failing to document reasons why a particular alternative was selected	Smith et al. (2010)
5	Cumulative effects are not effectively addressed	Weiland (2010)
6	Unclear impact of public participation and SEA on plan making and insufficient consideration given to monitoring in English spatial strategy SEA	Fischer (2010)
7	Monitoring has been a minor priority within SEAs	Hunusch and Glasson (2008)
8	There are opportunities for stakeholders to engage but in practice the level of engagement is very low.	Illsley et al. (2014)
9	Cumulative effects assessment is limited to intra-plan effects, a lack of monitoring, and public participation is limited to consultation on the environmental report.	Rehhausen et al. (2018)
10	Poor coordination, weak integration, inadequate role of public participation and the legal mandate of PEIA in China	Che et al. (2011a)

3. Research approach

3.1. Research approach

A review of current peer reviewed literature on SEA was undertaken to select a set of evaluation criteria. These criteria are generally accepted in the field of SEA and successfully applied by authors to test SEA effectiveness (Morgan 2017; Li- et al. 2016; Partidario 2015; McGimpsey and Morgan 2013; Doren et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012; Dixon 2005; IAIA 2002). However, literature indicates that the SEA effectiveness criteria have been developed mainly in the UK and north European countries, therefore may not be necessarily applicable in other jurisdictions (Fischer 2002;Fisher and Gazzola 2006; Pope et al. 2018) and need to select carefully to ‘fit for the purpose’ of a particular jurisdiction (Pope et al. 2018).

Australian SEA process has evolved from its EIA practice which is based on NEPA’69 and its counterparts in UK and EU. Therefore, major amendment to the effectiveness criteria was not necessary. Minor modifications were made to the criteria to make them suitable for the Australian case following the requirements of the SEA process here. The changes to the criteria are marked with asterisks (Table 2). The SEA process of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan (from now Melbourne Plan) was then reviewed using these criteria.

Table 2. Evaluation criteria for assessment of SEA process in Australia.

1	Objectives for development plan
1.1	Objectives of the strategic action identified
1.2	Consideration of environmental, social, and cultural aspects were made in the development of objectives
1.3	Desired outcomes were identified and stated
2	Scoping
2.1	Potential impacts of strategic action for assessment identified
2.2	Baseline information is linked to the key impacts identified
2.3	Consideration of environmental, social, cultural and economic consequences of strategic actions
3	Baseline information
3.1	Relevant information about current state of environment is used
3.2	Relevant baseline information gathered and utilized
3.3	The reliability and validity of data were justified
3.4	Use of a range of sources of information appropriate to issues/context
3.5	Information gaps are identified where appropriate
3.6	Additional information is gathered to fill the gaps
4	Impact Forecasting
4.1	Potential impacts of the strategic action is identified.
4.2	Direct, indirect, and delayed impacts are identified and analyzed
4.3	Spatial and temporal effects, including short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary impacts were identified and analyzed
4.4	Positive and negative impacts were identified and analyzed
4.5	Potential impacts were assessed using appropriate methods and techniques
4.6	The significance of the impacts were clearly evaluated using significant issues/criteria
4.7	Cumulative impacts were considered with due importance
4.8	Uncertainties, assumptions and risks are recognized and stated
4.9	Impacts of the different options are compared where applicable
4.10	Clear justifications are provided for the selection of preferred option
5	Mitigation and monitoring
5.1	Mitigation measures for all possible impacts were identified
5.2	Recommendations for each impact mitigation is made with justification
5.3	On-going monitoring activities are clearly stated where relevant
5.4	Responsible agencies for monitoring and reporting were identified
5.5	Adaptive management were recommended were applicable
5.6	Residual impacts were considered and necessary measure are made to address the impacts
6	Public Participation
6.1	Early involvement opportunities for participation from all relevant stakeholders, including the public
6.2	Appropriate stakeholder involvement techniques are employed
6.3	Public inputs and concerns are explicitly welcomed and addressed
6.4	Results were communicated with stakeholders clearly and publicly
7	Analysis of alternative options
7.1	Alternative options were identified where applicable
7.2	Alternative options were analyzed using appropriate methods
7.3	Best option was selected with justifications
8	Contribution of SEA in plan making
8.1	The contribution of the SEA to achieve the desired objectives
8.2	The contribution of SEA to improve the quality of the plan
8.3	The other benefits of the SEA e.g. public awareness

Sources:Hipondoka et al. 2016; Phylip-Jones and Fischer 2015; Lobos and Partidario 2014; Australian Government 2016, McGimpsey and Morgan 2013; Doren et al. 2012; Dixon 2005; International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) 2002.

It is to be noted that the evaluation criteria developed and used in this research were to determine the extent to which SEA procedural requirements were fulfilled, rather than the quality of the SEA reports/documents. The evaluation criteria consisted largely of normative statements about the procedural elements of SEA. While the key purpose of the article was to assess the procedural effectiveness, some criteria were also included to understand the substantive effectiveness of SEA, such as, the contribution of SEA in plan making.

3.2. Desktop review

A desktop review of both peer reviewed and grey literature were taken into account (some examples here in Table 3). The review revealed that there is a lack of literature relating to the practice of SEA in Australia (Marsden 2012), particularly in the urban planning sector. To fill this gap, grey literature such as public documents related to SEA in Australia were collected and reviewed in addition to documents related to SEA of Melbourne Plan. Table 3 shows the major documents reviewed for this study. Public documents in this study thus played a vital role as a valuable source of data, as they provided context and background information on SEA in Australia (Bowen 2009) in addition to information related to SEA process (SEPA 2011; Fisher and Onyango 2012).

Table 3. Types of public documents analyzed in this study.

Key research FocusSEA process and practice	Types of public documents	Purposes
SEA Process of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan	(a) Legislative documents such as Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 (b) Available Guidelines for SEA in Australia (c) Melbourne Urban Extension Plan of Australia, and associated documents (d) SEA reports of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan, and (e) Other reports related to SEA report of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan, e.g. Scoping Report and Community Consultation Reports	1. To analyze the adequacy and coverage of SEA process requirements 2. To understand the activities of plans and 3. To analyze the coverage and quality of information related to SEA procedural requirements

3.3. Case study

This research used a case study analysis to understand the practice of SEA in Australia. The SEA report of a major urban plan, that is, Melbourne Plan, provided the case for this study. The SEA of the plan was conducted between 2010 and 2016. Although a number of SEAs of urban planning were undertaken in Australia, the reasons behind the selection of SEA of Melbourne Plan were (a) this is a recent SEA prepared on the basis of the updated rules, regulations and guidelines; (b) the proponents made efforts to prepare this as an example of good practice, (c) the Melbourne Plan was a major plan and therefore assumed to have significant impacts on environment and (d) the authors were able to access adequate information about the plan.

3.4. In-depth interview

After reviewing the SEA report and relevant documents against the review criteria, we undertook in-depth interviews with three senior officials of the Department of Environment, Law, Water and Planning (DEWP) in Victoria who were directly involved in the management of undertaking SEA of Melbourne Plan. The purpose was to validate the findings from the review. In addition, the interviews were helpful to investigate some issues (Yan 2003) that were not documented in the SEA report. For example, the influence of the SEA on the development of an environmentally sustainable plan and other benefits. In addition to in-depth interviews, information was collected over telephone when necessary to clarify aspects of the plan and SEA process. Due to a few number of key informants, the information collected from the interviews was analyzed manually to identify general themes.

4. The SEA process in Australia

4.1. Planning framework in Australia

In Australia, there are six states and two territories – all have their own urban planning laws and procedures resulting in separate systems of planning and land use management, including separate administrative departments overseeing and regulating planning and land use activities² (Australian Government 2016; OECD 2017). Consequently, there is no single urban planning system in Australia; rather, there are a number of planning systems that operate largely independent of each other (Australian Government 2016). Despite this multiplicity of systems, the Federal Government is increasingly playing a role in the urban planning process, mainly through the regulation of development on areas that are of national environmental significance. The principal piece of Commonwealth legislation impacting urban planning decisions is the EPBC act of 1999 which establishes a framework for assessing impacts on matters of national environmental significance such as threatened species or world heritage sites (Australian Government 2016). The Government of Australia also has released National Urban Policy in 2016 which is considered as a key document to guide urban planning (OECD 2017; Commonwealth Australia 2011).

4.2. Legal framework for SEA

The provision of SEA was formally introduced under the EPBC Act of 1999. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places; defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance (MNES) (Commonwealth Australia 2013). The section 146 of the EPCB Act (Part 10) provides for SEA of new actions under a policy, program or plan. Strategic environmental assessments may include but are not limited to regional-scale development plans and policies; district structure plans; local environmental plans; large-scale industrial developments; fire, vegetation or pest management policies, plans or programs; water extraction/use policies; and infrastructure plans and policies (Ashe and Marsden 2011; Commonwealth Australia 2013). In addition, the EPBC Act requires SEA of all fisheries managed by the Federal Government and all fisheries involved in the export industry (Benevides et al. 2008).

The Part 10 also provides for SEAs at a landscape or regional scale and in approval of ‘classes of actions’. The programs that could be strategically assessed are (a) regional-scale urban development plans and policies, (b) large-scale industrial development and associated infrastructure, (c) fire and vegetation or pest management policies, plans and programs (d) water extraction/use policies (e) infrastructure plans and policies, and (f) industry sector policy (Commonwealth Australia 2013). In addition to the EBPC Act, the Australian Government has released a number of guidelines for SEA that should be taken into account while undertaking an SEA. These include the Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidelines (2013), EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (2009) and Environmental Offset Policy (2012).

4.2.1. Key elements of SEA process in Australia

The SEA process is a flexible one that is designed to promote collaboration between the Australian Government and the SEA partner. However, a set of legislative and non-legislative steps must be followed as shown in Table 4 (Commonwealth Australia 2013).

Table 4. Requirements for SEA under EPBC act.

No.	SEA requirements	Description/How SEA is Considered in EPCB Act
1.	Screening	The screening stage is used to assess whether a particular policy, plan or program should be subject to strategic assessment based on MNES.
2.	Scoping	The scoping stage is undertaken collaboratively to negotiate a formal agreement between the Minister and the assessment partner as well as to outline the Terms of Reference for the assessment process (Marsden 2013a). This stage identifies important issues, how to examine them, and which guidelines to reference (DSEWPAC 2012).
3.	Impact Assessment	Whether the proposed plan is likely to have significant environmental impacts determine.
4.	Mitigation measures	Once the scale of impacts of plan has been determined, the proponent look for ways to reduce the identified impacts to acceptable levels. This could include avoidance, mitigation or compensatory actions, such as environmental offsets (DSEWPAC 2012)
5.	Draft Report and Public comments	The reporting stage has purposes: (i) to document the proposed alternatives and predicted impacts, (ii) to serve as a basis for consultation, and (iii) to provide recommendations for decision-makers, based on preferred alternatives.
6.	Review	This stage is designed to act as a check on the adequacy of the information collected as part of the strategic assessment process, including identification of bias, uncertainties and contradictory findings.
7.	Final Report and Decision making	Following consideration of the matters raised in the strategic assessment, the Minister may approve the actions, allowing activities under the policy, plan or program to proceed without the need for further federal approval of individual development proposals (Ashe and Marsden 2011). However, conditions may be attached to an approval if the Minister considers them necessary.
8.	Monitoring and auditing	Monitoring and auditing is conducted by the assessment partner in relation to the mitigation measures agreed to with the consent authority (DSEWPAC 2012). This can include monitoring both social and ecological change and the performance of agreed mitigation measures.

Sources: Modified after EPBC Act of 1999.

At a broad level, the process occurs in two steps. First, the assessment and endorsement of a ‘policy, plan or program’ (PPP) including but not limited to:

• regional-scale development;

• large-scale industrial sector;

• fire, vegetation/resource or pest management;

• water extraction/use;

• infrastructure; and

• strategic land use plans PPP.

Second, approval of actions (or classes of actions) that are associated with a program. It is this second step that potentially allows development to proceed across a large area without further need for EPBC Act approval of individual developments (project-by-project assessments). The key stages of SEA process are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. SEA process in Australia.

Source: Adapted from SEA Guidelines (2013), Department of Environment and Energy.

The Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) and the SEA partner (agreement party) jointly undertake screening and scoping. Then the two parties come up with a formal agreement to conduct the assessment by establishing the expectations of both parties. The Ministry of Environment and Energy is responsible for approval of the Terms of Reference (TOR) prepared and submitted by the State Government where the TOR set the requirements for SEA report describing the geographic coverage of the assessment (where relevant) and the ‘classes of actions’ to be assessed. If necessary, the draft TOR may be released for public comments. Ministry of Environment and Heritage review the TOR including public comments where applicable and approve the TOR. Following the TOR, the draft SEA is prepared parallel to the preparation of draft programs with proposed activities. The draft SEA assesses program outcomes against the TOR and potential impacts of program activities on MNES. The draft SEA report is then made available for public comments with a minimum period of 28 days. The draft SEA report with public comments is submitted before the Ministry for review.

After review, the Minister may recommend changes to the program at this stage or ask the proponent to submit final SEA report by addressing recommendations made by the Ministry. The Ministry directly endorse the finally submitted SEA report. Endorsement of the final strategic environmental assessment under Part 10 of the EPBC Act means that ‘classes of actions’ addressed in the assessment will have acceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance if undertaken in accordance with the endorsed final assessment. The Ministry may approve the actions with conditions to be implemented under the program. The implementation of the SEA lies with the State Government particularly the respective Council. Approval of classes of actions under Part 10 also means that the projects covered by the approval do not need individual referral, assessment or approval under the EPBC Act provided they are undertaken in accordance with the endorsed final SEA. The time for undertaking a SEA requires in general from 17 to 24 months depending on the volume and nature of tasks related to each key stage (Commonwealth Australia 2013).

5. The case study: Melbourne Urban Extension Plan

5.1. Background and context of the plan

Melbourne is the capital of Victoria and is the major residential, commercial and manufacturing center. Itis the second largest city in Australia. The statistical division of Melbourne has an area of 8,831 square kilometers with a population density of 424 people per square kilometer. Melbourne’s population is growing fast and it will be home to five million people earlier than previously anticipated by 2036 (Government of Victoria 2009). The government identified the need to accommodate an additional 600,000 new dwellings in Melbourne over the next 20 years (2016 was taken as base year). Of the new dwellings required, it is anticipated that 316,000 dwellings will be accommodated in the established areas and 284,000 dwellings will be accommodated in the growth areas of Melbourne. However, the existing growth areas are not large enough to accommodate all of these new dwellings required along with the employment, infrastructure and services needed for creating new sustainable communities (Department of Planning and Community Development 2008b). Figure 2 shows the proposed urban growth plan to be implemented between 2016 and 2036.

Figure 2. Melbourne Urban Growth Plan (darker areas denotes extended areas under assessment).

Source: Government of Victoria (2009).

The key elements of the plan include nine principles to guide policy and actions, seven outcomes to drive Melbourne as a competitive, livable and sustainable city and 32 directions setting out how these outcomes can be achieved and 90 policy actions outlining how each outcome will be approached, delivered and achieved (Department of Planning and Community Development 2008a). The plan has taken environmental, socioeconomic and cultural issues into account. It has also recognized cultural aspects of Melbourne city life.

5.2. The need for the SEA

The need for SEA was triggered by the potential effects of the plan actions including an expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary, the Regional Rail Link and the Outer Metropolitan Ring/E6 Transport Corridor on matters covered by the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999. The SEA sought to identify appropriate mitigation measures for any impacts of these initiatives on MNES (Government of Vitoria 2009).

It is likely that up to 3,278 ha of native grassland will be cleared over the next 20–30 years as a result of the revised Urban Growth Boundary and associated infrastructure projects. The clearance of huge grassland will affect various species including flora and fauna and may jeopardize the ecosystem in the area. The expansion of Melbourne’s boundary was only approved after rigorous environmental studies were undertaken by State agencies and approved by the Commonwealth government to ensure natural features and protected species were managed, incorporated or left outside the Urban Growth Boundary (Government of Victoria 2009).

6. Results and Discussions

6.1 Procedural effectiveness

Table A1 (in Appendix-A) shows the outcomes of SEA practice based on the analysis of SEA of Melbourne Plan. In this case, institutional arrangements for SEA report preparation is available. The case study showed that as the requirements of SEA process, scoping was undertaken and baseline information was collected. Also, the impacts of strategic actions of plan were identified and assessed and mitigation measures were proposed to address the impacts. Community participation was emphasized and stakeholders with different interests were involved at various stages of SEA. Despite this, there were some procedural shortcomings in the SEA process as has been established from the case study analysis. The shortcomings include the lack of cumulative impact assessment, analysis of alternatives and the assessment of socioeconomic impacts.

The EPBC Act of 1999 underscores the consideration of socio-economic impacts within the SEA. The case study of Melbourne Plan indicates that the SEA report has included inadequate socio-economic data in the baseline information section despite the fact that the focus of SEA in Australia is to achieve or maintain Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). Ives et al. (2015) underscored how socioeconomic data are important for achieving ESD outcomes. As stated by Ives et al. (2015),

under the EPBC Act, we show that opportunities exist to strengthen the effectiveness of SEA in delivering conservation outcomes without altering existing legal processes. For example, areas of ethno-biological significance, traditional hunting value, scenic quality, recreational importance and social well-being may relate positively to the protection of MNES, and should feature in the assessment report. Similarly, certain land use preferences, recreational activities, employment types and resource uses may conflict with conservation outcomes. (p. 340).

The implications of the lack of socioeconomic baseline data is that the potential of socio-economic impacts of the plan is largely absent in the SEA report. Therefore, no clear direction on the socio economic impacts of projects to be implemented under the plan.

One important aspect of SEA is that it provides opportunity for the assessment of cumulative impacts which is unlikely to cover adequately under project level EIA (Cooper and Sheate 2002; Tang 2009; Hegazy 2015; Foley et al. 2017; Sinclair et al. 2017). In this cases study, cumulative impacts through SEA were not identified and assessed adequately. Cumulative impact assessment was undertaken in a generic way, with no detailed analysis of primary or secondary effects and offsite effects. The inadequate identification and assessment of CIs in this case can be attributed to a number of reasons. First, cumulative impact is not explicitly defined by the EBPC Act. Also no requirements in details mentioned by the EPBC Act. The Act, in general focused on identification and analysis of ‘relevant effects’. Second, the Melbourne Plan was an ‘area based plan’ where the area was an extended urban area to accommodate population in future and hence associated with development of housing, transport and other infrastructures. Therefore, there was a limited scope to assess the cumulative impacts considering multiple sources of impacts or stresses on the environment of designated area. As indicated by one of the key informants, in general, proponents or practitioners in Australia, do not really do the CIs. Offsite impacts were often ignored or not taken into account to identify the CIs. In the case of SEA of Melbourne Plan, the proponents focused on the protection of biodiversity including the protection of habitat loss of endangered species and the loss of vegetation in the designated area rather than analysis of cumulative impacts in details.

Mitigation activities for addressing the potential impacts were proposed based on some principles of mitigation measures. These include, avoidance, mitigation and offset. Where applicable, the first priority is avoidance of impacts, the second option is mitigation and the last resort is offsetting to address the impacts. Where residual impacts are deemed to be significant even after mitigation, offset option is taken into account and implemented. In the past, offsetting tool of impacts was questioned by practitioners and academics as it was not implemented effectively (Ashe and Marsden 2011). To address the issue, the Government of Australia has introduced ‘Environmental Offset Policy’ under EPBC Act 1999 in 2012 which can be very helpful to the proponents (Commonwealth of Australia 2012).

Community involvement in SEA process for planning is an important requirement (Illsley et al. 2014; Noble and Gunn 2016; Sinclair and Diduk 2016, 2017; Vespa et al. 2017). It is apparent from the case study, that community was involved in SEA rigorously at least during scoping and impact identification and mitigation measures. In this case community was given due importance and all possible methods for community participation were applied. The inputs of communities were taken into account and incorporated in the planning and SEA document. Changes were made where necessary based on community inputs and new ideas were accepted by the decision making authorities. Also there was a nontechnical summary with the SEA report which was helpful to community to understand the potential impacts of the plan.

In the SEA of Melbourne Plan, there is a lack of attention to alternative analysis although this is an important part of SEA process (Stoeglehner et al. 2010). The case study indicates that there is a lack of detail information of alternative analysis. Only few information about alternative analysis of the plan is available in the SEA of Melbourne Plan related to the ways to mitigate the impacts. In the case of Melbourne Plan, it was found that for alternative analysis, the proponents or competent agency did not push much, for example, to identify the best alternative area, because the area was already defined or selected by the competent agency. There was limited scope to analyze for the option of best alternative area. The SEA report also shows that the SEA did not consider alternative designs, scope or scenarios of the plan in details. In other sectors, such as transport or energy, the scope of alternative analysis much more boundless and undertaken with due importance. For example, a comparative analysis of the feasibility of alternative locations was undertaken for the development of a Liquefied Natural Gras Precinct in Western Australia (DEWHA 2010).

Finally, the consideration of trade-off is increasingly becoming a standard practice in SEA, and it is an effective measure to help reverse the current ecological deficit, in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Reteif et al. 2008; Noble et al. 2012; Brownlie et al. 2013, 2013). Usually, trade-off is used within the SEA in the form of offsetting the loss of biodiversity or habitat. However, for decision-makers, addressing such trade-offs is difficult and formal methods for this are poorly developed (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 2014). For the application of SEA in Australia, trade-off rules have been suggested by various authors (Morrison-Saunders 2011; Morrison-Saunders and Pope 2013).

6.2 Substantive effectiveness

While the key purpose of the article was to assess to what extent the SEA of the Melbourne Plan confirms the procedural requirements, the study also considered its substantive effectiveness to some extent. This included the influence of SEA of Melbourne Plan on decision makers or outcomes of the SEA such as the revision of planning document based on information provided by the SEA, altering of any activities of the plan, taking the mitigation measures into account to address the impacts of planning activities and any other direct and indirect benefits.

Despite some shortcomings in procedural effectiveness, question may arise to what extent the SEA of Melbourne Plan contributed to the development of a sustainable plan. Interview with the key informants and the analysis of relevant documents indicate that, the SEA had an influence on decision makers in revising the planning document based the inputs from the local community. Furthermore, the community became aware of about the potential environmental and socioeconomic issues of the plan and impacts of the projects to be implemented under the plan. In response to the recommendations made by the SEA report, the respective department of the Government of Victoria developed Biodiversity Conservation Strategy to protect the biodiversity including vegetation and endangered species. The competent agency of the Victorian Government has also set out how key components of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy will be implemented and addressed all relevant matters of state and national environmental significance including long-term protection of biodiversity in the planning area (Victorian Government 2012).

6.3. Discussions

The analysis of the case study identifies some key issues of SEA process as discussed below.

6.3.1. Coverage of SEA

One important aspect of SEA in Australia is that it only deals with MNES rather than the broader aspects of the environment (Commonwealth Australia 2013). This ‘landscape type’ focus of SEA narrows down the opportunity for the wider consideration of social and economic aspects. For example, the Melbourne Plan has potential impacts relating to climate change impacts, noise and air pollution, aboriginal culture, transport impacts and coastal hazards. The case study shows that the SEA of Melbourne Plan did not adequately cover cultural and natural heritage impacts including the opinions of indigenous communities in addition to other potential impacts such as climate change impacts, noise and air pollution, aboriginal culture, transport impacts, coastal hazards and job creation.

6.3.2. Integrative approach of SEA

Another aspect of SEA approach in Australia is that there is a separate Planning Act and also a separate Act for SEA. There are advantages and disadvantages of practicing SEA separated from planning process. According to Chaker et al. (2006) some of the advantages include (a) procedures for the SEA process are clearly identified, (b) good articulation with a strong and well-structured planning process may enable successful outcomes, (c) SEA is undertaken separately by an independent team of experts and therefore not dominated by planners (Chaker et al. 2006). In this approach, the regulations and guidance for SEA are developed separately from planning regulations and therefore, easy to apply to development to plans in different sectors (Stoeglehner et al. 2009). This approach also ensures expertise in environmental issues and SEA can ‘cross fertilize’ between authorities by highlighting good practice from other authorities in addition to providing independent and fresh outlook and ideas without bias (Therivel 2010). The SEA practice separated from planning in Australia is enjoying these advantages.

The disadvantages of separated nature of SEA in Australia are that this model may (a) miss the dynamics of planning (b) miss the effective integration of SEA outcomes into the decision-making process, and (c) add limited value resulting from SEA application as it is not fully integrated into the planning process (Chaker et al. 2006). This confirms the findings of the study (Rega et al. 2018) where SEA authority is clearly separated and fully independent from the planning authority. In Australia, two teams (EA and Planning) work separately. Questions may arise how frequently they consult each other and how independent the SEA team is since the SEA team is hired by the proponent. Also there is the question whether both the teams start planning process and SEA process, respectively, at the same time and exchange information. To achieve this, one of the key conditions is that SEA team work closely and concurrently with the planning team in preparation of a plan or program and SEA should not be carried out as a separate or standalone exercise (Jones et al. 2005).

6.3.3. The ESD focus of SEA

The SEA in Australia is predominantly focused on environmental sustainability. Here the philosophy is to ensure ecologically sustainable development (ESD) no matter cost and benefit surpass one another. The final approval or endorsement of the plan by the Minister of the competent agency takes the principles of ESD into account (Marsden 2014). One of the key principles of ESD is to ensure the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity (Harding 2006; Peel 2008; Hollander 2015). This principle is particularly important in Australia because it is one of the 12 mega-diversity regions of the world and the only one in the developed world. Indeed, the provision of the EPBC Act is to protect native species and in particular prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species (Peel 2008). Although the implementation of ESD principles is found to be challenging in some cases, the ESD based SEA practice in Australia is a unique one (Peel 2008; Hollander 2015).

6.4 Conclusions and future research directions

The aim of this study was to review the SEA process of an urban plan in Australia using a case study. The study shows that in general, the application of SEA confirms most of the procedural criteria. The application of SEA is in general consistent with the EPBC Act. Also, the SEA has shown its compatibility with the concerned objectives (environmental sustainability) of the plan. It further shows that SEA is participatory with wide involvement of relevant stakeholders giving them the opportunity to become aware of the role of SEA as well as environmental consequences of the plans. The SEA enabled the proponents to communicate the importance of environmental values effectively with the local community.

Despite the confirmation of most of the procedural requirements of by the application of SEA, the case study indicates that the SEA process has some shortcomings. The shortcomings among others are inadequate analysis alternatives, inadequate socio-economic impacts and cumulative impact assessment. These shortcomings of the SEA of Melbourne Plan can be attributed to a number of contextual factors. These include, legal context of SEA, the coverage (protection of MNES) of SEA according to EPBC Act, the focus (ESD) of SEA, the nature of Melbourne Plan as explained above sections.

This study was limited to the review of the procedural effectiveness of SEA of an urban plan with less focus on the substantive effectiveness. The SEA of the Melbourne Plan contributed to the development of the quality of SEA. The SEA of the plan facilitated the community to participate at the key stages of SEA process, identify the impacts and assessment of mitigation measures to address the impacts. The proponents included the community’s inputs in the SEA report and planning document with due importance. Given the more focus on the procedural effectiveness, this study could not analyze in details the substantive effectiveness of SEA on the extent to which the SEA contributed to the achievement of Ecologically Sustainable Development principles. Another key substantive issue is whether the SEA could ensure the integration of sustainability into the decision-making processes in addition to long-term benefits of the application of SEA. To understand this long-term and wider outcomes, there is an urgent need to examine these issues not only in urban sector but also in other sectors irrespective of jurisdictions in Australia.

Acknowledgments

This paper is an outcome of a research project funded by the Department of Education and Training, Government of Australia. The authors are thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments for further improvement of this article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Department of Education and Training, Australia.

Notes

1. However, it depends on the proponents either government or private to decide to go for SEA. Once the proponent decides to go for SEA of a plan or program, the approval of SEA by the Federal Minister become legally bindings and the proponents are bound to follow the approval conditions.

2. There are three spheres of government in Australia: the federal government, six state and two territory governments, and 565 local governments..

Appendix

The results of the evaluation of SEA process of Melbourne Urban Extension Plan.

Table A1. The SEA process for Melbourne Urban Extension Plan.

	Evaluation Criteria	Australia	Comments
1	Development of objectives
1.1	Objectives of the strategic action identified	√
1.2	Consideration of environmental, social, and cultural aspects were made in the development of objectives	√
1.3	Desired outcomes were identified and stated	√
2	Scoping
2.1	Potential impacts of strategic action for assessment identified	√	No clear information; not easy to understand the link between baseline information and impacts identified.
2.2	Baseline information needs to be linked to the key impacts identified	√
2.3	Consideration of environmental, social, cultural and economic consequences of strategic actions, including any trade-offs between them	*
3	Baseline information
3.1	Relevant information about current state of environment was used	√	.No specific and adequate information on validity and reliability on data.
3.2	Relevant baseline information gathered and utilized	√
3.3	The reliably and validity of data were justified by gathering data timely and using appropriate methods	*
3.4	Use of a range of sources of information appropriate to issues/context	√
3.5	Information gaps were identified where appropriate	√
3.6	Additional information gathered to fill the gaps	√
4	Impact Forecasting
4.1	Potential impacts of the strategic action identified.	√	Cumulative impacts in case of the plan were partly mentioned.
4.2	Direct, indirect, and delayed impacts were identified and analyzed	√
4.3	Spatial and temporal effects, including short, medium and long term permanent and temporary impacts were identified and analyzed	*
4.4	Positive and negative impacts were identified and analyzed	√
4.5	Potential impacts were assessed using appropriate methods and techniques such as scenario modelling	√
4.6	The significance of the impacts were clearly evaluated using significant issues/criteria	√
4.7	Cumulative impacts were considered with due importance	*
4.8	Uncertainties, assumptions and risks recognized and stated	*
4.9	Impacts on the different options compared where applicable	*
4.10	Clear justifications provided for the selection of preferred option	*
5	Mitigation and monitoring
5.1	Mitigation measures for all possible impacts were identified	√
5.2	Recommendations for each impact mitigation made with justification	√
5.3	On-going monitoring activities clearly stated where relevant	√
5.4	Responsible agencies for monitoring and reporting were identified	√
5.5	Adaptive management were recommended were applicable	√
5.7	Residual impacts were considered and necessary measure to address the impacts	√
6	Public Participation
6.1	Early involvement opportunities for participation from all relevant and interested stakeholders, including the public	√
6.2	Appropriate stakeholder involvement techniques employed	√
6.3	Public inputs and concerns explicitly welcomed and addressed	√
6.4	Results were communicated with stakeholders clearly and publicly	√
7	Analysis of alternative options
7.1	Alternative options were identified where applicable	*	Alternative analysis is largely absent relating to alternative action and subsequent impacts and mitigation measures to address the impacts.
7.2	Alternative options were analyzed using appropriate methods	*
7.3	Best option was selected with justifications	*
8	Contribution of SEA in plan making
8.1	The contribution of the SEA to achieve the desired objectives	√	Due to limited focus of the study it was not possible to analyze the contribution of SEA in details.
8.2	The contribution of SEA to improve the quality of the plan	√
8.3	The other benefits of the SEA e.g. public awareness	√

Legend: √ = Yes, X = No, * = Partial.