Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainablity Impact Assessment (SIA)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SEA and SIA – Common features, differences and lessons learned, OECD-Workshop in Amsterdam, 14-15 Jan. 2008 ______ 1
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and
Sustainablity Impact Assessment (SIA)
Common features, differences and lessons learned
This paper firstly defines the terms SEA (strategic environmental assessment) and SIA (sustainability
impact assessment) and highlights the common features of and the differences between these two
instruments. Secondly, it touches upon the shift from SEA and SIA, currently happening in many
countries. Thirdly, it sums up some lessons learned from SEA practice in Austria and draws
conclusions for the Austrian approach to SIA. The first part of the paper is based on the chapter
"Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Impact Assessment – Two Participatory
Assessment Tools for Sustainablity" in the book "Sustainable Development in Europe – Concepts,
Evaluation and Applications".
1 What is SEA? What is SIA? Common features and
differences
There are many definitions of SEA to be found in reference material. This article will follow the
definition given by Sheate, W. et al. (2001):
"SEA is a systematic, decision aiding procedure for evaluating the likely significant
environmental effects of options throughout the policy, plan or programme development
process, beginning at the earliest opportunity, including a written report and the involvement of
the public throughout the process."
According to DETR (2000), Verheem, R. (2002) and George, C. (2002)
SIA can be defined as a systematic and iterative process for the ex-ante assessment of the
likely economic, social and environmental impacts of policies, plans, programmes and
strategic projects, which is undertaken during the preparation of the above and where the
stakeholders concerned participate pro-actively. The main aim is to improve the performance
of the strategies by enhancing positive effects, mitigating negative ones and avoiding the
transfer of negative impacts to future generations.
SEA and SIA have some common features: Both are
• decision aiding instruments, helping the decision makers to take more sustainable decisions
• participatory processes, involving the public concerned or interested during the preparation of the
plans, programmes or policies
• integrated into the development process of the strategies, in order to optimise the solution
interactively during its preparation
• processes consisting of several steps and not only scientific studies or written reports.
However, there are also differences between SEA and SIA. These differences for instance relate to
their focus, their legal status, their level of application and also areas that could attract criticism. Table
1 gives an overview of these differences.
Kerstin Arbter / Büro Arbter – Consulting and Research
Vorgartens traße 145-157/2/16, 1020 Vi enna, Tel ./Fax: + 43-1-218 53 55, offi c e@arbter.at, www.arbter.atSEA and SIA – Common features, differences and lessons learned, OECD-Workshop in Amsterdam, 14-15 Jan. 2008 ______ 2
SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment SIA – Sustainability Impact Assessment
Focus
Seeks to raise the profile of environmental considerations in Aims to support the decision-making process in relation to all
decision-making concerning policies, plans and programmes. three aspects of sustainable development (environmental,
social and economic issues), the interests at stake have equal
weighting.
Legal or formal basis at international level
EU-level: SEA Directive: Directive 2001/42/EC on the EU-level: not legally required but applied by the European
assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on Commission in accordance with the Communication from the
the environment Commission on impact assessment COM(2002)276.
UN-level: SEA Protocol (2003): Protocol on strategic
environmental assessment to the convention on environmental
impact assessment in a transboundary context – not in force
as of 2007.
Level of application
For plans and programmes with likely significant impacts on No restrictions in the level of application.
the environment (requirement of the SEA Directive). Mostly used for policies, plans and programmes and for large
Also for policies and legislation with environmental impacts. scale projects of a strategic nature.
Not used for single projects.
Areas that could attract criticism
May be regarded as incomplete if social and economic effects “Weaker” environmental arguments might be traded-off against
are not addressed at all. “stronger” socio-economic issues, which may dominate the
More difficult to develop equally weighted planning solutions if appraisal.
only environmental aspects are taken into consideration.
Table 1: Differences between SEA and SIA (Arbter, Kerstin 2007)
However, in practice SEA and SIA are not always as distinct as the above definitions suggest. Firstly,
some countries use a holistic definition of the environment, including the bio-physical, the social and
the economic environment. Secondly, even the EU-SEA-Directive mentions social aspects like
population, human health and cultural heritage and economic aspects like material assets in its
definition of environmental effects in Annex I (f).
2 Shift from SEA to SIA
During the last years, a shift from SEA to SIA seemed to happen.
Already in 2002 at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment
(IAIA) in The Hague it was stated that "sustainability assessment is widely regarded as the next
generation of SEA" (see Fuller, Karl, 2002). In Austria, some SEAs also address social and economic
effects of plans and programmes explicitly, while they are still called SEAs. And more and more SIA-
approaches appear internationally, both at the national and at the regional level, as well as in
international organisations (see Arbter, Kerstin, 2005).
Some of the reasons for this shift from SEA to SIA might be:
• Sometimes SEAs are not taken for serious, if they only address environmental effects and neglect
social and economic effects of plans, programmes or policies. Then they might be regarded as
biased or incomplete.
• Normally plans, programmes and policies not only affect environmental interests. If they also have
social and economic effects and social and economic interest groups get involved in the SEA,
these representatives usually ask for the assessment of social and economic effects as well. The
assessment has to be opened up to all the three dimensions of sustainable development.
• Especially in assessments at strategic planning levels the interdependency of environmental, social
and economic effects needs to be addressed, if a robust recommendation for the one or the other
planning solution is expected. If you only take environmental effects into account the holistic view
to all the relevant consequences of the plan, programme or policy is missing.
Kerstin Arbter / Büro Arbter – Consulting and Research
Vorgartens traße 145-157/2/16, 1020 Vi enna, Tel ./Fax: + 43-1-218 53 55, offi c e@arbter.at, www.arbter.atSEA and SIA – Common features, differences and lessons learned, OECD-Workshop in Amsterdam, 14-15 Jan. 2008 ______ 3 3 Lessons learned from practice in Austria From our Austrian SEA practice we have learned that for effective assessments it is not enough to get the assessment of the effects “right”, meaning to choose the "right" assessment criteria and to estimate the effects accurately. We have also experienced that the design of the assessment process, e.g. the integration of the assessment into the planning process or public participation in the process, is at least as important as the assessment method. And we have learned that the participation of the interest groups affected throughout the entire process can be crucial for successful SEAs. That means continuous involvement of environmental NGOs or the chambers, which are affected by the plan, programme or policy. Concerning public participation we have experienced that information and consultation of the public on the draft plan, programme or policy is often too late and too narrow for inspiring dialogues and for taking new ideas and genuine knowledge on board. Therefore we developed a highly participative SEA approach, which we call the SEA Round Table. That means that the affected interest groups take part actively in the entire SEA process, from defining the objectives to the final planning draft. They cooperate in all planning and SEA steps and can influence the development of the plan and the assessment continuously. The aim of the SEA Round Table is to develop a consensual planning solution. The Round Table approach can add value to SEA, as well as to SIA: • Public participation per se can not guarantee more sustainable plans, programmes or policies. However, the Round Table approach supports the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic interests in face-to-face negotiations during the planning process, if environmental, social and economic interest groups are represented equally weighted at the Round Table. It also increases the mutual understanding of different view points. Both can lead to more sustainable and more consensual planning solutions. • At strategic planning levels we usually face uncertainty in impact prediction and we touch questions of values during the planning and assessment process, which can not be solved solely by expert knowledge. The Round Table approach helps to discuss and check assumptions and assessments from the different angles of the interest groups involved. This can lead to more robust and justified results. • The Round Table approach can also increase the acceptance and credibility of the results. The results should be broadly backed by the interest groups involved, more transparent and easier to understand and based on a broader knowledge base. This can make SEA and SIA more effective. Austria's SIA-approach By now, we do not have any formally required SIA or any other assessment instrument at the level of policies and legislation. Therefore we currently develop a SIA-approach in Austria based on the lessons we have learned from SEA (commissioned by the Austrian Environment Ministry). Knowing that assessments per se often have a bitter taste, we designed a pro-active development process for policies and legislation. Environmental, social and economic aspects are integrated into the policy or legislation during all of the 12 process steps. The 12 steps are linked to the policy cycle. Most of them support preparing the policy or legislation. Two steps accompany political decision making (taking results into account; explaining the decision). The last process step (monitoring) takes place when the policy or legislation is implemented. The interest groups affected cooperate actively throughout the entire process of developing the policy or legislation. We also provide checklists as methodological tools, which support the work during the 12 process steps. Kerstin Arbter / Büro Arbter – Consulting and Research Vorgartens traße 145-157/2/16, 1020 Vi enna, Tel ./Fax: + 43-1-218 53 55, offi c e@arbter.at, www.arbter.at
SEA and SIA – Common features, differences and lessons learned, OECD-Workshop in Amsterdam, 14-15 Jan. 2008 ______ 4
Preparation of the
1
process
12 2
Definion of
Monitoring 3
issues
11 Analyses of
status-quo and
Information on
trend
decision incl.
reasons
4
Definition of
Information & objectives
Decision-
10 Involvement &
making
Feedback
Definition of
alternatives
Documentation & 5
presentation of
results
9 Check of
Monitoring alternatives
concept
Recommendation
of alternatives 6
8
7
Figure 1: Draft of the development process for sustainable policies and legislation
Kerstin Arbter / Büro Arbter – Consulting and Research
Vorgartens traße 145-157/2/16, 1020 Vi enna, Tel ./Fax: + 43-1-218 53 55, offi c e@arbter.at, www.arbter.atSEA and SIA – Common features, differences and lessons learned, OECD-Workshop in Amsterdam, 14-15 Jan. 2008 ______ 5
4 List of references
Communication from the Commission on impact assessment COM(2002)276;
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm
Directive 2001/42/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment;
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm
Protocol on strategic environmental assessment to the convention on environmental impact assessment in a
transboundary context;
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.htm
Arbter, Kerstin (2005): Sustainable policies and legislation – international survey and development of a procedure
for Austria, commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, Vienna (only in German; executive summary in English);
http://www.arbter.at/sup/ref_publikation.html; Nr. 30
Arbter, Kerstin (2007): Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Impact Assessment – Two
Participatory Assessment Tools for Sustainablity, in: Schubert, Uwe and Störmer, Eckhard (editors):
Sustainable Development in Europe – Concepts, Evaluation and Applications, p. 83-95, Edward Elgar
Publishing, Cheltenham
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000): Good Practice Guide on Sustainability
Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance;
http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/gpgsarpg/index.htm; accessed 2 March 2003
Fuller, Karl (2002): Summarising Paper of the Workshop Nr. 9 – Sustainability Impact Assessment at the
International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Conference 15-22 June 2002, The Hague
George, Clive (2002): Applications of Sustainability Evaluation at the National and International Strategic Policy
Level, paper submitted at the EASY-ECO EvAluation of SustainabilitY EuroCOnfernce 23-25 May, Vienna
Sheate, William R. et al. (2001): SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making, Volume
1 (Main Report), London
Smith, Seven P. and William R. Sheate (2001): Sustainability appraisal of English regional plans: incorporating
the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, in: Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 19(4), 263-276
Verheem, Rob (2002): Recommendations for Sustainability Appraisal in the Netherlands, paper submitted at the
International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Conference 15-22 June 2002, The Hague
Kerstin Arbter / Büro Arbter – Consulting and Research
Vorgartens traße 145-157/2/16, 1020 Vi enna, Tel ./Fax: + 43-1-218 53 55, offi c e@arbter.at, www.arbter.atYou can also read
