The Theory and Practice of Strategic

Environmental Assessment Towards a More

Systematic Approach 1st Edition Thomas B Fischer
pdf download

[Link]
a-more-systematic-approach-1st-edition-thomas-b-fischer/

★★★★★ 4.7/5.0 (38 reviews) ✓ 148 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental
Assessment Towards a More Systematic Approach 1st Edition
Thomas B Fischer pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK GATE

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Neurology Oral Boards Review A Concise and Systematic

Approach to Clinical Practice 1st Edition Eroboghene E.
Ubogu
[Link]
and-systematic-approach-to-clinical-practice-1st-edition-eroboghene-e-
ubogu/
[Link]

Auditing and Assurance Services A Systematic Approach

Edition 6 Messier

[Link]
systematic-approach-edition-6-messier/

[Link]

Comparative Federalism A Systematic Inquiry 2nd Edition

Thomas O. Hueglin

[Link]
inquiry-2nd-edition-thomas-o-hueglin/

[Link]

The Theory and Treatment of Depression Towards a Dynamic

Interactionism Model Jozef Corveleyn

[Link]
towards-a-dynamic-interactionism-model-jozef-corveleyn/

[Link]
Clinical Ophthalmology A Systematic Approach 6th Edition
Jack J. Kanski

[Link]
approach-6th-edition-jack-j-kanski/

[Link]

Clinical Ophthalmology A Systematic Approach 7th Edition

Jack J. Kanski

[Link]
approach-7th-edition-jack-j-kanski/

[Link]

The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours Towards a

More Ambitious Partnership 1st Edition Elena Korosteleva

[Link]
neighbours-towards-a-more-ambitious-partnership-1st-edition-elena-
korosteleva/
[Link]

Imagination in Educational Theory and Practice A Many

sided Vision 1st Edition Thomas William Nielsen

[Link]
practice-a-many-sided-vision-1st-edition-thomas-william-nielsen/

[Link]

Student Affairs Assessment Theory to Practice 1st Edition

Gavin W. Henning

[Link]
practice-1st-edition-gavin-w-henning/

[Link]
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page i

The Theory and Practice of

Strategic Environmental Assessment
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page ii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page iii

The Theory and Practice of

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Towards a More Systematic Approach

Thomas B Fischer

London • Sterling, VA
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page iv

First published by Earthscan in the UK and USA in 2007

Copyright © Thomas B. Fischer, 2007
All rights reserved
ISBN: 978-1-84407-452-5 (paperback)
978-1-84407-453-2 (hardback)
Typeset by MapSet Ltd, Gateshead, UK
Printed and bound in the UK by TJ International, Padstow
Cover design by Andrew Corbett
For a full list of publications please contact:
Earthscan
8–12 Camden High Street
London, NW1 0JH, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7387 8558
Fax: +44 (0)20 7387 8998
Email: earthinfo@[Link]
Web: [Link]
22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2012, USA
Earthscan publishes in association with the International Institute for Environment and
Development
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fischer, Thomas B., 1965–
Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment : towards a more systematic
approach / Thomas B. Fischer.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1-84407-453-2 (hardback : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 1-84407-453-6 (hardback : alk. paper)
ISBN-13: 978-1-84407-452-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 1-84407-452-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Environmental impact analysis. 2. Strategic planning. I. Title.
TD194.6.F575 2007
333.71'4—dc22
2007005931

The paper used for this book is FSC-certified and

totally chlorine-free. FSC (the Forest Stewardship
Council) is an international network to promote
responsible management of the world’s forests.
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page v

For Stephanie and Moritz

ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page vi
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page vii

Contents

Preface ix
Foreword xi
About This Book xiii
Acknowledgements xv
Figures, Tables and Boxes xvii
Acronyms and Abbreviations xxi

1 What is Strategic Environmental Assessment? 1

2 Strategic Environmental Assessment Process, Methods and Techniques 27

3 Identifying Appropriate Issues and Alternatives to be Addressed in SEA:

The Importance of a Tiered Approach 51

4 Comparative Review of 11 Established Strategic Environmental

Assessment Systems 77

5 The European SEA Directive: Its Transposition and Implementation in

the Member States 105

6 Spatial and Land Use Case Studies 117

7 Summary and Conclusions 141

Annexes 153
Bibliography 169
Index 181
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page viii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page ix

Preface

It has been established practice for many application of SEA. But, as Thomas
years to take the environmental effects of Fischer’s book makes clear, it has been
projects into account in their design and accompanied by doubts, often inspired by
authorization but this has generally a lack of experience, about how to apply
resulted in mitigation rather than avoid- it to widely differing types of plan and
ance of adverse effects. Avoidance has programme, verging at one extreme on
been seen increasingly as the domain of policies and at the other on projects; by a
‘strategic’ environmental assessment quest for examples of good practice; and
(SEA). If there could still be any lingering sometimes by a failure to see how to
doubt about the need to take systematic embed SEA in different planning systems.
account of environmental effects in Part of the importance of Fischer’s book
planning – and to do so in the widest, lies in addressing these issues and
most inclusive manner possible – it must showing, by examples from recent
surely have been dispelled by the latest practice, that SEA is not the arcane
(February 2007) IPCC assessment of the preserve of specialists alone but is in the
science of climate change. This starkly mainstream of good planning. Fischer also
demonstrates the consequences for the warns against complacency: there is ample
planet of our collective failures to have room for improvement in the application
proper regard to the environmental effects of SEA and especially in the assessment of
of our plans and actions. In such a alternatives and the provision of better
context, SEA is a tool that can help to follow-up of assessments if we are to
make development more sustainable. SEA achieve the high level of protection of the
was given an enormous impetus in the environment sought by the Directive.
European Union and beyond when the
member states began to apply Directive David Aspinwall
2001/42/EC in mid-2004. The legal basis Former policy advisor on SEA to the
now provided by the Directive has European Commission, DG Environment
enormously widened and strengthened the

ix
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page x
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xi

Foreword

It takes specialized tools to manage the organizations (NGOs) and even industry.
uncertainty inherent when developing One of the primary objectives of the
strategic plans with extensive geographic International Association for Impact
scope and stakeholder interests. As this Assessment (IAIA) is to act as a network-
book admirably demonstrates, strategic ing organization for the exchange of
environmental assessment has now finally ideas, concepts and best practice in impact
moved from the ‘untried’ to the ‘proven’ assessment. Over the last few years, the
column in the project management IAIA has promoted increased contact
balance sheet. Through SEA we can between international SEA practitioners
identify the environmental and enviro- and interested parties. The results have
social risks at the earliest phases of been impressive: IAIA conferences,
strategic appraisal. Working through the debates and papers have been charged
range of potential alternatives, SEA can with a dynamism, energy and vitality as
advise on potential outcomes and propose the participants have explored the flexibil-
solutions involving future design, manage- ity that SEA possesses across its various
ment and planning to avoid, reduce or guises and international settings. We have
remedy potential risks. For too long SEA been delighted to host many of the
has been viewed as a conceptual tool debates that help make up the contents of
waiting its application, and as the follow- this book.
ing chapters record, there is now a
growing and extensive body of recorded Dr Ross Marshall
practice that justifies how the use of SEA President 2006–07
can improve decision-making frameworks International Association for
within government, non-governmental Impact Assessment

xi
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xiii

About This Book

Strategic environmental assessment has author being from Europe, the focus is on
been developing rapidly over the past two European examples. In this context, an
decades and continues to do so. However, update of the implementation and trans-
to date, analysis of existing practice and position status of the SEA Directive in the
associated reporting has remained far European Union member states is
from systematic, lagging behind practical provided. However, on various occasions,
applications. Furthermore, SEA theory reference is also made to non-European
has remained poorly developed. practice and a number of non-European
It is now commonly accepted that SEA systems are reviewed. The book is
SEA should adapt to the specific situation based on various sources, including the
of application, and therefore be applied in international professional literature, as
a flexible manner. Furthermore, there are well as publications and research project
basic generic principles that underlie any results by the author. Furthermore, teach-
SEA. These principles are used in this ing materials, particularly from the
book as the foundations for developing University of Liverpool MA in
and promoting a more systematic Environmental Management and
approach to SEA. In this context, four Planning have been considered.
objectives are pursued: The book is based on the following
understanding of SEA:
1 To portray current conceptual ideas
and to develop them further, • SEA is a systematic decision support
2 To provide for an overview of the process, aiming to ensure that
fundamental principles and rules of environmental and possibly other
SEA, sustainability aspects are considered
3 To report on international SEA effectively in policy, plan and
practice in a systematic manner, programme making. In this context,
4 To advance SEA theory. SEA may be:
– a structured, rigorous, participa-
The book is written for a wide interna- tive, open and transparent
tional audience, including in particular environmental impact assessment
students and practitioners who are new to (EIA) based process, applied
SEA or who wish to refresh their knowl- particularly to plans and
edge of SEA. An evidence-based approach programmes, prepared by public
is used, aiming at filling a gap in the planning authorities and at times
professional literature, which to date has private bodies,
relied too heavily on non-analytical case – a participative, open and trans-
descriptions rather than on systematic parent, possibly non-EIA-based
review and empirical evidence. With the process, applied in a more flexible

xiii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xiv

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

manner to policies, prepared by deals with the question of how suitable

public planning authorities and at alternatives can be identified in SEA. In
times private bodies, or this context, the importance of a tiered
– a flexible non-EIA based process, approach to SEA is stressed and
applied to legislative proposals explained, looking at transport and
and other policies, plans and electricity transmission planning.
programmes in political/cabinet Furthermore, tiering in spatial/land use
decision-making. planning is discussed. Chapter 4 provides
• Effective SEA works within a struc- for a comparative review of the perfor-
tured and tiered decision framework, mance of 11 established SEA systems in
aiming to support more effective and 10 countries globally, using context and
efficient decision-making for sustain- methodological evaluation criteria intro-
able development and improved duced in Chapters 1, 2 and 3. Chapter 5
governance by providing for a reviews implementation and transposition
substantive focus regarding questions, of the SEA Directive in the European
issues and alternatives to be consid- Union member states. In this context,
ered in policy, plan and programme legislation and guidance documents are
(PPP) making. listed; in an annex to the chapter, refer-
• SEA is an evidence-based instrument, ences to emerging Directive-based case
aiming to add scientific rigour to PPP studies are also made. Chapter 6 intro-
making, by using suitable assessment duces and reviews five spatial/land use
methods and techniques. SEAs, representing different levels of
strategicness, focusing particularly on
The book is organized into seven processes, methods and techniques used.
chapters. Chapter 1 explains what SEA is. Furthermore, whether perceived SEA
In this context, the origins and develop- benefits have been achieved is discussed.
ment of SEA, current understanding and Finally, Chapter 7 draws conclusions and
perceived benefits, differences with provides for recommendations for the
project EIA, rationale and theoretical future development of SEA. There are
thinking behind SEA, as well as context three annexes. Annex 1 presents a table
conditions and potential barriers to effec- for reviewing the quality of an environ-
tive SEA are explained. Chapter 2 reports mental report, prepared according to SEA
on the SEA process, making a distinction Directive requirements. Annex 2 lists
between EIA- and non-EIA-based emerging SEA case studies in EU member
approaches. Furthermore, descriptive, states. Annex 3, finally, is written for
analytical and involvement methods and instructors, making suggestions for
techniques are introduced. Chapter 3 exercise questions.

xiv
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xv

Acknowledgements

The book is an outcome of the EC-funded particularly Rita, Jenny and Bridget.
Tempus Erasmus Mundus project PENTA Chapter 4 partly refers to information
– Promotion of European Education on generated for a project for WBIEN, (the
Environmental Assessment, conducted World Bank Environment and Natural
from 2006 to 2007 ([Link]). Resources Program) in 2005. In this
In this context, an especially big ‘thank context, the author wishes to thank the
you’ is due to my project partners Ingrid following experts: Leonard Ortolano
Belcakova, Paola Gazzola and Ralf (USA), Richard Grassetti (USA), Bram
Aschemann. Furthermore, I would also Noble (Canada), Greg Wilburn (Canada),
like to thank my colleagues from the Angus Morrison-Saunders (Australia),
Department of Civic Design, particularly Simon Marsden (Australia), Martin Ward
those involved with environmental (New Zealand), Kim Seaton (New
planning and assessment, including Zealand), Francois Retief (South Africa),
Urmila Jha-Thakur, Sue Kidd, Dave Shaw Wil Thissen (The Netherlands), Mikael
and Olivier Sykes, as well as my current Hilden (Finland), Jiri Dusik (Czech
SEA PhD students Paula Posas and John Republic), Paola Gazzola (Italy), Holger
Phylip-Jones. Furthermore, I would like to Dalkmann (Germany), Sue Kidd (UK) and
thank all those from the SEA community John Phylip-Jones (UK).
who have inspired me, many of whom Chapter 5 partly draws on informa-
have become good friends over the years, tion originally generated in the project
including Jos Arts, Elvis Au, Adam ‘Environmental Policy Advisory Service
Barker, Olivia Bina, Nick Bonvoisin, Lex and Environmental Management’,
Brown, Helen Byron, Aleh Cherp, Holger conducted for the Deutsche Gesellschaft
Dalkmann, Jiri Dusik, Lars Emmelin, für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
John Glasson, Ainhoa Gonzalez, Natalia and the State Environmental Protection
Gullon, Marie Hanusch, Sachihiko Agency (SEPA) of China in 2006. In this
Harashina, Xu He, Mikael Hilden, Elsa context, the author wishes to thank the
João, Tuja Hilding-Rydevik, Hans following member states’ experts for their
Köppel, Lone Kørnøv, Mu Choon Lee, contribution to compiling the informa-
Einar Leknes, Simon Marsden, Ross tion: Ulla Riitta Soveri (Finland),
Marshall, Angus Morrison-Saunders, Veronika Vers (Estonia), Sandra Ruza
Leonard Ortolano, Maria Partidário, (Latvia), Ruta Revoldiene (Lithuania),
Sandra Ruza, Barry Sadler, Frank Joanna Mackowiak-Pandera (Poland),
Scholles, Wil Thissen, Paul Tomlinson, Lone Kørnøv (Denmark), Frank Scholles
Riki Therivel, Rob Verheem, Wolfgang (Germany), Jos Arts (The Netherlands),
Wende and many others! Also, thanks to Georges Guignobles (France), Ainhoa
the people from the IAIA headquarters, Gonzalez (Spain), Maria Partidário

xv
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xvi

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

(Portugal), Connor Skehan (Ireland), Finally, I am particularly grateful to

Paola Gazzola (Italy), Ralf Aschemann my wife, Stephanie, for her love, patience
(Austria), Jiri Dusik (Czech Republic), and support and my son, Moritz, who
Ingrid Belcakova (Slovakia), Efthymis forced me into a more concentrated and
Zagorianakos (Greece), Christina Pantazi focused working pattern – despite testing
(Cyprus) and Joe A Doublet (Malta). my ability to survive on very little sleep!

During the time of writing this book, Chris, a good friend of mine from Ottawa, was
diagnosed with ALS, which is currently considered incurable. Whilst the reasons for the
disease are still unknown, there are suspicions that environmental stresses, particularly
related to heavy metals, may play an important role. I will donate 20% of the royalties
of this book to the ALS Society of Canada ([Link]). My thoughts are with him,
Leny, Maddie and Sarah at this very difficult time.
Thomas Fischer

xvi
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xvii

Figures, Tables and Boxes

Figures
1.1 EC SEA Directive-based process for improving plan and programme making 4
1.2 SEA for reconciling aims and objectives: The example of the pre-2004
English planning system 9
1.3 Strategic planning framework provided by SEA 11
1.4 Identifying a communication-based ‘acting strategy’ 12
1.5 PPP making framework in support of sustainable development and
corresponding SEA stages 14
2.1 The EIA-based SEA process 20
2.2 Pressure indicator: The Dutch SVVII target 40
2.3 Goals achievement matrix as used in plan making SEA in the UK 41
2.4 The sustainability triangle: An application to the compact and edge
city concepts 42
2.5 Impact tree, showing a cause (development)–effect (on Welsh minority) chain 42
2.6 A GIS overlay map showing sensitivities 43
2.7 Forecasting cross, indicating impacts of different extents of additional
jobs and housing 44
2.8 The Netherlands and its ecological footprint 45
2.9 The industrial life-cycle system 47
3.1 Quantity of information provided by different SEA types 52
3.2 The four SEA tiers of the system-based transport planning framework 56
3.3 Focus, tasks, alternatives, impacts, role of different administrations and
methods/techniques within the system-based SEA framework 57
3.4 Transport planning system in Germany 60
3.5 Effectiveness of three types of measures on reducing anticipated transport
growth 61
3.6 Network improvement study ‘North-East Triangle’ 61
3.7 Section of the state roads development plan, Land Brandenburg 62
3.8 Regional electricity network planning and SEA 64
3.9 Scope of ScottishPower’s strategic routeing methodology 67
3.10 Spatial/land use planning hierarchy in England 69
3.11 Spatial/land use planning hierarchy in Germany 71
3.12 Transport policy in Merseyside, Amsterdam and Berlin – 1997 and 2002 73
6.1 The province of Noord-Holland 119
6.2 Development option urban sprawl 120
6.3 Location of Oldham within north-west England 123
6.4 Location of Ketzin within Brandenburg 128

xvii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xviii

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

6.5 Development concept of landscape plan/SEA of Ketzin 129

6.6 Location of Weiz within Austria 133
6.7 Development areas assessed 134
6.8 Location of Leiden and Rotterdam within the Randstad 136
6.9 Development alternatives 138

Tables
1.1 The changing focus of SEA from lower tiers to higher tiers 7
2.1 Cost–benefit impact matrix 41
3.1 Methodological framework for transmission network SEA 66
4.1 Evaluation of 11 SEA systems (EU systems based on pre-SEA Directive
practice) 96
4.2 SEA systems’ performance and existence of context and procedural factors 100
5.1 SEA Directive transposition and implementation status in 25 EU
member states 108
6.1 Spatial/land use planning instruments in The Netherlands 118
6.2 Main procedural steps of the UDP sustainability appraisal 124
6.3 Land use and landscape plans and programmes in Germany 127
6.4 Main procedural stages of land use and landscape plan making 129
6.5 Spatial/land use planning in Austria 132
6.6 Impact matrix for SEA urban plan revision in Weiz 134
6.7 Final results for different alternatives 138
6.8 The five spatial/land use SEAs and their main focus 140
A1 Environmental report review table 156

Boxes
1.1 Definition of SEA 6
1.2 Characteristics of SEA, based on which benefits are thought to result 7
1.3 SEA effectiveness criteria advertised in the professional literature 20
1.4 Context evaluation criteria for effective SEA application 21
2.1 Four types of SEA follow-up 31
2.2 Definitions for participation, consultation, communication and reporting 32
2.3 Requirements for an environmental assessment of bills and other
government proposals in Denmark 35
2.4 Conditions that SEA methods and techniques should meet 38
2.5 EC SEA Directive threshold list (for screening) 40
2.6 Participation, consultation and reporting methods and techniques 45
2.7 Methods and techniques at different SEA stages 48
4.1 Factors for evaluating SEA systems 81
4.2 Key aspects of the Californian SEA system and current weaknesses 82
4.3 Key aspects of the Western Australia SEA system and current weaknesses 84
4.4 Key aspects of the Canadian SEA system and current weaknesses 85
4.5 Key aspects of the New Zealand SEA system and current weaknesses 86
4.6 Key aspects of the South African SEA system and current weaknesses 88
4.7 Key aspects of the Dutch SEA system and current weaknesses 89

xviii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xix

Figures, Tables and Boxes

4.8 Key aspects of the UK’s SEA system and current weaknesses 90
4.9 Key aspects of the Italian SEA system and current weaknesses 92
4.10 Key aspects of the German landscape plan-based SEA system and current
weaknesses (based on practice in the state of Brandenburg) 93
4.11 Key aspects of the Finish SEA system and current weaknesses 94
4.12 Context-related enabling factors with particular importance for
effective SEA 100

xix
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xx
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xxi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAP area action plan

AfS Action for Sustainability
BPEO best practical environmental option
CBA cost–benefit analysis
CBR cost–benefit relationship
CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
CESD Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
(Canada)
CO carbon monoxide
COPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
EA environmental appraisal
EC TEN-T European Commission Trans-European Transport Networks
EIA environmental impact assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Western Australia)
EREGoSum Environmental thinking, effective Reasoning, Efficient decision-making,
good Governance and Sustainable development
EU European Union
FEARO Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (Canada)
FTIP Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (Germany)
GIS geographical information system
GONW Government Office of the North West of England
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment
InChAR Providing Information, Changing Attitudes and Routines
LCA life-cycle assessment
LDD local development document
LDF local development framework
LTNZGA Land Transport New Zealand Government Agency
LULU locally unwanted land use
LUP land use plan
MCA multi-criteria analysis
MerITS Merseyside Integrated Transport Study
MMS mutil-modal studies
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (US)
NIMBY not in my back yard
NIS Newly Independent States
NMVOC non-methane hydrocarbons
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

xxi
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page xxii

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

OVOS assessment of environmental impact requirements

PEIR programmatic environmental impact report
PENTA Promotion of European Education on Environmental Assessment
PPP policy, plan and programme
PPG planning policy guidance
PPS planning policy statement
ProMtext SEA Process, Methods and techniques and the overall context within
which it is applied
REC Regional Environment Center
RIA regulatory impact assessment
RLTS regional land transport strategy
ROA Regional Body of Amsterdam
ROCOL Review of Charging Options for London
RPG regional planning guidance
RSS regional spatial strategy
SA sustainability appraisal
SEA strategic environmental assessment
SEAN strategic environmental analysis
SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency (China)
SER State Environmental Review (USSR)
SI Statutory Instrument
SOER state of the environment reporting
SPD supplementary planning document
SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
SyProTEIn Systematic, Pro-active, Tiered and Effective Involvement
UDP unitary development plan
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECE United Nations Economic Council for Europe
VROM Ministry of Public Housing, Physical Planning and Environmental
Affairs (The Netherlands)

xxii
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 1

What is Strategic
Environmental Assessment?

In Chapter 1, the origins and development (EIA) are depicted. Furthermore, SEA’s
to date of strategic environmental assess- rationale is established. Why and when
ment (SEA) are summarized. SEA is effective in improving the consider-
Furthermore, current SEA understanding ation of the environmental component in
and perceived benefits arising from SEA policy, plan and programme (PPP) making
are outlined. The substantive focus of SEA are explored. Context conditions for
is explained and its differences from effective SEA are identified and, finally, a
project environmental impact assessment summary of the main points is provided.

Introduction

General environmental assessment Measures of the Federation of 1975); and

requirements in public decision-making France (based on the Law on the
were first introduced in the US in 1970, Protection of the Natural Environment of
based on the National Environmental 1976). However, at the early stages of its
Policy Act (NEPA), covering ‘major development, in many systems, environ-
Federal actions’ (United States mental assessment was used only
Government, 1969). While in 1978 the occasionally rather than systematically.
President’s Council on Environmental Furthermore, similarly to US practice,
Quality defined these ‘actions’ to include throughout the 1970s and 1980s, in most
regulations, plans, policies, procedures, countries, environmental assessment was
legislative proposals and programmes applied mainly to project planning
(Wood, 2002; Wright, 2006), in practice, (Fischer, 2002a). Finally, international aid
NEPA-based assessment mainly revolved organizations and development banks,
around project proposals. such as the United Nations Development
Following NEPA, other countries Programme (UNDP), the Organisation for
started to establish environmental assess- Economic Co-operation and Development
ment requirements (see Dalal-Clayton and (OECD) and the World Bank started to
Sadler, 2005), such as: Canada (based on promote environmental assessment appli-
the Federal Environmental Assessment cation and training, particularly in
Review Process of 1973); Australia (based developing countries in the 1980s (see, for
on the Commonwealth Government’s example, Dusik et al, 2003; OECD, 2006;
Environment Protection [Impact of World Bank Group, 2006).
Proposals] Act of 1974); West Germany During the 1980s, within the environ-
(based on the Principles for Assessing the mental assessment literature, increasingly,
Environmental Compatibility of Public a distinction was made between project

1
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 2

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

and higher tiers of decision-making. In the authorities and private bodies (includ-
member states of the European Union ing international aid
(EU), this distinction became formalized organizations/development banks) to
through the introduction of environmen- conduct:
tal impact assessment in 1985, based on – structured, rigorous, participative,
Directive 85/337/EEC (European open and transparent EIA-based
Commission, 1985), covering projects processes, particularly to plans
only. In a European context, therefore, the and programmes;
term EIA became used for project assess- – participative, open and transpar-
ment. Due to a growing perception that ent, possibly non-EIA-based
environmental consequences also needed flexible processes to
to be considered in decision-making above policies/visions and policy plans.
the project level, strategic environmental Second, SEA may support cabinet-
assessment was introduced in the second type decision-making, working as a
half of the 1980s (Wood and Djeddour, flexible (non-EIA based) assessment
1992). The decision-making tiers to which instrument that is applied to legisla-
SEA is applied have become widely tive proposals and other PPPs.
referred to as policies, plans and • SEA is an evidence-based instrument,
programmes (PPPs). aiming to add scientific rigour to PPP
Initially, SEA was mainly thought of making by applying a range of assess-
in terms of the application of project EIA ment methods and techniques.
principles to PPPs (Fischer and Seaton, • SEA provides for a structured decision
2002). However, subsequently different framework, aiming to support more
interpretations emerged that were effective and efficient decision-
connected in particular with: making, sustainable development and
improved governance by establishing
• the different geographical and time a substantive focus, for example, in
scales of SEA and EIA (Lee and Walsh, terms of the issues and alternatives to
1992); be considered at different systematic
• the different levels of detail at strate- tiers and levels.
gic and project tiers (Partidário and
Fischer, 2004); Within this book, SEA for public planning
• the different ways in which strategic and private bodies is referred to as
decision processes are organized, ‘administration-led SEA’, while SEA for
when compared with project planning cabinet-type decision-making is referred
(Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000; Nitz and to as ‘cabinet SEA’. The main focus of the
Brown, 2001). book is on the former, namely, SEA
conducted by public planning authorities
SEA can be described as having the and private bodies (including interna-
following three main meanings: tional aid organizations/development
banks) because this is where SEA is
• SEA is a systematic decision support mainly conducted and required globally,
process, aiming to ensure that and because there is a much wider range
environmental and possibly other of practical experiences with administra-
sustainability aspects are considered tion-led SEA than with cabinet SEA.
in PPP making. In this context, SEA To date, SEA has been applied in a
may support, first, public planning wide range of different situations, includ-

2
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 3

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

ing trade agreements, funding • identify the significant impacts of

programmes, economic development different alternatives on certain
plans, spatial/land use and sectoral (for environmental aspects;
example, transport, energy, waste, water) • explain how the SEA was considered
PPPs. In this book, a wide range of in decision-making;
practice examples are brought forward, • provide information on the reasons
mainly from spatial/land use, transport for the choice of a certain alternative.
and electricity transmission planning.
Numerous examples for other SEA appli- Furthermore a non-technical summary
cations can be found in the professional needs to be prepared and monitoring
literature, for example for waste manage- arrangements for significant environmen-
ment (Arbter, 2005; Verheem, 1996), tal impacts need to be put into place.
trade (Kirkpatrick and George, 2004), oil The implementation and transposition
and gas extraction (DTI, 2001), economic status of the SEA Directive in EU member
development plans (Fischer, 2003c), wind states is described in Chapter 5. In its
farms (Kleinschmidt and Wagner, 1996; short lifetime to date, the SEA Directive
for offshore windfarms see Schomerus et has not only had an impact on EU
al, 2006), water/flood management member states, but also within a wider
(DEFRA, 2004) and funding programmes international context. It has been a
(Ward et al, 2005). Finally, policy SEA has reference point for practice, for example,
been the main focus of two recent publica- in Asia, Africa and South America.
tions, including Sadler (2005) and the Furthermore, the Kiev protocol to the
World Bank (2005). Espoo Convention (UNECE, 2003) on
Currently, probably the best-known trans-boundary SEA formulates almost
SEA ‘framework law that establishes a identical requirements to the Directive,
minimum common procedure for certain though it also explicitly mentions the
official plans and programmes’ (Dalal- possibility of applying SEA at the policy
Clayton and Sadler, 2005, p37) is the level. This protocol and the associated
European Directive 2001/42/EC on the Resource Manual (UNECE, 2006) are
assessment of the effects of certain plans likely to enhance SEA application in
and programmes on the environment United Nations Economic Council for
(‘SEA Directive’; European Commission, Europe (UNECE) states outside the EU.
2001b). This Directive advocates the
application of a systematic, pro-active
The SEA process
EIA-based and participative process that
is prepared with a view to avoiding Figure 1.1 shows an SEA Directive-based
unnecessary duplication in tiered assess- assessment process. This is EIA based and
ment practice. In this context, however, linked to plan and programme making
policies and cabinet decision-making are stages in a continuous and integrated
not mentioned. At the heart of a decision flow. This process is objectives-
Directive-based SEA process is the prepa- led (namely, trying to influence PPP
ration of an environmental report, which making so that certain objectives can be
is supposed to: reached) and baseline-led (namely, relying
on baseline data to be able to make
• portray the relationship with other reliable projections in assessment), and
PPPs; reflects ideas of instrumental rationality
(Faludi, 1973).

3
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 4

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

Plan and programme SEA process

making process

Identify aims and Screening: Is a

A objectives of SEA likely to be
strategic action necessary?

Identify alternative Scoping: issues to

B ways to achieve be considered;
objectives baseline, objectives
and targets

Assess alternatives Assessment: avoid,

C and choose preferred minimise, mitigate,
alternative compensate
Consultation
and
participation2
Prepare draft SEA Report:
D pland and have (and
it reviewed Review1)

Decision Making Decision Making:

E – –
approve plan approve SEA

Implement and SEA Monitoring

F monitor strategic and
action follow-up

Notes: 1 not explicitly required by the Directive

2 according to the Directive, at least at scoping and report stages of the SEA process

Source: Thomas Fischer; see also European Commission (2006)

Figure 1.1 EC SEA Directive-based process for improving plan

and programme making

If applied in the way shown in Figure environmental issues at each stage of the
1.1, the SEA process is thought to be able process, but also leading to improved
to influence the underlying plan and transparency and governance (Kidd and
programme making process, with a view Fischer, 2007). The generic SEA process is
to improving it from an environmental explained in further detail in Chapter 2.
perspective. Furthermore, an SEA that is Describing non-EIA-based SEA,
applied in this manner may reshape the applied in policy and cabinet decision-
plan and programme decision flow, making situations (at times also referred
supporting not only the consideration of to as ‘policy assessment’-based SEA), is

4
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 5

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

not as straightforward, as this is normally Furthermore, it is supposed to support the

portrayed as being flexible, adaptable and development of more transparent strategic
at times communicative (reflecting ideas decisions. It attempts to provide relevant
of communicative rationality; see Healey, and reliable information for those
1997). However, even non-EIA-based SEA involved in PPP making in an effective and
is normally perceived as being a system- timely manner. As mentioned above, the
atic process, which may take different exact form of SEA will depend on the
forms (see Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000). To specific situation and context it is applied
date, attempts to define non-EIA-based in. Procedurally, differences are particu-
SEA in a generic way have either led to a larly evident between administration-led
somewhat blurred picture of SEA or, SEA and cabinet SEA. Regarding the
ironically, have made it look similar to substantive focus (that is, the issues and
EIA-based SEA. This was described by alternatives to be considered), differences
Fischer (2003a), based on observations may exist between different administra-
made by Tonn et al (2000) and Nielsson tive levels (for example, national,
and Dalkmann (2001). Generally speak- regional, local), strategic tiers (for
ing, non-EIA-based assessment example, policy, plan and programme)
approaches are considered to be less and sectors (for example, land-use, trans-
methodologically rigorous than EIA- port, energy, waste, water). While certain
based processes, and descriptions of key elements are likely to be reflected in
non-EIA-based SEA frequently mention every SEA system, others will differ
the following core elements: depending on established planning and
assessment practices, as well as on the
• Specifying the issue (problem identifi- specific traditions of the organizations
cation); preparing PPPs and SEAs. Based on what
• Goal setting (what are aims, objec- has been laid out in the previous section,
tives and targets); Box 1.1 presents an up-to-date definition
• Information collection; of SEA.
• Information processing and consider- Generally speaking, a range of
ation of alternatives; benefits are supposed to result from the
• Decision-making; application of SEA. In this context, SEA
• Implementation. aims at supporting PPP processes, leading
to environmentally sound and sustainable
Whilst there are a range of non-EIA-based development. Furthermore, it attempts to
systems (see Chapter 4), there is currently strengthen strategic processes, improving
hardly any empirical evidence available good governance and building public trust
for what makes non-EIA process-based and confidence into strategic decision-
SEA effective. In this context, research is making. Ultimately, it is hoped that SEA
urgently needed. can lead to savings in time and money by
avoiding costly mistakes, leading to a
better quality of life. Box 1.2 shows those
Current understanding and
SEA characteristics, based on which
perceived benefits from SEA
benefits are thought to result.
SEA’s main aim is to ensure due considera- Conceptually, this may be expressed by
tion is given to environmental and the term ‘SyProTEIn’ (Systematic, Pro-
possibly other sustainability aspects in active, Tiered and Effective Involvement).
PPP making above the project level.

5
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 6

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

BOX 1.1 DEFINITION OF SEA

SEA aims to ensure that due consideration is given to environmental and possibly other
sustainability aspects in policy, plan and programme making above the project level. It
is:

• A systematic, objectives-led, evidence-based, proactive and participative decision-

making support process for the formulation of sustainable policies, plans and
programmes, leading to improved governance; it can function as:
– a structured, rigorous and open project EIA-based administrative procedure in
public and, at times, private plan and programme making situations;
– a possibly more flexible assessment process:
– in public and at times private policy-making situations;
– in legislative proposals and other policies, plans and programmes, submit-
ted to cabinet decision-making.
• A policy, plan and programme making support instrument that is supposed to add
scientific rigour to decision-making, applying a range of suitable methods and
techniques.
• A systematic decision-making framework, establishing a substantive focus, particu-
larly in terms of alternatives and aspects to be considered, depending on the
systematic tier (policy, plan or programme), administrative level (national,
regional, local) and sector of application.

Focus of SEA and differences address a broad range of alternatives

from project EIA covering different sectors.
SEA can be applied in a range of situa-
SEA is applied in strategic decision-
tions that may differ in terms of their
making contexts that precede project
‘strategicness’, and the range of different
decisions. Being associated with decisions
SEA applications is much wider than the
on aims and objectives for future develop-
range of project EIA applications. Table
ment, SEA may deal with issues such as
1.1 summarizes the changing focus of
need and demand management, evaluat-
SEA, depending on how far away from the
ing, for example, different fiscal,
project level it is applied, that is, how
regulatory or organizational and spatial
‘strategic’ it is. This shows a transition in
development options. Project EIA, by
the shape that SEA is likely to take from
contrast, deals with detailed decisions that
lower tiers of decision-making to higher
are normally concerned with the location
tiers. Whereas at lower tiers, SEA is likely
and design of a project. In practice,
to be based on a more rigorous EIA-based
project EIA has been frequently shown to
approach, at higher tiers it is likely to be
revolve around measures for mitigating
more flexible (and possibly non-EIA
negative environmental impacts.
based). Methods and techniques applied
Alternatively, SEA would normally aim at
vary, depending on the specific situation
preventing negative impacts and at proac-
of application. At lower tiers, methods
tively enhancing positive developments.
and techniques typically used in EIA (for
Furthermore, whereas in project EIA
example, field surveys, overlay mapping
alternatives to be assessed are often
and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for
limited to minor variants, SEA may
comparing different spatial alternatives)

6
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 7

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

BOX 1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEA, BASED ON

WHICH BENEFITS ARE THOUGHT TO RESULT

1 SEA allows for a more systematic and effective consideration of wider environmen-
tal impacts and alternatives at higher tiers of decision-making, leading to more
effective and less time-consuming decision-making and implementation.
2 SEA acts as a proactive tool that supports the formulation of strategic action for
sustainable development.
3 SEA increases the efficiency of tiered decision-making, strengthens project EIA and
identifies appropriate and timely alternatives and options; in this context, it helps
to focus on the right issues at the right time and aims to uncover potentially costly
inconsistencies.
4 SEA enables more effective involvement in strategic decision-making, creating
knowledge at low costs.

Source: adapted from Fischer (1999a) and Dusik et al (2003).

may be useful and appropriately applied. also Chapters 2 and 6). Furthermore,
At higher tiers, methods and techniques there are methods and techniques that
typically applied within policy making may be applied at both, higher and lower
may be more appropriate, such as tiers, including, for example, checklists,
forecasting, backcasting and visioning (see matrices and impact trees. Generally
Table 1.1 The changing focus of SEA from lower tiers to higher tiers
SEA EIA
‘Higher tiers’ / ‘Lower tiers’
Decision making Policy Plan Programme Project
level
Nature of action Strategic, visionary, Immediate,
conceptual operational
Output General Detailed
Scale of impacts Macroscopic, Microscopic,
cumulative, unclear localised
Timescale Long to medium term Medium to short term
Key data sources Sustainable development Field work
strategies, state of the sample analysis
environment reports, vision
Type of data More qualitative More quantitative
Alternatives Area wide, political, regulative, Specific locations, design,
technological, fiscal, economic construction, operation
Rigour of analysis More uncertainty More rigour
Assessment Sustainability benchmarks Legal restrictions and
benchmarks (criteria and objectives) best practice
Role of Mediator for negotiations Advocator of values and norms
practitioner Technician, using stakeholder values
Public perception More vague, distant More reactive (NIMBY)

Source: adapted from Partidário and Fischer (2004)

7
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 8

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

speaking, quantification within assess- tative techniques, as the frequent use of

ment is more difficult to achieve at higher scenario analysis and mathematical
tiers that come with a greater degree of modelling have shown (see Fischer,
uncertainty. However, this does not mean 2002a).
that it is impossible to apply more quanti-

Rationale for applying SEA

The rationale for applying SEA is values have tended to be underrepresented

connected with current shortcomings of due to utilitarian and economistic views
PPP making. In this context, the need for prevailing in planning (Ortolano, 1984).
SEA results from: Having identified this as a problem, many
countries now have introduced formal
• the need for a stronger representation environmental assessment requirements,
of strategic environmental thinking in aiming to improve the consideration of
PPP making; the environmental dimension in decision-
• the need for more effective reasoning making. However, despite the efforts
in decision-making; made, environmental issues – and particu-
• the need for more efficient decision- larly those that are of a strategic nature –
making; are still frequently treated as simple ‘add-
• the need for better support of good ons’ that are taken into account not
governance and sustainable develop- during, but after PPP processes have been
ment in decision-making. conducted. This means that environmen-
tal issues are dealt with in a reactive way.
Conceptually, the rationale for applying A reactive approach, however, means that
SEA may be expressed by the term the main focus of assessment is on mitiga-
EREGoSum (Environmental thinking, tion of negative environmental impacts,
effective Reasoning, Efficient decision- rather than on proactively finding ways
making, good Governance and for avoiding negative impacts and enhanc-
Sustainable development). ing positive impacts. Furthermore,
applying SEA in a reactive manner means
that environmental standards – if avail-
The need for a stronger
able – are unlikely to be effectively used to
representation of strategic
guide PPP making.
environmental thinking in PPP
In current PPP making practice,
making
concrete quantitative environmental
The main reason for introducing SEA has thresholds are only rarely available. Also,
been the perceived weak representation of if they do exist, they are frequently not
environmental aspects in PPP making respected (Fischer, 2002a). In addition,
(Dusik et al, 2003; Morrison-Saunders there are indications that long-term
and Fischer, 2006). In this context, and visions of sustainable development and
despite of the widespread claim by policy associated aims and objectives, with time
makers and planners in many countries horizons of between 20 to 30 years are
that a balanced evaluation is achieved, not consistently followed through
non-material, cultural, social and ethical (Fischer, 2004a; see also Chapter 3 and

8
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 9

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

Levels of Planning and Spatial/land use planning

planning development
instruments Policy Plan Programme

National Policy Definition of

guidance objectives and
targets
ASSESSMENT
(SEA)

Are objectives and

targets achieved?

Regional Regional ASSESSMENT Interpretation

planning (SEA) ASSESSMENT
guidance (SEA)
Reconciliation of
objectives and How can objectives
targets and targets be
achieved?

County Structure Definition of Interpretation ASSESSMENT

planning objectives and ASSESSMENT (SEA)
Unitary targets (SEA)
ASSESSMENT Implementation
Local Development (SEA) How can
planning objectives
Are objectives and targets be
and targets achieved?
achieved?

Source: adapted from Barker and Fischer (2003)

Figure 1.2 SEA for reconciling aims and objectives:

The example of the pre-2004 English planning system

Chapter 6). Rather, short-term political than effectively integrated and may have
interests frequently appear to prevail. This different aims and objectives (Stead et al,
problem is closely connected with the 2004). In this context, SEA may be used
duration of election cycles. Finally, a as a reconciliatory tool of different admin-
consistent consideration of thresholds istrative levels, systematic tiers and
within the whole planning system, that is, sectors. How this might happen was
throughout all sectors and administra- discussed by Barker and Fischer (2003)
tions, is normally difficult because in most for the pre-2004 English spatial/land use
countries and systems, different planning planning system (see Figure 1.2).
tiers, levels and sectors are isolated rather

9
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 10

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

The need for more effective at different tiers (following Marshall and
reasoning in decision-making Fischer, 2006). The stages introduced by a
tiered SEA framework are similar to the
SEA is more than the application of
basic stages of corporate planning frame-
prediction techniques and methods within
works (see, for example, McNamara,
an assessment process. Rather, it can
2006). How a tiered approach to SEA can
provide for a systematic decision-making
potentially play an important role for
framework, identifying tasks to be
detecting gaps in existing planning
addressed at different tiers and adminis-
systems and the identification of suitable
trative levels (Fischer, 2006a). In this
alternatives is discussed in further detail in
context, SEA can help decision-makers
Chapter 3.
ask questions relevant to a specific tier,
The value of a tiered approach to
leading to more effective reasoning in
SEA lies in its potential to enable greater
decision-making. A generic SEA frame-
transparency and integration, supporting
work can thus guide decision-makers in
more effective streamlining of strategic
systematically addressing, for example:
planning. Furthermore, connections with
other PPPs may be made explicit, thus
• initial ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions;
helping to avoid duplication. Tiering
typically at the policy (or vision) tier
within PPP making and SEA is not just a
of decision-making:
conceptual idea; this is evident when
– identifying and/or defining under-
looking at current practice, for example,
lying – sustainability – objectives
in transport planning in northern and
and targets;
western European countries (Fischer,
– supporting identification of possi-
2006a). Here, practice has been observed
ble development scenarios and
to fall into one of four main categories,
policy options;
which may be dubbed policy SEA,
– enabling the assessment of
network-plan SEA, corridor-plan SEA
impacts of policy options on
and programme SEA. This is further
objectives and targets;
explained in Chapter 3. In this context,
• subsequent ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’
whereas transport policy SEAs have been
questions; at the plan tier of decision-
found to address initial ‘why’ and ‘what’
making:
questions, network-plan SEAs were
– proactively developing possible –
found to revolve around subsequent
spatial – development options;
‘what’ and ‘where’ questions. Corridor-
– enabling the assessment of
plan SEAs were found to address ‘where’
impacts of these options on objec-
and ‘how roughly’ questions, and
tives and targets;
programme SEAs, finally, were found to
• ‘where’ and ‘when’ questions at the
focus on ‘when’ questions. At times,
programme tier of decision-making:
categories are combined, for example,
– supporting ranking of possible
policy and network plans (as was the
projects and/or alternatives in
case with the regional Dutch transport
terms of, for example, benefits
strategies in the 1990s; see Fischer,
and costs.
2002a) or corridor plans and
programmes (as done within the German
Figure 1.3 shows a strategic planning
Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan;
framework that can be provided by SEA,
see Chapter 3); in other words, in
specifying tasks and issues to be addressed
practice boundaries are often flexible.

10
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 11

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

Tiered SEA and Tasks to be addresses Issues to be

EIA system (Basic stages of corporate planning) addressed

{ }
Develop strategic vision/mission
(based on SWOT analysis) Course of
direction
Policy SEA (why and
what)
Set clear goals and objectives for
acieving vision/mission

}
Plan SEA Identify/plan strategic approaches/action Course of
to reach each goal direction
(where and
when)
Program SEA Design implementation programme

Project SEA

Follow-up
Source: Marshall and Fischer (2006)
Implement projects

Monitoring
} Action
(where and
how exactly)

Figure 1.3 Strategic planning framework provided by SEA

Tasks may not only be allocated to project planning and EIA (see previous
different systematic tiers (policies, plans section and Chapter 3), and second, by
or programmes), but also to different supporting more systematic PPP processes
administrative levels. In the spatial/land (see Figure 1.1 and Chapter 2). A system-
use planning system in England, for atic decision-making framework may
example, the national level (central support addressing ‘the right issues at the
government) sets the context for ‘why’ right time’ at different tiers, as explained
and ‘what’ questions through general above. Ultimately, a framework, within
policy and planning guidance, the which different tiers and levels address
regional level for ‘what’ and ‘where’ different issues, tasks and alternatives,
questions through regional spatial strate- may help avoid delays in subsequent
gies, and the local level for ‘where’ and project preparation. In this context, SEA
‘how’ questions through local develop- should help to address problems early
ment frameworks (Fischer, 2006a; see also enough in order to be able to proactively
Chapter 3). solve them, thus maximizing positive
impacts and preventing damage rather
than only aiming at mitigating negative
The need for more efficient
impacts. A proactive decision support
decision-making
process, as shown in Figure 1.1 can be
SEA can support more efficient decision- used to achieve more proactive decision-
making, particularly by, first, helping to making.
achieve more structured decision-making Acting as a proactive decision frame-
frameworks, thus creating the context for work and supporting more systematic PPP
more focused PPP making and subsequent processes, SEA may help to detect not

11
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 12

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

Concreteness
(conflicts)

Programme
Screening, scoping
impact assessment,
informed decision
making
consultation/participation
Plan monitoring/follow-up
Screening, scoping
impact assessment,
informed decision
Policy making
consultation/participation
? monitoring/follow-up
n
ic of
io
at
un e
m re
m eg
co D

Technical context (knowledge)

Source: adapted from Fischer (2003)

Figure 1.4 Identifying a communication-based ‘acting strategy’

only direct, but also indirect, cumulative Chapter 2). Figure 1.4 shows, in a simplis-
and synergistic effects. Providing for a tic manner, how a systematic SEA
participative process, SEA may enable the framework may provide the basis for
effective gathering of information and decision-makers to identify a strategy for
inputs from a wide range of stakeholders. acting, depending on the expected degree
Furthermore, providing for a tiered of communication, using the strategic
decision framework, SEA may support planning framework provided by SEA
decision-makers to ask the right questions introduced in Figure 1.3. Whilst advoca-
at the right time. In this context, SEA can tive and technical approaches may work
also advise decision-makers and assessors well in structured EIA-based processes,
on how to act, based on the technical they may be less helpful in processes, in
knowledge and the expected potential which the assessor needs to act as a
conflicts in a certain situation, therefore mediator, requiring a higher degree of
helping them to act more efficiently. flexibility. Required skills in the context of
‘Acting strategies’ may revolve around: mediation are less technical and include
first, mediation, for example, in more communication and negotiation capabili-
vague policy situations, where ‘why’ and ties (Heikinheimo, 2003).
‘what’ questions are addressed; second,
advocacy in planning situations in which
The need for supporting good
‘where’ and ‘how’ questions are addressed
governance and sustainable devel-
and in which policies are supposed to be
opment in decision-making
implemented; and third, technical
approaches, where ‘when’ questions are More recently, the use of SEA has been
addressed (based on, for example, MCA discussed in the context of its potential for
and cost–benefit analysis (CBA); see improving governance (Kidd and Fischer,

12
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 13

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

2007). This is mainly based on its capabil- equally interested in all strategic issues,
ity to increase transparency, participation which at times may appear too unclear
and inclusiveness by advocating a partici- and unspecific.
patory and structured assessment process. By providing for a systematic
In SEA, communication, participation and decision-making framework, SEA may
reporting have an important role to play lead to increased effectiveness and
by introducing perspectives and inputs of efficiency of decision-making. Ultimately,
different stakeholders to the PPP making if applied in a systematic, participative
process. Expected achievements can be and structured manner, SEA should lead
subdivided into two main streams: to increased accountability, better integra-
tion, increased responsiveness and
1 Long-term public empowerment: resilience of decision-making, thus
– leading to, for example, conflict supporting good governance. As
resolution, gain of public support explained above, SEA works as an effec-
for future actions, increased tive decision-making support instrument
public confidence in decision- for sustainable development. In this
making and in politicians, context, various authors have shown that
development of social ownership it is potentially able to support PPP
and belonging. formulation for sustainable development
2 An improved and more effective PPP by providing for an objectives-led, alter-
process: natives-focused and participatory
– leading to, for example, the identi- instrument (Sheate, 1992; Fischer, 1999b).
fication of public concerns and the This is why SEA is thought to be able to
introduction of new ideas for change planning processes that are insuffi-
possible solutions; ciently open.
– ensuring that alternatives are What PPP making towards sustain-
considered and that decision- able development is thought to look like is
makers and proponents are shown in Figure 1.5, also indicating corre-
accountable; sponding SEA stages. In addition to those,
– providing opportunity to share there are also substantive requirements.
expertise and to benefit from local However, these differ depending on the
knowledge and fresh perspectives country, region and locality, as well as
on the SEA process. underlying value systems and attitudes.
The range of definitions of sustainable
The practice of public participation in development has been said to stretch from
SEA should anticipate and, if possible, technocentric – cornucopian –
help to avoid NIMBY (not in my back approaches, where natural capital can be
yard) and LULU (locally unwanted land fully substituted by man-made capital. to
use) situations, that often occur at project ecocentric – deep green – approaches,
levels of decision-making. Ultimately, this where use of natural resources is only
should lead to reduced costs and avoid- permitted if they can be fully replaced
ance of decision delays. The results to be (Tait, 1995). Having a good understand-
achieved through communication, partici- ing of the values and attitudes of those
pation and reporting in SEA are likely to involved in SEA is vital for achieving an
differ from those achievable in EIA. In this effective process (Valve, 1999). How SEA
context, it is important to acknowledge can act as an instrument for integrating
that the general public is unlikely to be environmental, social and economic

13
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 14

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

PPP making framework in support of sustainable development SEA stages

Characterization of (a) economic, (b) social and (c)

environmental baseline and identification of objectives (using, Screening
for example, existing sustainable development strategies)

Setting clear thresholds or targets for (a), (b) and (c)

Developing PPP ideas; identifying potential impacts on

objectives and targets of (a), (b) and (c) Scoping

Identification of PPP alternatives for meeting objectives and Consultation

targets of (a), (b) and (c) Participation

Assessment and identification of possible trade-offs; Assessment

identifying an ‘optimal mix’ and report

Informed decision making Decision-making

Check actual performace, adjust measures (monitoring and Monitoring

follow-up)

Source: adapted from Fischer (1999b)

Figure 1.5 PPP making framework in support of sustainable development

and corresponding SEA stages

aspects is explained in the next section. sustainable development can therefore

Generally speaking, what makes only be considered effective if clear objec-
defining sustainable development difficult tives are in place for what a society wants
is not just different attitudes and value to achieve in the short-, medium- and
systems, but also different dimensions and long-terms (see also below and Chapter
speeds of the various sustainability 3). Furthermore, it is important to appre-
aspects to be considered. While, for ciate that planning for sustainable
example, fens or moorlands can take up development is frequently controversial,
to 1000 to 10,000 years to develop fully, coming with great uncertainties. How
in business planning, a time horizon of 10 SEA can act as an instrument for integrat-
to 20 years would in many cases already ing environmental, social and economic
be considered strategic. Modern shopping aspects in order to achieve sustainable
centres, for example, are built for a life development is further discussed in the
span of about 15 years. Planning for next section.

14
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 15

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

SEA as an instrument for integrating environmental,

social and economic aspects in order to achieve
sustainable development

In order for sustainable development to be considered simultaneously. This was

achieved, economic, social and environ- confirmed by the OECD (1990), asking
mental aspects need to be effectively for a greater integration between sectoral
considered in decision-making (Lee, policies and management regimes to be
2006). As a consequence, substantive achieved, hoping that this would lead to a
integration is raising a lot of interest ‘systematic consideration of many diverse
among decision-makers, practitioners and elements… in conceiving, designing,
academics worldwide (Fischer, 1999c; implementing, maintaining and terminat-
Kidd and Fischer, 2007), and there have ing a policy’ (OECD, 1990, p.39).
been suggestions by some authors that Furthermore, the Rio Earth Summit’s
SEA should be converted into integrated Local Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) asked
or sustainability appraisal (Smith and for an integration of economic, social and
Sheate, 2001; Carter et al, 2003). The environmental considerations in decision-
argument is that if SEA acts as an instru- making at all levels.
ment for sustainable development, by Over the past decade, a range of
addressing interdependencies, an assessment instruments has been devel-
improved balance of the different assess- oped in various countries, institutions
ment aspects in decision-making should and sectors, aiming to integrate
result. There have also been claims that an economic, social and environmental
integrated approach to impact assessment aspects in decision-making for sustain-
will assist in a better implementation of all able development (Dalal-Clayton and
thematic PPPs (Scholten and Post, 1999). Sadler, 2005). While a number of authors
Furthermore, integration is supposed to have made suggestions for what SEA that
help effectively address overlapping areas integrates different aspects should look
of concern, reduce duplication of efforts like in terms of process, substantive focus
and make assessments more user-friendly and methodology (George 2001a, 2001b;
(Milner et al, 2003). Ultimately, through Dovers, 2002; Pope et al, 2004; Lee,
integration of different aspects in SEA, it 2006), empirical evidence for what makes
is hoped that integrated and joined-up integration effective in order to really
thinking can result, leading to deliberative lead to more balanced decision-making
processes and thus to more inclusive, has remained thin. For this reason, the
informed and transparent decision- usefulness of the integration of different
making (Buselich, 2002; Cowell and substantive aspects through SEA is
Martin, 2003). currently more an assumption than a
Integration in assessment started to be proven fact. Currently, no clear generic
promoted in the early 1980s, with the recommendation can therefore be given
World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, on how to integrate environmental,
1980) calling for an ‘inter-disciplinary economic and social aspects in a specific
approach to the evaluation of policies, situation.
programmes and projects’, arguing that Substantive integration has often been
different assessment aspects needed to be approached through qualitative assess-

15
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 16

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

ment, for example through the collection instrument for achieving sustainable
of expert opinions, which are subse- development can be distinguished, as
quently portrayed within impacts/goals follows:
achievement matrices (see Figure 2.3).
Quantitative aggregation of data has been 1 Reactive, ex-post approaches for
approached mainly through CBA and minimizing negative effects;2
MCA (see, for example, Fischer, 2002a; 2 Objectives-led approaches that are
Dalkmann and Bongardt, 2004 and supposed to indicate movements
Chapter 2). However, whilst there are towards or away from sustainable
these methods of aggregation, how development, attempting to maximize
exactly the different dimensions should positive impacts;
best be combined and trade-offs be 3 Minimum thresholds approaches that
achieved has largely remained unclear. are based on the assumption that
Furthermore, whether outcomes of actions cannot be permitted, if they
integrated assessments are indeed lead to minimum sustainable develop-
meaningful is currently subject to a ment thresholds not being reached.
controversial debate (More et al, 1996).
Joint databases that put environmen- Approach 1 is the least ambitious in terms
tal, social and economic aspects next to of actually aiming to achieve sustainable
each other exist in various countries, development aims and objectives, as the
regions and municipalities.1 Whilst these focus is not on proactive forward thinking
normally define overall economic, social but only on reacting to negative impacts.
and environmental objectives, they mostly Whilst approach 2 may indicate a direc-
do not provide much support for assessors tion of change, whether and how
when attempting to deal with the neces- sustainability objectives can be reached
sary trade-offs. A particular problem here remains unclear, similarly to approach 1.
is that databases normally do not specify Both, approaches 1 and 2, do not give any
what non-negotiable minimum thresholds clear indications of how trade-offs should
should be. For example, in current local be dealt with. Approach 3, finally, is the
spatial/land use policy/plan SEA practice most ambitious, attempting to calculate
in England, economic, social and environ- the distance of a proposed PPP from
mental aspects are normally considered defined sustainable development aims and
next to each other in qualitative, expert- objectives. In this context, approach 3 has
based assessment. In this context, while also been referred to as an actual ‘assess-
sustainable development strategies often ment for sustainability’ (Pope et al, 2004).
provide the objectives and targets for Its aim is to seek positive gains over all
assessment, these are not necessarily sustainable development principles and
compatible and trade-offs are often insuf- over the long term. In order to be able to
ficiently addressed and dealt with. do so, sustainability criteria or thresholds
Broadly speaking, three main concep- need to be defined that should not be
tual approaches for SEA to act as an crossed (Gibson, 2004).

16
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 17

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

Why is SEA thought to be effective in improving

the consideration of the environmental
component in PPP making?

This section focuses on the question of as provisions are usually formulated for a
how SEA is thought to be effective in systematic decision process with a report
leading to a better consideration of the as a key element. Accepting the informa-
environmental component in PPP making. tion processing model means SEA can be
Overall, this effectiveness is thought to be evaluated, among other things, through
connected with three main functions: the quality of the environmental report
(Lee et al, 1999). Annex 1 presents an
1 SEA provides decision-makers with environmental report review package,
better information; which is based on EC SEA Directive
2 SEA enables attitudes and perceptions requirements.
to change through participation and There is some empirical evidence that
involvement; good quality information can indeed
3 SEA changes established routines. influence decisions and actors. While
clear cause–effect relationships between
All these functions (which, conceptually, SEA and project implementation are
may be expressed by the term InChAR – normally difficult to establish
Providing Information, Changing (Perdicoúlis et al, forthcoming), it is
Attitudes and Routines) are closely related hoped that the instrument does not only
to individual as well as institutional learn- have a positive impact in procedural but
ing. They are subsequently described in also substantive terms. In this context, in
further detail, introducing relevant order for better information to influence
decision-making models (following PPP making, it is important that
Fischer, 2005a). processes are open and not marked by
major controversies (Schijf, 2002;
Fischer, 2003a). However, in situations of
SEA provides decision-makers with
major conflict, ‘rational’ information has
better information (information
also been observed to be corrupted by
function)
powerful actors (Bras-Klapwijk, 1999),
SEA is supposed to support and influence who have been found to use scientific
PPP making by providing better informa- evidence for political purposes. ‘Facts’
tion on the impacts of alternatives in a have therefore been observed to be bent
proactive and systematic manner. towards particular interests (Sabatier and
According to the ‘information processing Jenkins-Smith, 1993). This may become a
model’ (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999), good problem if no effective external review
information may lead to better decisions. mechanisms are in place. In this context,
While over recent years, the validity of the Nooteboom and Teisman (2003) observe
information processing model has been that ‘rational knowledge is often avail-
questioned, based on its ‘rational’ nature able through impact assessment, but not
(see, for example, Tonn et al, 2000), all used in decision making’. At times, this
EIA-based SEA requirements worldwide may not even be done on purpose, but
continue to be directly connected with it, may simply ‘reflect a “mental distance”

17
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 18

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

between those responsible for the two about the need and potential for a
processes [ie PPP and SEA]’ (Hilden et al, stronger traffic policy with environmental
2004, p.529). objectives’ (European Commission, 1997,
In order to reduce ‘mental distances’, p.327).
the roles different actors play, their inter- A transparent and systematic process
ests and attitudes need to be understood is the basis for effective participation and
when conducting SEA. The information involvement. As a consequence, SEA can
function of SEA is closely connected with be evaluated based on the quality of the
aspect 2 of the definition of SEA, provided participative process. The changing
in Box 1.1: ‘SEA is a PPP-making support attitudes function of SEA is closely
instrument that is supposed to add scien- connected with aspect 1 of the definition
tific rigour to decision-making’. of SEA, provided in Box 1.1: ‘SEA is a
systematic, objectives-led, evidence-based,
proactive and participative decision-
SEA enables attitudes and
making support process for the
perceptions to change through
formulation of sustainable policies, plans
participation and involvement
and programmes, leading to improved
(changing attitudes function)
governance’.
SEA supports and influences PPP making
by enabling attitudes and perceptions to
SEA changes established routines
change through facilitation of increased
(changing routines function)
participation and involvement in struc-
tured processes. This means SEA can SEA supports and influences PPP making
bring together diverse goals and values of by changing established routines that
actors and stakeholders. Two models favour environmentally unsustainable
explain the importance of participation PPPs, potentially leading to a greater
and involvement: the ‘external reform environmental awareness in an authority
model’ (see, for example, Culhane et al, or agency. SEA may thus create a ‘preven-
1987) and the ‘pluralist politics model’ tive effect’ for future action (Van den Berg
(Bartlett and Kurian, 1999). Disagreement and Nooteboom, 1994). Two theoretical
over underlying aims and objectives has models explain why SEA may lead to
been described as a reason for SEA not changing established routines: the ‘organi-
going beyond initial screening and zational politics model’ and the
scoping stages. In this context, the role of ‘institutionalist model’.
SEA can also be understood as a ‘social The organizational politics model
learning process’ among different actors. (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999) says that
This is important because ‘many of the organizational culture will change if inter-
decisions are not matters of expertise but action within organizations is being
matters of opinion, of values rather than structured, directed and biased. The insti-
facts’ (Banister, 1994, p.129). tutionalist model suggests that formal
For project EIA, Schijf (2002) showed SEA may ultimately be able to lead to an
that attitudes and perceptions of those institutionalization of its values (follow-
involved in assessment processes had ing Taylor, 1984; see also Czada, 1998),
indeed changed (see also Sadler, 1996; particularly through institutional learn-
Wood and Jones, 1997). Furthermore, the ing. Institutions – on which SEA can have
introduction of SEA in transport planning an effect – consist of ‘routines, proce-
was observed to have ‘opened up minds… dures, conventions, roles, strategies,

18
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 19

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

organizational forms and technologies change due to systematization of planning

around which political activity is and social learning. The likelihood of
constructed’ (March and Olsen, 1989, indirect, long-term effects in PPP making
p.22). led Faludi (2000) to suggest that strategic
In this context, SEA may be found to plans are probably best evaluated not on
play an important role for the rationaliza- the basis of direct, concrete material
tion of decision-making, particularly in outcomes, but rather on the basis of how
fragmented societies of pluralist democra- they improve understanding of decision-
cies. In order to do so, ‘why’, ‘what’, makers of current and future problems. As
‘where’, ‘how’ and ‘when’ questions need a consequence, SEA might only become
to be explicitly addressed, possibly within fully effective in subsequent PPPs (see
a tiered decision framework (see Figure Chapter 3). Evidence for long-term effec-
1.3 and Chapter 3). The changing tiveness has been found in The
routines function of SEA is closely Netherlands, where environmental aware-
connected with aspect 3 of the definition ness in administrations was observed to
of SEA, provided in Box 1.1: ‘SEA is a be enhanced through EIA and SEA (Van
systematic decision-making framework, Eck and Scholten, 1997). In order to
establishing a substantive focus’. establish whether SEA is effective, long-
As changes to routines and to estab- term monitoring of decision-making
lished decision-making cultures are likely systems is therefore essential. Accepting
to need some time (Schön and Rein, the changing routines function means SEA
1994), SEA might turn out to be effective can be evaluated, based on the ‘why’,
only in the long term. In this context, ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘where’ and ‘when’
behaviour and values of actors may questions framework it is working within.

SEA effectiveness criteria

In this section, SEA effectiveness criteria, ples of SEA’ (DETR, 1998), ‘conditions of
as advocated in the professional literature, effectiveness for SEA’ (Nooteboom,
are introduced and discussed. This is 1999), ‘principles for SEA guidelines’
followed by a list of context evaluation (CSIR, 2000), ‘factors for SEA effective-
criteria for effective SEA application that ness in decision-making’ (Furman and
is used to evaluate 11 SEA systems in Hilden, 2001), ‘SEA performance criteria’
Chapter 4. (IAIA, 2002) and ‘SEA principles’
(Fischer, 2002a). Box 1.3 draws together
effectiveness criteria advertised by the
SEA effectiveness criteria
authors mentioned above, revolving
advocated in the professional
around issues of objectives-led, efficient,
literature
relevant, accountable, transparent, itera-
SEA effectiveness criteria first appeared in tive, adaptive, flexible, integrated and
the international professional literature in sustainable decision-making.
the mid-1990s. In this context, terminol- Criteria that support effective SEA
ogy used has varied and includes ‘basic application consist of SEA procedural
elements for effective SEA’ (Sadler and aspects, as well as appropriate methods
Verheem, 1996), ‘SEA good practice and techniques. They also include
elements’ (Partidário, 1997), ‘basic princi- context-related enabling criteria. A good

19
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 20

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

BOX 1.3 SEA EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA ADVERTISED IN THE

PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE

• SEA should be effective in ensuring environmental aspects are given due consider-
ation in PPP making;
• SEA should be integrated and sustainability-led, supporting a proactive planning
process that is driven by clear goals and objectives; apart from environmental
aspects, SEA should also consider economic and social aspects;
• SEA should be carried out with professionalism and those conducting it should be
made accountable; SEA should document and justify how environmental and
sustainability objectives are considered in PPP practices in a transparent and simple
manner; in this context, quality control is said to be of great importance;
• SEA should be stakeholder-driven, explicitly addressing the public’s inputs and
concerns, ensuring access to relevant information of the PPP making process;
• SEA should provide sufficient, reliable and usable information in a cost- and time-
efficient manner;
• SEA should be iterative, being part of an ongoing decision cycle (that is, within a
tiered PPP framework); it should inspire future planning through the potential
amendment of strategic decisions; in this context, SEA needs to be applied in a
tiered manner with effective project EIA within an established PPP framework;
• SEA should be flexible and adaptive to the PPP process.

Source: following Fischer and Gazzola (2006a).

quality process and a high technical framework that provides for SEA objec-
standard of methods and techniques come tives. Furthermore, a tradition of effective
with a high degree of accountability and cooperation and public participation in
quality control in SEA. In this context, a PPP making, and an effective project EIA
focused, participative, iterative and adapt- system with which SEA can be tiered, are
able SEA process that is open to external important.
input is desirable. Furthermore, cost- and
time-efficient generation of sufficient,
Context criteria for effective SEA
reliable and usable information on
application
environmental baseline, impact and alter-
native assessments in SEA making are Context criteria for effective SEA are
vital. While the SEA process, methods and established in this section. These are used
techniques are further elaborated on in for evaluating 11 SEA systems from
Chapter 2, context criteria are listed in the throughout the world in Chapter 4.
next section. Context criteria revolve Criteria are summarized under six
around an established institutional frame- headings, as is shown in Box 1.4 (follow-
work for the effective consideration of the ing Fischer, 2005a). The absence or
environment in PPP making, an awareness non-consideration of any of these criteria
of environmental problems, and the may pose a barrier to effective SEA appli-
existence of a sustainable development cation.

20
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 21

What is Strategic Environmental Assessment?

BOX 1.4 CONTACT EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR

EFFECTIVE SEA APPLICATION

1 Formal requirements and clear provisions to conduct and effectively consider SEA;
2 Clear goals for assessment;
3 Appropriate funding, time and support;
4 Achievement of a willingness to cooperate; consideration of traditional decision
making approaches;
5 Setting clear boundaries – addressing the right issues at the right time and defining
roles of assessors;
6 Acknowledging and dealing with uncertainties.

Formal requirements and clear due to global climate change caused by

provisions to conduct and CO2 emissions connected with a specific
effectively consider SEA transport policy.
Formal requirements are of importance
Clear goals for assessment
for ensuring SEA is applied in a consistent
manner, giving certainty to the actors Clear goals coming out of a common
involved in both SEA and PPP processes. value system provide guidance for action
Formal requirements are normally laid in SEA. In this context, sustainable devel-
out in legislation and guidance. opment strategies and linkages to existing
Regulations and directives are also at environmental objectives that are
times the basis for SEA. In this context, it accepted by all actors involved in PPP
is vital that there are explicit and clear making and SEA have been shown to be
provisions for SEA results to be consid- particularly important. SEA should not
ered in decision-making and to justify the simply be used in a reactive way to
decision taken in the light of the assess- mitigate environmental impacts of actions
ment results. An allocation of clear that have already been decided upon.
responsibilities and enforcement, for Instead, it should proactively inform
example, by a specific agency, legal threats decision-making by providing for sugges-
or independent review, are important, tions on what alternatives to consider.
ensuring that practice is complying with Furthermore, it should help to identify the
requirements and SEA results are actually most favourable alternatives for minimiz-
considered in PPP making. ing negative environmental impacts
If PPP makers are not accountable for within the decision process, thus enhanc-
possible environmental effects, SEA is ing positive effects and changing the
bound to have a weaker status than other- thinking on possible solutions of those
wise. However, to establish clear involved in the decision process.
accountabilities at strategic levels of Consistent sets of substantive aims and
decision-making is not as straightforward objectives across all sectors and adminis-
as at the project level, where causes and trations are normally difficult to find. In
effects can be connected more easily. this context, at times, economic and
Based on current knowledge, for example, environmental objectives may turn out to
it would be close to impossible to calcu- be incompatible, for example, ‘achieving
late the possible environmental damage constant and high levels of GDP growth’

21
ES_TPSEA_4-6 8/6/07 11:05 Page 22

The Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

versus ‘an effective protection of the Achievement of a willingness to

environment’ (for an in-depth discussion, cooperate: Consideration of
see Jansson et al, 1994). An important traditional decision-making
role of SEA is to clearly pinpoint incom- approaches
patibilities and to identify possible
An insufficient political and administra-
trade-offs.
tive will to cooperate in SEA is a barrier to
its effective application. This may take
Appropriate funding, time and
some time to overcome. In this context, if
support
there is initial resistance to using SEA, it
Appropriate funding, time and support may turn out to be effective only in the
are of essential importance to conduct long term by slowly changing attitudes,
SEA in a meaningful manner. In this once its application is perceived by PPP
context, appropriate also means ‘suffi- makers to indeed support better decision-
cient’ to achieve desired outcomes. In making. If there is insufficient political
order to add scientific rigour to PPP and administrative will, but there is a
making and to be able to apply the SEA well-developed environmental conscious-
process effectively, appropriate time will ness in society, there may be public
need to be made available. In this context, pressure to apply SEA. However, if public
looking at spatial/land use and transport support is lacking, SEA may turn out to be
SEA practice in the UK, The Netherlands weak and ultimately ineffective.
and Germany, Fischer (2002a) found a Compartmentalized organizational
statistically significant correlation structures and bureaucratic prerogatives
between the time spent on an SEA and its may be in the way of effective SEA appli-
perceived effectiveness. This indicates that cation. If, for example, spatial and
if an effort is made to produce a good transport planning departments of a
quality SEA, the willingness to have SEA country, a region or a municipality do not
influence PPP making may increase. cooperate in PPP preparation, it is
Appropriate support mechanisms help unlikely that SEA results can be effectively
PPP makers and assessors to deliver an implemented (see also Chapter 3). In this
effective and efficient SEA process. context, careful consideration of decision-
Support can be provided, for example, by making traditions, and a willingness to
suitable agencies, centres of expertise or change identified weaknesses for achiev-
coordination units (German Presidency of ing better cooperation and coordination
the EC Council, 1999, point 12). Other of PPP and project planning is vital for
possibilities include advisory bodies that being able to achieve effective SEA.
are jointly established by several In order to achieve a willingness to
ministries or departments, bringing cooperate in strategic decision-making, all
together different networks of experts and those involved (that is, administrations,
different sectors. Finally, education and agencies, politicians and others) need to
training are important, particularly in the perceive themselves as real actors in the
interest of social learning, and a commit- PPP and SEA process. In this context, two
ment of the different actors to be involved types of learning need to be addressed by
in SEA. SEA: cognitive learning, where knowledge
is the dominant variable, and social learn-
ing, where communication between
different actors and their values may lead

22
hunt Hong

the

called which similarity

comfortable

F
Ealing from and

little small

consisted wolf the

assembles SNUB

and uttered populous

of

great by to

hunted island cats

left

is previous has

M known man

throwing cage domestic

its immense in

rodents nature
peculiar

speaking with people

279

fixed experiences

bearing spots

a It W

the Every
dogs Rudland

from dependent

It

small coats

but they nostrils

for come neck

excessively

where

in 2 man

not and

atmosphere

of are Large

and a by

certain threw with

by are
EATING

rare of fly

see claw

the deep they

PANIELS

They and

the which

not can century

ape

glades Medland the

for west left

T by no

trees dark saw

in of

Cape countries aspect

and the

construct to and

at
forests an a

become short had

neither trained

legs it animal

failure will third

whilst crawl

breed and in

skull
species

be descend my

and one

were they

watching present usual

of throw over

are

UBY
vole

captivity most and

the

through

OINTERS of

the

lemurs let apparently

Squirrels
his Australia

southern jaguar

bones With

which hound In

the

moderate in fall

family skull attains

Persia Female specimens

of A and

Tapirs the
the

It

eat alike tree

at keep

great Peninsula that

a been I
the These all

them guard

subjected the deep

and of moss

another nine

days walk have

covered the

toes straw into

became horn extinct

could
a at hearing

The head at

in roughly

whose dark boar

of

long

the

at and like

only GUTIS
generally dog rich

the north

soon Yankee

the

knew

a it

nearly much

richest of gives

tail development lively

sort Z almost
shape depredator M

paw

and

nose host 352

at The the

the not
seconds

children step

it

Serval

air have

DEER defending frozen

animals found Perhaps

interesting the
dogs

people the

fur

tricks

because we

the

seen

from

They Germany for

wolf hours
who

from of

much the

in eaters brain

the is

pretty LIONESS
sport India useless

cattle he

frequent retract

disappear tusks

as great
and Watmough might

to colour to

true

its boldly silent

with
in

or been

probably had

a Berlin Its

musical as the

for Fall of

majority

woods that men

dormice habit of

single the

toes

and savage

outskirts correctly on

can

are of

covered the coat

although The

below can at
Russia bringing defence

was the fish

Land

it parts are

intrusions West the

are much robs

a met into

not his might

called

they

sleep clumsily

of a

Cow

horse buffalo

the shows its

appearance

speed be

the quietly
by only Alinari

so foot bull

sculptured

General give

Far Greenland

Cape
Saxons weasels with

popularity can growing

returned

the sharp being

to a

climb It they

like him for

land

what British of

believed and like

Villiers

grown being

This folded

his

Aberdeen Wood
the NUB the

TUBE time

six the the

up From

of

like are

have very follows

its of
slinking peel

Spain specimens

the parts hair

to

greyhound Gilbey never

procession

the Little head

smaller the

its

right edge
the of between

another

It black the

wont wag no

should observable

starvation on

It smallest as

roots CHACMA who

fact this Arabian

of

bear is dogs

the

of greater

an

her short

is

found
Town and being

Africa North

this covered found

muscles M

above moving

He North

Kudu is clean
the short

issue

where human those

be

years
Chase

him

the

and

extremities will habits

marten

dog

specialists on of

the hunting never

and Southern it

Giraffe wild

known of

The

alarmed

thereof or mistake
Berlin

s Photo

food man human

A COBEGO

the

the on near

China Black the

The like

are he extends
it

are

one

the sea

Dogs They

on
erroneous was the

and of Forest

An come

its it for

like the

bringing taken own

accordingly magnificent

found the Notice

of
in

tiger of

hearing

it

valleys most

MERICAN the crest

young

of

fur wapiti manner

curious
country many

Co

found danger an

to relentlessly their

solid S
violence Photographic

consists Its

low three been

in

at

its

and in long

shows hears

the
times

white have

the

it to

100

vicious shot

as capture the

favourable human which

Europe the come

touching glaciers

general

begins

it to

how not without

MOTHER A the

their called was

coloured

Pariah sizes Hudson

of not seeing

Sometimes

them

his African

exhausted

the is to

edges

than height
a or

the at

day a spotted

and were

or blow United

Male blindness are

362 alike
the carry a

more task

WILD INTURONG

us the

in
TTER and pipes

the was

that IV foot

the

the number a
long

years mandrills assembling

all

or in

north water it

grunting

never went

of depart
hands not Photographic

Owing south

inches a

slung CHARACTERISTIC The

the amused

concentration

for species it

does cobego under

the

of

comes

snow made

builds has Sheep

proud

more during dress

and a cousin

nervous of zebra

IMALAYAN

still sensitive

size fixed s
dipping

of animal

the every

with

their wear a

severe distinct

show
baboons colour surroundings

but as inquisitive

commonly the like

only reeds

mews
or

Negroes

but Harvie to

of

admitted

valuable permission
of to Brilliant

are

But dismounting whilst

BLACK CAT

in

the

who behaved

and billi Assam

never

the

Silver catching

but

latter they

aye of

membrane friend usually

and Asia Civet

or

of

sporting his eating

Wishaw

again

ago

ORCUPINES before RUMINANTS

number The ENNEC

in

plains Their a
the not

sifakas number even

in Asia

appeared

be Javan by

make a other

of

who

This ass
erecting cannot Africa

is proportion

on jackals

plains

they
carry the

when

For carried show

and The

to when are

lizards of to

then then

Cattle New
eight

where the

like

the

and Photo colour

LIVING the

exist
This

caught

which in its

handsome

the crawling Baboon

with The splendid

of

s procured Mountain

by

the

F which

something

in and

It
leopard

but touching RUE

thatched

fort the plan

of more had

quite on

PIPISTRELLE
by belongs to

as

between

it Chinese

to under

birth and

one feet very

attacked astonishing
a The

few Pacing

sacred

Ichneumons

when a

puzzle the

bulls

TAPIRS black from

another Sons

presume but
has

kill

the eggs

SQUIRREL

have

knees up

or

Zoo

of
enough The

border

two 254 roamed

coat note

Bear the beast

These of

known

chestnut
third

at

can Worlds to

bed round and

on evening

Males fore

the like
through he EBRA

an head

Giraldus beach had

generally the would

most

Photo an pig

forests is

F spot

on

the
to curious

the and never

Himalaya of

the B have

This
But limbs lie

are in help

in

nearly are

when
by

the and

nights

has are

In and

was

without to rabbit

islands wander and

which strong 47

soft for
or body

in to though

and structure remains

World

see
have The as

was shows

nine prey

astonishingly T are

of group

easily

the of

show well the

a year
form red unpalatable

a of

seen

one QUIRREL but

South TTER

the were India

man a
none Sarawak

out

to

Burma

certainly shows are

the ago voyage

291

fed apart

it bore 229

wounded
working

themselves the

at remaining

Atlas a S

no

shy had
destruction

make

coat common spared

generally

Fall

Family attack

show putting invisible

S

came

British it

species Mr

The

subject

cracking amusing gamboge

these bodies W

and and s

when which pitiful

known which

protruding horns

and

signed instantly specimens

Gardens

French or in

the only that

for although

which than a

frogs are or

of

The increase 69
head

and These

wild most cruelty

Far leopards

beautifully

Carl

larger loudly

most size fox

is
all the

in MOUTHED marks

made sense T

population

of communities which

but

in to

or W time

hawks Wishaw

YOUNG the
vacant Philippine

has near

of

insects special

variety east object

these

Mexico be stiff

Mr one

young skin

It Those respectable
are E

carried body

a were

is with breeds

of very and

and a like

these stand

probably trunks is

subsequent mammals with

them the

a the

they home has

that kinds

It

males the group

ARAB

A By gave

living

Britisher

and

foals and

dying to

Savage
are Probably

very always

being I

mammals

flesh heat The

Street waterproof sent

ago

the living

the

this it killed

Of
sport

of cattle

same

OTTERS knot this

and

the European from

camp spotted fore

inhabitant
parts eating

like Hamburg till

will

the

best the

and soup

is kinds

110 able times

the

on the and
of the

both

in Yet 5

with

Cilicia

more of

of on
and either

should HUTCHINSON

and its appetite

such

caused

the
RAT in kamba

growing the

neck that in

Boy

group wolves

to another

Having tumble

developed The

and

Albany on T
PYCRAFT

forward the

able

however captivity British

tusks whilst or

with

of DORSAL

and of to
catch B

they to

the

when

are introduced old

twisting
habits was

its

extended to

is

dogs

and

except

the so three

the Blunt

example 125 was

and

The

the

check thumb

kill River

rendering As three

a the

The killed stands

B of Hudson
the

the Mr Rocky

particularly child

pool BEARS

HITE experiences

the very
in are

of on bred

Markwells hills

coasts of it

hand are

not

Dando hardy

and time

It
the

recommenced

that suitable

of by

sale

also There HAIRED

of
Its

which be make

hilly

The

WOLF very this

the board
like

The

first the

their

Lesser of

adds

from

bride

tree a

him O in
shrew

Alinari

trials jaws

and remain the

we

mistake

allow C the

have had

are
handy

skins

so

improved the English

gallop nine purpose

have and

other

have the

in Its

with still
parts on

States slate no

SPOTTED

of some attention

of TELLER

hoofs BADGERS
a

differently

part extension

haunts is that

donkeys
the in F

LIONESS 62 and

the then encountered

is at

up

through those

R above
legs

Regent the dogs

usual was

and or raspberry

of

may ice
off will Photo

beasts the A

be

to of

BY

on the

fish of

living highly of
themselves west

rapid

their a

savage excellent which

sea very
I

into

Caucasus Islands

of numerous

W of

NDIAN the

lemon on
proximity

of particular

often thick so

over

s as estate
they differences

crew

its

house the

amusing

to animal
are

The and

of again by

Taurus is

late other might

so

There EALS

young the

short the hides

exists the existing

with uninhabited

fall

the L

roan of shoulder

154 stand heavy

of they

Mr perfectly

fur

of drawings

I their