D5 Strategic Environmental Assessment Follow up
Aleg Cherp (cherpa@ceu.hu)
Draft March 22, 2005
Key issues to be addressed
Position Paper:
There has been a growing recognition that SEA should be accompanied by “follow-up” activities adjusting its prediction and recommendations in light of the information obtained during the implementation of the policy, plan or programme (PPP).
The need for SEA follow up is clearly evident from the fact that SEA applies to strategies which are not only “plans” or “decisions”, but also patterns of action and implementation (Mintzberg et al. (1998)). SEA follow-up is, thus, linked with such environmental policy tools and concepts as Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), Strategies for Sustainable Development (SDSs) and Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management in public authorities.
The current thinking on SEA follow-up is largely based on that for project-level EIA follow-up, where there is an increasing body of literature and a consolidating international consensus (see e.g. Arts (1998), Nitz and Holland (2000), Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004), Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004)). Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004) definition of the principal components of EIA follow-up is applicable to SEA as well:
- monitoring;
- evaluation;
- management; and
- communication.
They also distinguish between three levels of EA follow-up: the micro level focusing on individual cases, the macro level focusing on EA systems and the meta level focusing on concepts of environmental assessment. All three levels of EA follow-up are linked to enable wider learning and communication. Thus defined, follow-up encompasses not only an environmental assessment and management tool, but an environmental policy analysis tool as well.
To date, EIA follow up has occurred under different institutional arrangements including voluntary (e.g. in Scottish Power, see Marshall (2004)) and regulatory (e.g. in Hong Kong, see Au and Hui (2004)) schemes.
The current thinking on EA follow up also highlights challenges and directions for future developments which, essentially, go “beyond project-level follow up” (see Sadler (2004) and Arts (1998)) and includes SEA follow-up as well as the following concepts:
- area-oriented follow-up;
- sector-oriented follow-up;
- multiple party follow-up; and
- sustainability assurance approach to follow-up.
EIA follow-up is conceptually strongly linked with Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management. The classic linkage through an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) developed as an outcome of the EIA process has not only been extensively described, but also operationalized, e.g. in the World Bank policies (Goodland and Mercier (1999)). In a recent publication on the subject, Sánchez and Hacking (2002) suggest a framework for linking an EIA process and an ISO 14001-compliant EMS. They emphasize the importance of the overarching ‘capacity management’ which should take place during the EIA process and EMS implementation.
SEA follow-up
Despite this wealth of literature on EIA follow-up, publications on SEA follow-up are much more limited. The need for SEA follow-up has been noted from the earliest SEA publications (e.g. Lee and Walsh (1992)). The researchers have generally noted both great challenges and a significant need to have an effective SEA follow-up, without, however, providing many specific suggestions or practical examples.
In one of the very few papers on this topic, Partidario and Fischer (2004) recognize that despite increasing interest, the thinking on SEA follow-up is only emerging and is largely non-formalized. SEA follow-up practice is at the stage of informal experimentation and is primarily focused on monitoring activities. They suggest that approaches to SEA follow-up will vary depending on the type of a strategic action to which an SEA is applied. They identify four goals of SEA follow-up which broadly correspond to the suggested four types of SEA follow-up: conformance, performance, uncertainty and dissemination. These authors also primary focus on monitoring and evaluation activities within SEA follow-up where they identify important challenges contrasting with the project-level experiences. Similarly Morrison-Saunders and Arts (2004) consider that broadly similar approaches can be applied to EIA and SEA follow up, though they recognize that the existing experience primarily relates to project-level follow up.
The main challenge in the monitoring components SEA follow-up is that impacts of PPPs are difficult to trace as they are normally influenced by factors external to the PPP which is subject to an SEA. Likewise, appropriate management responses may be needed at administrative (national, sectoral, municipal, etc.) and decision-making (policy, plan or programme) levels different from the one at which the PPP was adopted (and SEA conducted).
The current thinking seems to emphasize the importance of SEA follow-up, however does not explicitly suggest any tools distinct from project-level follow-up. The existing literature seems to struggle with the attempt to establish “causal links” between strategic decisions and their consequences. It is reasonable to suggest that finding such causal links in most cases is both unfeasible and unnecessary. Moreover, looking for such causal links is somewhat at odds with the increasingly widespread notion of SEA as focusing on objectives rather than impacts.
Thus, the current focus of the SEA follow-up theories on monitoring and evaluation should be expanded by the emphasis on management, which was shown to be important elements in EIA follow-up. It may be reasonable to suggest that in the same way as project-level EIA is linked to Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management the public sector SEA should be linked to Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management in public authorities or similar mechanisms.
However, at present it is unclear to which extent Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management in public authorities has, so far, been “strategic”. In particular, a frequent criticism is that local authorities employ Corporate Stewardship and Risk Management to deal with their own affairs, but not with their policies (which are often subject to SEA) or “indirect impacts”. (This observation was made in Sweden (Naturvårdsverket (2004)), New Zealand (Cockrean (2000)), Japan (Srinivas and Yashiro (1999)), and the Netherlands (Emilsson and Hjelm (no date)).
Issues for discussion
Since SEA follow up is a novel topic, any paper addressing it from a conceptual or empirical perspective will be welcomed. In particular, the organizers would like to discuss the following issues:
What is (or should be) the role of SEA follow-up, especially in light of considering “strategies” as “processes” rather than “plans”?
What are (or should be) the key elements of SEA follow-up?
How do these relate to the elements of the project-level EIA follow-up?
How can the specifics of SEA, in particular its focus on objectives, be reflected in the follow-up arrangements?
What are the “management” elements of SEA follow-up?
How is SEA follow-up related to other environmental management tools?
References
Arts, Jos (1998). EIA Follow-up - on the role of ex-post evaluation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Groningen, the Netherlands, GeoPress.
Au, Elvis and S Hui (2004). "Learning by doing: EIA follow-up in Hong Kong". In: Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up. Edited by A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts. London, Earthscan.
Cockrean, B. (2000). "Success and failures: national guidance on ISO 14001 for New Zealand local authorities". In: ISO 14001. Case studies and practical experiences. Edited by R. Hillary. Sheffield, Greenleaf: 39-50.
Emilsson, Sara and Olof Hjelm (no date). Sammanställning av tidigare utvärderingar av miljöledningsarbete i offentlig sektor. Linköping, Linköping universitet.
Goodland, R. and J.-R Mercier (1999). The Evolution of Environmental Assessment in the World Bank: from Assessment to Results. Report no Environment Department papers; Paper No. 67. Washington, DC, Environment Department, The World Bank.
Lee, Norman and Fiona Walsh (1992). "Strategic environment assessment: an overview." Project Appraisal 7: 126-136
Marshall, Ross (2004). "Can industry benefit from participation in EIA-follow up? – the ScottishPower
experience". In: Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up. Edited by A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts. London, Earthscan.
Mintzberg, Henry, Bruce Ahlstrand and Joseph Lampel (1998). Strategy Safari. New York, Prentice Hall.
Morrison-Saunders, Angus and Jos Arts (2004). Exploring the Dimensions of EIA Follow-up. Impact Assessment for Industrial Development: Whose Business Is It? 24th annual meeting of the International Assosiation for Impact Assessment, April 26-29, 2004, Vancouver, Canada, IAIA.
Naturvårdsverket, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2004). Environmental Management in Central Government Authorities: Sweden's experience. Report no Report 5358, February 2004. Stockholm, Naturvårdsverket.
Nitz, Tracey and Ian Holland (2000). "Does environmental impact assessment facilitate environmental management activities?" Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 2(1): 1-17
Partidario, Maria Rosário and Thomas B. Fischer (2004). "Follow-up in current SEA understanding". In: Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up,. Edited by A. Morrison-Saunder and J. Arts. London, Earthscan.
(forthcoming).
"Follow-up in current SEA understanding". In: Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up,. Edited by J. Arts. London, Earthscan.
Sadler, Barry (2004). "On evaluating the success of EIA and SEA". In: Assessing Impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA Follow-up. Edited by A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Arts. London, Earthscan.
Sánchez, Luis Enrique and Theo Hacking (2002). "An approach to linking environmental impact assessment and environmental management systems." Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(1): 25-38
Srinivas, Hari and Makiko Yashiro (1999). Cities, Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14001: A View from Japan. International Symposium on Sustainable City Development Seoul, South Korea, United Nations University.