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

Abstract

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

A Strategic Advocacy Role in Sea for Sustainability

“…The strategic consequence of this political choice is the shrinkage of an instrument that has a much bigger potential (Partidário, 2000(Partidário, , 2009Bidstrup and AM Hansen, 2014;Lobos and Partidário, 2014), with consequences not only within the EU but all over where the Directive has been cloned. Recent reviews note limitations concerning lack of effectiveness of SEA in enabling learning and consideration of indirect impacts (Fischer et al, 2009;Acharibasam and Noble, 2014) and show practitioners reluctance in using an instrument not adequate for higher levels of decision-making (João and McLauchlan, 2014). But the review conducted by Lobos and Partidário (2014) went further to explore why is this happening.…”

“…From its early days SEA has been popularised as the environmental assessment process for policies, plans and programs (EA of PPP) to upstream environmental issues into higher levels of decision-making (Lee and Walsh, 1992;Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012), and so continues to be (João and McLauchlan, 2014). It emerged as a normative approach driven by "the limitations of project's EIA to respond to the new assessment requirements arising from policy commitments to sustainable development" (Lee and Walsh, 1992: 126).…”

New Process, Same Doubts: Participants’ Perceptions of Strategic Environmental Assessment in Western Newfoundland

“…Currently practiced in over 60 countries (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a next generation Environmental Assessment (EA) process that aims to include environmental considerations in the early stages of policy, program, and plan (PPP) development (João and McLauchlan, 2014;Noble, 2000Noble, , 2015. As with other forms of EA, effective SEA depends on meaningful public participation (Milne and Bennett, 2016;Sinclair and Diduck, 2016;Rega and Baldizzone, 2015).…”

Caracterização do uso da avaliação ambiental estratégica por agências multilaterais de desenvolvimento

“…Estes são talvez os termos mais usados para se referir às formas de AAE conforme Partidário (1996) A aplicação da AAE aos diversos níveis de decisão estratégica está associada a potenciais benefícios, como reportado na literatura. Com efeito, a AAE estimula a abordagem proativa e a consideração de uma ampla variedade de alternativas (ALSHUWAIKHAT, 2005;LEE;WALSH, 1992;PARTIDÁRIO, 1996); melhor e ampla consideração de efeitos cumulativos e indiretos (LEE; WALSH, 1992); redução da carga de trabalho da AIA de projeto (ALSHUWAIKHAT, 2005;FISCHER, 2003;LEE;WALSH, 1992;PARTIDÁRIO, 1996); subsídio do reforço das capacidades das instituições (LOBOS; PARTIDÁRIO, 2014); consideração de fatores ambientais na concepção de planejamento e desenvolvimento de propostas (ALSHUWAIKHAT, 2005;BINA, 2007;DALAL-CLAYTON;SADLER 2005;FISCHER, 2003;HERRERA, 2007;MCLAUCHLAN, 2014;LEE;WALSH, 1992;PARTIDÁRIO, 1996PARTIDÁRIO, , 2000; auxílio no processo de planejamento na decisão de rumos estratégicos a seguir, refletindo sobre as oportunidades e os riscos ou potenciais consequências positivas e negativas, das possíveis direções, ou estratégias, que podem levar ao futuro desejado (PARTIDÁRIO, 2007) Tendo em vista a presença do setor energético como um dos principais beneficiados pelos recursos, e sendo este setor o que apresenta o segundo maior número de AAEs (ver resultados do levantamento das AAEs solicitadas pelas AMDs) elaboradas ao longo do período estabelecido, optou-se por direcionar as análises de casos para este setor.…”

“…Dentre os benefícios dessa ferramenta, Partidário (2007) destaca a possibilidade em auxiliar o processo de planejamento na decisão de rumos estratégicos a se seguir, refletindo sobre as oportunidades e os riscos ou potenciais consequências -positivas e negativas -das 1 De acordo com Morgan (2012) Fischer (2003), Noble (2009), Partidário (1996Partidário ( , 2000Partidário ( , 2007 e Wood e Dejeddour, (1992); de proporcionar a consideração de efeitos cumulativos, sinergéticos e secundários na tomada de decisão (LEE;WALSH, 1992;WOOD;DEJEDDOUR, 1992); e de se adaptar ao contexto de aplicação como demonstram as publicações de Verheem e Tonk (2000), Dalal-Clayton e Sadler (2005), João e Mclauchlan (2014) e Lobos e Partidário (2014).…”