Maria do Rosário Partidário

Professor

Universidade de Lisboa / Aalborg University

mariapartidario@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

Strategic Environmental AssessmentFuture Opportunities

Conferência comemorativa Avaliação Ambiental EstratégicaUma década depois: desafios e oportunidades

APA - Agência Portuguesa do AmbienteAlfragide, 13 de dezembro de 2017

A question of perspective

Where are we with SEA?

International experience with SEA

√ success as a legal procedure

X frustration as a decision support instrument

As a legal procedure

Overall - a positive trend observed in the progress made in the implementation of the SEA Directive, with patterns of good (and poor) practice

Successful SEA:

In all member states there are:

√ SEA legislative framework varies, most introduced new legislation, others integrated in the EIA legislation √ Different organizational models√ No problems with scope of application, screening, scoping, environmental report √ Public consultation

Perspective: legal procedureMilieu (Law and Policy consulting) 2016 Study on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study_SEA_directive.pdf

Challenges

1. Need to start earlier2. Alternatives ill defined, non strategic 3. Assessment goal often more focused on mitigating negative impacts than

improving the plan or programme4. Public consultation - mixed opinions on its added value (e.g. at the very end

of the process there is little margin of influence). 5. Environmental Reports often overly comprehensive and not sufficiently

tailored to the assessment needs, resulting inefficient 6. Lack of ownership and understanding of SEA procedure by

plan/programme developing authorities and practitioners

Milieu 2016 Study

Perspective: legal procedure

Scotland

The Scottish Strategic Environmental Assessment Review, 2011, http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/921/0119893.pdf

Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act in 2005 (SEA Act)

Fundamental components of SEA in Scotland –legislation, common practice, engagement processes, reporting mechanisms etc – are generally sound and fit for purpose - Where there is good integration between

assessor, policymaker and senior decision-makers - significant influence on PPS

- Many practitioners, through experience, are developing innovative and efficient ways to undertake SEA

- SEA Gateway (SEA portal) – enables institutional coordination

Scottish SEA Review 2016:

Needs to improve:- Understanding of, and buy into, SEA among

policy-makers and senior decision-makers - Ensuring SEA is applied across all sectors- Integration between SEA and PPS

preparation, particularly in the early stages - More focused on the issues of significance- Refocus consultation earlier- Simplicity and clarity of SEA documents

Perspective: legal procedure

IrelandSEA transposed into Irish law in 2004

Not clear if SEA generates environmental, social and economic benefits or the reduction of adverse effects

Irish SEA Review 2012 All procedural steps are successful (screening, scoping, baselines, environmental reports, mitigation, etc.)

Critical: poor integration between SEA and plan-making, alternatives, understanding by senior decision-makers, reporting, monitoring, poor buy-in to the SEA process from senior managers and decision-makers.

2012

EPA 2012. Review of Effectiveness of SEA in Ireland – key findings and recommendationshttp://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/ea/reviewofeffectivenessofseainireland-mainreport.html

Perspective: legal procedure

As a decision support instrument

ScotlandEnhancement of positive environmental impacts in SEA reports since the 2005 SEA Act in Scotland

McCluskey and João, 2011, The promotion of environmental enhancement in Strategic Environmental Assessment, EIA Review

Sample

15 reports 2006 - 2009

Four point scale

Thorough, Fair, Minimal and Absent

Results

60% (9 in 15) ‘Minimal’ or ‘Absent’.

1. SEA focus mainly on mitigation, frequently ignore opportunity offered by enhancement

2. Little detail on relevance of strategic action to environmental enhancement 3. Ineffective reasonable alternatives to the strategic actions

Perspective: decision instrument

ItalyResearch on SEA’s Usefulness – Review of 11 (of 20) regional plans

Gazzola and Rinaldi, 2016, Reflecting on SEA’s Usefulness: A Case

Study on Italy, JEAPM

Regions in cluster A (before the Directive), B (before national legislation) and C (after national legislation of 2006) Higher usefulness in cluster A

For SEA to make a meaningful difference, it should be integrated into planning processes. Yet, the two processes appear to be disjointed.

Developing alternatives appeared to be the most problematic stage and public participation is too weak – SEA applies upon conclusion of the plan-making process justifying decisions already made, or to comply with existing legal requirements.

Perspective: decision instrument

ChinaSEA in China is Plan-EIA (PEIA) (EIA Law of 2003)

Outcomes of PEIA are falling short of expectations, little more than a pro-forma exercise (Bina et al 2011)

Starts too late (Wu et al, 2011) - PEIAs remain reactive in nature because they only commence after key decisions have already been made (Che et al. 2011).

Limited coordination between and within sectoral departments, weak environmental authorities, top-down government, and limited public participation (Bina et al 2011).

Very limited public participation (Wu et al, 2011) (Bina et al 2011)

Adoption and application of EIA tools and methods by practitioners in a cumulative or aggregated manner rather than in a strategic manner (Che et al. 2011).

Perspective: decision instrument

Vietnam

Lack of SEA knowledge and experience at ministerial level, lack of a systematic coordinated inter-agency planning (Victor and Agamuthu 2014)

Institutional constraints challenge the effective use of SEA: inadequate training, technical guidelines, baseline data and financial resources. Limited use of stakeholder and public participation

Incentives to not share information between ministries and severe restrictions on access to information and public participation.

Large gap between how the SEA system is supposed to work, as stipulated in SEA legislation and guidelines, and actual practice.

Daniel Slunge, Trang Thi Huyen Tran, 2014. Challenges to institutionalizing strategic environmental assessment: The case of Vietnam. EIA Review

SEA introduced in 2005 Environmental Protection Law

Perspective: decision instrument

Academia

Literature

“For the environmental

assessment of higher

level PPP, attempts to

apply project-level EIA

methodologies have

generally proven

inadequate.” Nilsson and

Dalkmann, 2001

Is SEA an instrument to safeguard environmental concerns in decision-making? or Is it intended to foster sustainability, or to support balanced decision-making with respect to all normative views and interests concerned? (Thissen 2001: 40)

SEA is a flexible and adaptable instrument that adds value to decision making, a strategic facilitator of sustainability processes (Partidário, 2000)

‘the paradox of progress and performance’ (Sadler and Dusík, 2016) – lack of connection between methodologies and implementation

SEA is performing as a non strategic tool, failing “on its inherent promise” (Bidstrup and Hansen, 2014, p. 34).

Literature

SEA still practiced as a largely "EIA-based" tool (Verheem and Dusik, 2011)

The practice of SEA remains deeply rooted in the EIA tradition and scholars and practitioners often appear divided on the nature and purpose of SEA

Needed:- Transition in SEA away from its EIA roots- Conceptualizing SEA as a process that facilitates strategic transitions is both useful and necessary

The literature

(Noble and Nwanekezie 2017)

Review of international experience with SEA

Success as a procedure – in general there is compliance with legal requirements

Limited capacity as a decision support instrument :o Performs as a non strategic tool o Lacks ownership by decision-makerso Weak integration in decision processeso Unknown environmental and social benefits

Milieu (Law and Policy consulting) 2016 Study concerning the preparation of the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC)Review of effectiveness in Scotland, Ireland, several authors

Milieu 2016

SEA in its youth crisis

What to do

Change perspective

https://homerdixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Homer-Dixon-Oxford-Leadership-Journal-Manion-lecture.pdf

1. Recognize the complexity of problems

The world is no longer composed of simple predictable and controlable machines (newtonian perspective)

Proposed PlanProgProj (cause) – assess impacts (effect) – mitigate – next one!!

- Many components- High degree of connectivity- Not bounded – energy flows- Non linear- Emergent

Features that distinguish complex systems (Homer-Dixon, 2017)

No simple activity which can be managed by procedural formulae

It is “a messy, back-and-forth process, with multiple layers of contestation and struggle” (Healey, 2007)

From: World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second NoticeBioScience. Published online November 13, 2017. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125

BioScience | © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

the American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. For permissions,

please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Second notice from scientists (Nov 2017)Planetary boundaries

Global phenomena changed our perception of the world

Plastic ocean

2007

Economic growth no longer ensures prosperity (Jackson 2009)

Strategy as transformation

Most spatial strategies do little strategic work in the sense of shaping future development trajectories

Strategies that make a difference, then, inherently transform, though such changes may emerge slowly over time and in unpredictable ways.

2. Improve the strategic nature in Plans and Programmes

Healey, Patsy (2009) In Search of Strategic in spatial strategy making

“strategic work” is integrative and geared to efforts to change direction, to open up new possibilities and potentials, and to move away from previous positions.

The art (and craft) of strategic thinking

Thinking strategically is about the art of connecting long-term vision and short-term actions, and of adjusting and adapting to evolving situations.

3. Adopt Strategic thinking in planning and in assessment

Partidário, 2012

To help create contexts for sustainable development

Framework for Strategic Thinking for Sustainability (Partidário 2007, 2012)

Strategic EA

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

As a strategic assessment framework for achieving sustainable development

Strategic Reference Framework – macro-policies that set the reference for strategic assessment

Questions - Which SDG / targets are relevant for this strategic assessment?- How can strategy S contribute to achieving SDG X, Y and Z?

Key elements- Focused on the strategy- Prioritization framework – selective systemic (CDF)- Collective intelligence – Dialogues, Collaboration, Negotiation- Starts early, keeps continuity- Follow-up for control (find points of connecting to EIA)

A socio-political and governance exercise more than doing technical studies

Strategic Thinking for Sustainability (SEA) (Partidário 2007, 2012)

International applications(Partidário, 2007, 2012)

Austria – SEA portal (http://www.strategischeumweltpruefung.at/ms/strategischeumweltpruefung/sup_praxis/sup_leitfaeden/)

“A Portuguese study was also found on the Austrian SEA portal as an aid for Austrian practitioners. ”

Milieu, 2016: pg 40

Sweden - lectures

Chile

International application of the strategic thinking approach in SEA and CDF

Decreto Supremo N°32 que Aprueba Reglamento de la EAE del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente(2015)

“ g) Factores Críticos de Decisión: corresponden a aquellos temas desustentabilidad (sociales, económicos y ambientales) relevantes o esenciales, que en función del objetivo que se pretende lograr con la política, plan o instrumento de ordenamiento territorial, influyan en la evaluación.”

ChileInternational application of the strategic

thinking approach in SEA and CDF

Indonesia

Transition process – Two SEA models

Impacts-based SEA (similar to EIA) –detailed scale, before project or multiple projects, when there is no strategy

SEA with strategic thinking – when there is a long term vision and a broad perspective, and the strategic discussion is still possible (regulations 2017)

DIM and KLHK (Min Environment), Guidelines for SEA, 2017

International application of the strategic thinking approach in SEA and CDF

Innovative Training and Experiential learning

Inwent, MOVE Manual

TOT aim at preparing local trainers pioneering a transition from Impact based to Strategic Thinking SEA in IndonesiaMinistry of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia supported by ESP 3– Danida 2016

Marine Spatial Planning

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Focus on key

problems and

priorities

Assess risks and

opportunities of

strategic options

Follow-up with dialogues

and monitoring to backup a

strategic framework

Spatial and temporal scales, capacity and complexity

Incorporating traditional knowledge

and engagement of indigenous and

local communities Clearly articulated markers

for progress

Platform for inter-governmental dialogues

Understanding competing

interests and conflicting uses

Role of context in MSP

Cyclical and adaptive process

Address multiple, challenging objectives

Monitoring and evaluation

Cross-sectoral engagement

Governance

Public policies

IntegratedInvestment Plan

Povertyerradication

Generation anddistribution of

wealth

Social inclusion

Environmental andclimate management

Adaptation andmitigation to

climate change

Environmentalmanagement

Pressure on natural andcultural resources

Communityconflicts

Sustainable use

Critical Decision Factors and assessment criteria

SEA of the Spatial Development Programme 2014-2035,

Mozambique

How can we improve strategic thinking

Acknowledge complexity and systems thinking

It is like dancing tango

With this dancer

Avoid rigid procedures

RigidStandard movesZero emotion

Focus on root causesProblem tree

loss of biodiversity

congestion

justice and inequalities

equity

water quality and availability

depletion of natural resources

air quality

Symptoms of the problem

Causes of the problem

Root causes of the problem

values

mind-sets

culturesocial issues

economic issues

Policy options and priorities in planning and

programming

natural features

DevelopmentProjects

potentialsobjectives

constraints

environmental riskslack of institutional and human capacities

poverty

Development Context

EIASEA

Partidário, 2012)

Risk out of comfort zone

Improve flexibility and adaptation

Transition to successful strategic thinking

Fom Reactive integration(check and control)….

To Proactive integration, coordinated and collaborative (owned by decision-makers)

From problem solving… To creating motivations

Transition to successful strategic thinking

To help create the futureFrom delivering information…

Transition to successful strategic thinking

Strategic Thinking for Sustainability

Emphasis on values and not on problems (constructive)

Selective systemic and focused on what matters Changing, adjusting (flexible), learning (resilient) Long-term view connected to short term action

Look for futures that enable opportunities

Opportunities related to SEA

Transition for a more strategic thinking SEA

Sustainable Development Goals

New generation assessment: regional, strategic, cumulative

Institutional capacity -Governance / ownership

More integration and collaboration

Focus on priorities