1996_partidario_sea pontos principais que emergem da prática recente

8/7/2019 1996_Partidario_SEA pontos principais que emergem da prtica recente

1/25

E L S E V I E R

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT: KEY ISSUES EMERGINGFROM RECENT PRACTICE

M aria Roshr io P ar t idsi r ioNew University of Lisbon, Monte de Capbrica, Portugal

Many governments and environmental assessment (EA) administrators arecurrently showing great concern regarding the potential environmental conse-quences of decisions made at policy, planning, andprogrammatic levels. Strate-gic environmental assessment (SEA) is evolving as a mechanism that attemptsto assess systematically the environmental impacts of decisions made at, whatis conventionally called, levels of strategic decisions. Evidence is emerging indtzerent countries on speciJic SEA approaches including institutional frame-works, assessment and review mechanisms, and results achieved in spectQiccaseapplications. Experience is as yet too limited to conclude how effective suchsystems are but is nevertheless instructive on particular issues implicated in thedevelopment and implementation of SEA.

A comprehensivereview of existingSEApractica1 approaches was undertakenwith the purpose of understanding the existing status of SEA and identifyingkey practical issues raised by practitioners in the countries reviewed. Suchpractical issues reflect the strengths and weaknesses experienced with the adop-tion of particular approaches. This article highlights and reflects on some ofthe most fundamental policy, institutional, and procedural issues that werefound in this research.

Int roduct ionStrategic environmental assessm ent (SEA ) is emerging as a new form ofenvironmental assessm ent (E A). The term SEA represents a conventionedway of identifying the formalized process of assessing, at the earliest possiblestage, the environmental impac ts of decisions made at policy, plann ing, andprogram levels. SEA looks at a range of possible alternatives in a way that

Address requestsfor reprints too:Maria Rosario Partidkrio, Assistant Professor, Departmentof Sciences and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New Universityof Lisbon, Quinta da Torre, 2825 Mon te d e Caparica, Portugal.E N VI RON I M P ACT AS S E S S RE V 1 9 9 6 ;1 6 :3 1 -5 50 1996 E l sev ie r Sc ience Inc .655 Avenu e o f th e Ame r icas , New York , NY 10010

0195-9255/1996/$15.00SSDI 0195-9255(95)00106-9


2/25

32 MARIA ROSARIO PARTIDPiRIO

is systematic and ensures full integration of relevant issues in the total environ-ment including biophysical, economic, social, and political considerations.

The aims of SEA have long been acknow ledged as necessary, but practiceis relatively recent and can be traced to the mid-1 980s. Presently, SEA isused as a fundam ental approach in the process of improving EA performanceand as an invaluable tool in the integration of environmental concerns in thedecision-making process and in the moving trend toward sustainability goals.Considerable work has been done in this area, som ehow enclosing diverseperspectives and approaches, yet not bringing co nsensus to an accepted con-cept of SEA (Bregha et al. 199 0; Holtz 1991; Therivel et al. 1 992; Woo d andDjeddour 1992; Partidario 1993; Sadler 1994; Goodland and Tillman 1995).

A research project was undertaken to analyze the key issues that shouldbe considered in the practical implementation of SEA systems. R esearchfindings demonstrated that not many countries are actually using SEA . Butdespite few examples, evidence exists as to the kind of mechanism s in placeand the results experienced with initial practical applications, which form animportant resource of documen ted learning material from which many lessonscan be draw n. Findings on the rationale behind the adoption of SEA systems,existing approaches, and barriers to its implem entation provided the back-ground for the identification of a number of key issues in SEA and thedevelopment of recomm endations for practical consideration.

This articled presents the ma in resu lts of the project. It briefly add ressesthe research methodology, the terminology and concept of SEA adopted inthe project, and a synopsis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing SEAsystems before addre ssing the most relevant policy, institutional, and proce-dural issues, and practical recom mend ations. These are hereby offered asguidance based on recent practice.Research MethodologyThe research m ethodology involved a comprehensive and systematic reviewof existing literature and also the review of existing processes of EA appliedto policies, plans, and programs in different co untries where some form ofSEA is being adopted (Partidario 1994a ).Literature research involved searching international bibliographic data-bases. A bibliographic database on SEA was established at the CanadianEnvironmental Asse ssment Agency, including a total of 240 references inelectronic and hard documentary form. An annotated bibliography on SEAwa s developed, including 119 references and annotations on SEA concepts,

While developing this research project, the author was based in Canada (CEAA ), as aNATO -funded researcher, as part of a NA TO and CEAA collaborative research program onSEA.An earlier version of this article was presented to the 19 95 Ann ual Conference of the Interna-tional Association for Impact Assessment, Dur ban, South Africa.


3/25

SEA: KEY ISSUES FROM RECENT PRACTICE 33

processes, and case applications worldw ide (Partidario 1994b). A reducedform of the bibliography on SEA is available through the Internet (WorldWide Web).

Research tools also included direct and written interviews with key contactsin government departments and agencies in Can ada, the Un ited States, severalEuropean countries, New Zealand, and Au stralia. Abou t 114 letters weresent to key researchers and practitioners in 20 countries with requests forpublished a nd unpublished material and indications on mechanisms for SEAbeing prepared and expected to be developed and tested. R esponses to theserequests represented a most important source of information.

Terminology and Concept of SEAThe terminology that is offered in the literature when referring to EA at thestrategic level is quite diverse: policy EA ; policy impact assessm ent; strategicenvironmental assessm ent; sectoral EA s; programmatic environmental im-pact statements (EIS); EA of policy, plan, and program (PPP); integrationof EA into policy-making, planning, and program development; integrationof environmental issues into the decision-mak ing process; and EA of govern-ment proposals. These are perhaps the most commonly used terms to referto forms of SEA.

The question of terminology promises to be an extensive debate in thedefinition of EA applied to policy, p lanning, and program development.The word strategic in SEA raises diverse interpretations as to its relativepositioning in the pyramid of decisions from policy visions to program s ofmore concrete activities. Unde r these circumstances, there may be no universaldefinition of SEA that can satisfy each sociopolitical context of decision-making. Each country or political and economic system will need to adoptthe term, or terms, that more clearly identifies the process of EA applied topolicies, planning, and programs in a way that is practical and responsiveto integrative approaches toward sustainab le goals.

It is not the intention to argue ab out the legitimacy of different forms ofSEA . Rather it is understood that SEA must address the strategic com ponentin any of the decision instrum ents incorporated in its scope. This strategiccomponent refers to the set of policies, objectives, and principles that giveshape to the vision and development intentions incorporated in a policy,plan, or program . Strategic EA deals with concepts and not with particularactivities in terms of its geographic or technical design. As such, the conceptof strategic EA usually should be associated with (Partidario 1994a ):

1. The strategic nature of decisions: intentions, guidance, orientations,regulations; strategies are reviewed or replaced, but they are not built(constructed) or demolished.


4/25

34 MARIA ROSARIO P ARTIDARIO

2. The continuity of the decision-mak ing process as opposed to discretedecision-mak ing. SEA deals with the process of developing policies,plans, and programs, wh ich is continuous in nature, and not only withthe policy, plan, or program instrument per se. A policy, plan, orprogram may be created, reviewed, or replaced, which is part of thecontinuous nature of the decision-mak ing process at this strategic level.

3. The optional value, referring to the range of multiple issue alternativesinvolved in a strategic process. The questions are: what are the possibleoptions to deal with a specific problem or a particular need; w hat canbe the environmental consequences of these options; and wh ich can bechosen as best environmental option, rather than: this is wh at will bedone - what are its environmental impacts?

SEA requires great adaptiveness and flexibility in its decision context, asit deals with a range of mixed forces, acting on many fronts, different societalvalues, and high levels of uncertainty in terms of expected outcomes. How -ever, facing uncertain outcomes does not imply a strategic decision. W hereasthe existence of uncertainty factors is inexorably linked to the nature of astrategic decision, there is a whole range of uncertainties associated with thedevelopment of particular projects that do not carry the broad visionary andprecluding na ture that wou ld characterize SEA .

Another important issue to be raised in this context is the potential roleof SEA toward the achievement of environmental integrated decision-mak ingin policy-making, planning, and program development. Some authors arguethat SEA is about integration of EA principles into the decision-mak ingprocess. Others distinguish clearly EA from integration. In this study, it isacknow ledged that full environmental integration is the ultimate means bywhich sustainable development can be achieved (Sadler 19 94; Holtz 1991)but that SE A has a significant and distinctive, though temporary, role toplay in this process. SEA can help in increasing integration of environmentalissues in the development of policies, planning, and program decisions. Itforces the introduction of system atic practices in the identification of relevan tenvironmental issues and assessm ent of environmental impacts in pre-, as inpost-, policy and planning implementation stages. Once sound environmentalintegrated approaches have been achieved, then SEA has played its role andmay no longer be necessary (see Figure 1).The existing literature on SEA offers a considerable number of definitionsthat somehow reflect narrower or wider approaches. A couple of definitionswere selected to illustrate a generally accepted concept of SEA :

?? EA of strategic actions - all government actions at a higher level of organiza-tion than theconstruction project including policies, plans, and program sand nonbinding guidelines (European Union Com mission 1994)

?? The consideration of environmental impacts of policies, plans, and pro-gram s applied to higher levels of decision-mak ing with the object of


5/25

SEA: KEY ISSUES FROM RECENT PRACTICE 3 5

Indicator ofEnvironmental

IntegrationIntegrated

decision-making

FIGURE 1 . Contribution of S E A to achieve full integrated d ecision-making. a , envi-ronmental assessm ent (strategic); b, process of integration of environmental issuesin decision-mak ing (policies, plans, prog rams); c, integrated decision-making; t, time.

attaining ecologically sustainable development (Australia, Common-wealth EPA 1994)

Brief Review on Current State-of-the-ArtA review of the current status of SEA , regarding institutional and proceduralapproaches in a number of different countries, was a key research elementin the project. Co untries reviewed include Can ada, theunited States, the Nether-lands, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, France, NewZealand, and Au stralia. International organizations such as the Wo rld Bankand the European Union were also considered in the research, as to theirattempts to adopt and implem ent SEA requirements, although not presentedin this section. A brief synopsis on the rationale and approaches generallyadopted and challenges and barriers faced in the countries reviewed is nowoffered, before the key practical issues are presented. A more extended reviewon countries SE A experience, focusing on guidelines an d regulations, isavailable elsewhere (Partidario 1996).RationaleMost countries reviewed relate the role of SEA to sustainability goals, suchthat SE A may assist the decision-making process in improving the design ofmore sustainable policy and strategies. In some cases, sustainability issuesremain an implicit background policy (e.g., the United States, S weden, Nor-way, Finland, France, Germany, Britain). In others, sustainability issues areused more as: (1) benchm arks against which objectives and criteria in SEA


6/25

36 MARIA ROS.&R IO PARTIDARIO

can be measured (e.g., C anada, the Netherlands, Denm ark) or (2) as a strongpolicy that helps in shaping new forms of decision-mak ing in support ofsustainable development (e.g., Au stralia, New Zealand).

A similar situation exists in wh at concerns the consideration of cumu lativeeffects and its relationship with SE A. N o doubt SEA is seen to provide theadequate context and rationale to address cum ulative issues. Recent studiesdeveloped as part of the Au stralian environmental impact assessment (EIA )review process (Australia, Com monw ealthEPA 1994) clearly show the advan-tages of this relationship between SEA and cumulative effects assessm ent.However, evidence as to the achievement of this synergism is yet to be demon-strated.

SEA is emerging in the context of national environmental policies. Incountries where there is a longer standing and/or more extensive experiencewith project EA, SEA is evolving as a natural extension of existing EA practiceto higher levels of decision-making (e.g., the United States, the Netherland s).W here regional and local planning practices have dominated the environmen-tal policy arena, SEA is more often incorporated within planning practices.This is certainly the case in Nordic countries (e.g., Den mark, Sweden, N or-way, Finland) and also in Britain, France, and Germany. In Au stralia andNew Zealand, the option has been an overall review of the EA process. InNew Zealand, an overall reform of the environmental adm inistration is legallyand administratively underway , wh ereas with the proclamation in 1991 ofthe Resource Management Act, Comm onwealth Australia is undertaking amajor review of the EIA process. The option in Canada seems to be theadoption of a distinct process for projects E A and SE A, w ith the first nowlegally enacted and the second issued as a nonlegislated process.

The extension of projects EA principles to the policy and planning levels ha sbeen raising some resistance an d concern amo ng policy-makers and planningpractitioners. Particularly in physical planning, practitioners claim in manycountries (e.g., Sweden, Australia, Den mark ) that plans already cover EArequirements: scope of analysis (natural, social, and economic issues), alterna-tive solutions, conflict-resolution approaches. However, critical differencesbetween EA as traditionally applied to projects and planning justify thedistinctive role of EA relative to planning (Lerman 1994).

?? Developm ent steps are more clear and transparent in project EA, wh ereasthey are more im plicit in planning.

?? Multidisciplinarity involved in a projects EA team is often m ore variedthen in a planning team, and public consultation has been more effective.

?? Projects EA show s impacts before decision is reached; it informs thedecision. To really influence the decisions, project EA should be moreintegrated in the development process. The plan is often the decisionitself: it gradually develops tow ard the decision. It may specify andexplain the choices made and the changes foreseen, but it is not its ma inaim.


7/25


?? Project EA uses the no-action alternative to show the changes and imp actswithout the project, which often justifies the project per se. Plans donot contain a no-action alternative and do not predict w hat the futurewould be if the plan was not implemented.

Evolving Approaches to SEATwo distinct approach es are being followed to apply EA to strategic decisions.The first literally extends p ractical knowledge with project EA and appliesnot only its principles but also the legal procedures and requirements relatedto screening and scoping stag es, the presentation of an EIS, the informationto be included, and prediction in alternatives comparison and mitigativemeasures (bottom-up approach). The second approach adopts a policy andplanning rationale, whereby EA principles tend to be tailored in the formula-tion of policies and plans through the identification of needs and options fordevelopment, which are assessed in the context of a vision for sustainabledevelopment (top-down approach).

The argument that SE A can improve and facilitate the EA of site-specificprojects has been one of the advantages in support of SEA since its earlydays. However, this relationship is not alway s .obvious, as mo st countriesstill neglect to put in place the mechanisms that will ensure this potentialbenefit of SEA . In some cou ntries, however, it is being suggested that as aconsequence of SEA , more sound and environmental policies and plans willincorporate the necessary requiremen ts for the subsequent deve lopment ofprojects (e.g., the Nethe rlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain).

Significant efforts are now being made in a number of countries towardtheimprovement of EA as applied to policy and planning levels. Recentreviews demonstrate that approaches being adopted are different from countryto country. Table 1 summarizes the methodologies that are being adoptedin a number of countries reviewed.Challenges and BarriersThere is a range of challenges and barriers indicated by different countriesthat refers to particular political and institutional contexts. In most cases,however, difficulties indicated seem to derive from the adoption of a newEA tool that brings so much uncertainty and vagueness to traditional environ-men tal decision-mak ing. Need for guidance and training, accountability andresponsibility, lack of resources, and unknow n or untested methodologiesare amo ng the mo st common difficulties.The review of countries critical papers provides important insights intothe range of more important barriers to the implementation of SEA systems.Table 2 presents a synopsis of the barriers indicated more frequently indifferent review papers.The political and organizational structure in wh ich context SEA is appliedhas much influence on the significance of the identified barriers. Because SEA


8/25

38 MARIA RO SARIO PARTIDARIO

TABLE 1. Review of Coun tries Approaches to SEAApplication Procedure Methodology

Britain

Denmark

Canada (federal)

USA (federal)Netherlands

Policies andProgramsto CabinetProgramsPlansProgramsPlansPoliciesOther govtproposalsProgramsPlansPoliciesProgramsPlans

Sweden

Norway, Finland

Germany, France

New Zealand

Australia (federal)

Bills andother govtproposalsProgramsPlansPoliciesProgramsPlansPoliciesProgramsPlansPoliciesProgramsPlansPoliciesProgramsPlansPolicies

Discretionary No guide

PEISEIA

Project EIAProject EIA

E-TEST

Guide

ChecklistsSD criteriaChecklists/MatricesConsistency analysisEconomic approach

PlanningEIASEA Checklist

SD criteriaPlanningEIA

ExpertsChecklists/Matrices

PlanningEIAEIA

No guide

No guide

RMA No guide

EIA No guide

Adapted from Partidtiio (1995) .E-TEST : Environmental test; RMA: Resourc e Man ageme nt Act; SD: Sustainable development.EIA is used in this table to be consistent with the formal terminology adopted in the country.

applies to actions that take place earlier in the decision-making process, oftenpolicy-makers and planning decision-makers are not able to disclose thenecessary information or to create open discussion opportunities requiredby the flexibility and participatory principles of EA. However, a certaindegree of influence by interest groups through critical analysis and politicalpressure is necessary to ensure collective responsibility in the development andadoption of policies that aim to be environmentally sound and sustainable.Questions of confidentiality and constitutionality may also arise, determining


9/25


TABLE 2. 10 Mo st Comm on Barriers to the Implementation of SEA1. Lack of know ledge and experience on which environm ental factors to consider, what

are the potential environm ental impacts, and how to achieve integrated policy-making .2. Institutional and organ izational difficulties-need for effective coordination amon g and

within governm ent departments.3. Lack of resources (info rmation, expertise, financial).4. L ack of guidelines or mechanism to ensure fu ll accomplishm ent.5. Insufficient political will and comm itment to implement SEA .6. Difficulty in stating clear policy proposals and defining when and how EA should be

applied.7. Methodologies not well developed.8. Pub lic involvemen t is limited.9. Lack of clear accoun tability for application and the policy EA process.

10 . Curre nt project-specific EA practices are not necessarily applicable to SEA and areinhibiting sound SEA approaches.

severe constraints to an open and accountable assessm ent and decision-making processes. This raises quite comp licated constraints to effective SEA ,sometimes even in more open political systems.Implem entation of SEA depends on effective political will. Each politicaland organizational culture w ill have to develop the necessary adm inistrativeand institutional mechanism s to carry out an SEA system and find the mostappropriate ways to ensure a certain degree of accountability of policy,planning, and program proposals, including those that are considered politi-cally sensitive. G reater difficulties, how ever, are expected where more closedand rigid political systems do not adopt EA systems or allow public scrutinityas natural comp onents in the decision-mak ing process. In these cases, theremay be no procedural or technical mechanisms that can replace politicalaccountability and effective and flexible institutional framew orks.Key Issues in SEAThis section focuses on a number of relevant issues that result from a reviewof the international experience with SEA (Partidario 1994a ), a synopsis ofwhich was provided in the previous section. Practical, rather than conceptual,issues are emp hasized, considering the experience in other countries and thevarious degrees of successes and difficulties that have been encountered.

For the purpose of this article, the proposed issues are organized in threemain categories:1.

2.

Policy framework, hereby unde rstood as the overall policy contextwithin which SEA is evolving, providing the rationale for the develop-men t of an SEA system, and defining its major goals, principles, andobjectives.Institutional, referring to the organizational and regulatory contextsrequired to develop and implement an SEA system.


10/25

40 MARIAROS~RIOPARTIDP;RIO

3. Procedural, or the building blocks of an SEA process, encompassingthe various elements tha t, comb ined in a rational way, will facilitatethe application of SEA .

Policy FrameworkEFFECTIVEAPPLICATIONOF SEA REQUIRESOPENANDACCOUNTABLEPOLITICALAND ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS. Open and flexiblepoliticalandinstitutionalstructuresarekeyconditions foreffectivedevelopmentandimplementationof SEA systems, and to ensure that:

?? information provided is sufficient and of good quality;?? all relevant stakeholders are involved in an open participatory process;?? policy-making, planning, and program development authorities are

made accountable;?? the results of SEA are considered in decision-mak ing.Countries with open and flexible political and cultural structures are morelikely to have established conditions for the development of sound environ-

men tal policies and clearly identified environm ental objectives. For examp le,in New Zealand such conditions are believed to exist now with the newdevolved an d flexible system created u nder the Resource Managem ent Act(Dixon and Fookes 1995). Problems of confidentiality and constitutionalityin policy as sessment can arise, how ever, as in the cases of the United Statesand Can ada. The kind of mechanism s whereby the previous co nditions foreffective SEA can be met, to the highest possible extent, will be a functionof countries specific political and economic systems.SEA SHOUL.DBEUNDERTAKBNINTHECONTEXTOFNATIONALANDORINSTITU-TIONALSUSTAINABILITYPOLICIESAND STRATEGIES. SEA is oftenreferredto asa tool that ensures policy-making takes account of sustainability principles(Sadler 1994). SEA thus becomes a key element in the framew ork of anenvironmental sustainability policy/strategy established at the federal or de-partmental/agency level. Environmental sustainability po licies will providethe framework to measure the positive and negative impac ts of the policy,such that:

?? the assessm ent of a policy w ould focus on effects on sustainability, ratherthan solely on the environment;?? sustainability criteria can be used as indicators to evaluate impac t signifi-

cance (Dalal-Clayton 1993).An environmental sustainability policy can provide guidance on objectives

and mechanism s to integrate the environment into all aspects of decision-making. This is being followed in many countries, although with differentapproaches. In the development of an environmental test, the Dutch proposed


11/25

SEA:KEY ISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE 41

a set of sustainability criteria to evaluate the significance of policy im pacts(Netherland s, Advisory Com mittee on the Environmental Test 1993). Inother cases, such as in New Zealand and Australia, SEA wa s adopted in theframework of national sustainability policies (Dixon 1994 ; Au stralia, EPA1994). Most countries developing SEA requirements recognize a relationshipbetween SEA and sustainability by defining long-term policy goals as sus-tainability goals. This approach has also been adopted in Can ada (Canada,Project de SociCtC 1994; CIDA 1993).

For SE A to be an effective tool in achieving sustainability, its scope mu stbe broad in terms of the concept of environment (including ecosystems,people and comm unities, and natural and physical resources), and the kindof impacts considered (encom passing ecological, p hysical, social, cultural,and economic).

Two impo rtant sustainability issues mu st be addressed by SEA :?? the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment andlong-term productivity, including cumulative impacts; and?? the identification of significant irreversible changes.

ACTION PLANS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CAN PROVIDE SPECIFIC ANDQUANTITATIVEENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVESASBENCHMARKSTOENVIRONMEN-TAL IMPACTS OF STRATEGIC ACTIONS. For SEA to be effective, its objectivesmu st be clearly identified. It also requires referential mechanism s, or bench-marks, to be in place, providing a context for the objective assessm ent ofdirect or induced impac ts in the short- and long-term. Exam ples of suchreference mechanism s are offered in the various countries reviewed.

The rationale adopted in Britain is based on the development of a frame-work that contains three ma in elemen ts: (1) green housekeeping strategiesin government departments; (2) state of the environment reports; and (3)environmental appraisal of new policies (UK, Cabinet 1994; UK DO E 1994).In the Ne therlands, the Na tional E nvironmental Policy Plan establishes envi-ronmental quality targets to be achieved within one generation (Netherland sMH PPE 1989, 1990). In Denm ark and Sweden, government action plansdefine the objectives, provide the rules, an d set the borders for a betterenvironment and sustainable development (Elling 1994; Lerman 1994).IDENTIFI~ATIONOFTH~Z RELATIONSHI~BETWEEN SEA ANDoTHER~OLICYIN-STRUMBNTS IN DECISION-MAKING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MECHANISMS THATENSURE INTEGRATED DECISION-MAKING. SEA is contributive to integratingEA principles in decision-making to achieve sustainable development goals. Itcan be argued, however, that EA of policies and integration of environmentalfactors into the policy-making process shou ld be seen as two distinct, thoughrelated, processes (Bregha 1990; Holtz 1991). How ever, the issue of integra-tion is often related to SEA , whereby SEA can be a means to ensure that


12/25

42 MARIAROSzhRIOPARTIDARIO

various decision-m aking dimen sions are brought together at earlier stages ofpolicy formulation and decision-making.

Exam ples of the use of SEA to ensure that environmental and economicissues are integrated in overall decision-making are provided by the Britishexperience (UK DOE 1991; UK DO E 1993). In Nordic countries, planningand EA approaches are being integrated as one single instrument (Balfors1994). Ecosystem-based planning in the United States and integrated resourceplanning and managem ent in New Zealand are other exam ples of integrateddecision-mak ing, although primarily based on biophysical approaches (Dixon1994; Dixon and Fookes 1995). Technological assessm ent is being developedquite strongly in Germany and in the United States to ensure that optionsrelated to the choice of technology are made at the policy, rather than at theproject or program , level.

InNewZealand, theSEAframeworkprovidedundertheResourceManage-ment Act is such that it can make horizontal and vertical links with policyinstruments prepared under other legislation in order to work toward nationalsustainability strategies. Their decision-making councils are required to takeaccount of managem ent plans and strategies prepared under other acts (Veart1994).InstitutionalPROVISIONS FORANINSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK THAT WILL FACILITATE INTE-GRATED DECISION-MAKING. Integrated decision-m aking requires institutionalcooperation and coordination across and within institutions. This is a difficultbut key issue that will contribute to improved decision-mak ing in supportof sustainable development. It is also an issue that relates closely to thepolitical culture and system(s) of decision-making that are in place at thenational or agency level. International experience provides exam ples ofdifferent attem pts to establish such institutional linkages.

The requirement for an office or body to oversee the administration of theEA process, not with a regulatory role but instead w ith a procedural andmaybe substantive role, is one possible form. This will allow quality to beimproved as this administrative body will be able to act as a central informa-tion source for the various agencies on the barriers, difficulties, and benefitsof applying policy EA. In the Netherland s, the use of an environmental testplaces requirements for interministerial coordination in cooperation withthe national governmen t. W hereas responsibility to conduct and apply theenvironmental test is left to each ministry, coordination rests with the Ministryof the Environment (Netherlands, Advisory Com mittee on the EnvironmentalTest 1993). The environmental test can act as an information-gatheringinstrument.

In Britain, the option is for a ministerial structure that en compasses threemain elements (United Kingdom, Cabinet 1994):


13/25

SEA: KEY ISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE 43

?? a Ministerial C omm ittee on the Environment, involving relevant depa rt-ments;

9 a Green Minister in each department to ensure integration of environmen-tal issues into strategies and policies; and

?? a network of green contacts across government departments to developbest practice and coordinate policy.

ESTABLISHMENTOFINTERNALAND EXTERNALORGANIZATIONALFRAMEWORKSTI3ATWlLLENSUREACONTINUOUSFLOWANDINTERACTIONALONGTHEVARIOUSSTAGES OF THE SEA PROCESS. One of the distinctivecharacteristicsof SEAas comp ared to project EA is the continuous nature of the process. Accordingto Holtz (1991, p. IO ), the process of developing policy is neither predictable,orderly, nor uniform, and it frequently is rushed. To be effective and respon-sive to the nature of policy-making, SEA m ust be an intrinsic element of thepolicy-making process. Unlike project E A, which has been essentially reactiveto project initiatives, SEA mu st drive the creation of policies by informing,rather than following, policy formulation.

Approp riate organizational structures, across and within departments/agencies responsible for developing policies, m ust be established to allow thepre-stages and follow-up to be addressed, such that analysis, integration,and review of proposals are ensured. Steering comm ittees, interdepartmentalcomm ittees, and stakeholder involvement are examples provided by existingexperience w ith SEA .

In Sweden, coordination is required amo ng the Na tural R esource M anage -ment Act, Planning and Building Act, and EIA procedures (Balfors 1994;Lerman 1994). Requirem ents for the existing acts that rule the permitting-application process are also to be coordinated, although em phasis is placedon informal cooperation to reduce bureaucracy and costs. The participationof county governmental boards in all procedures is the ma in coordinationmechanism.

An example of institutional internal organization and coordination is pro-posed by the Can adian International Developm ent Agency (CID A). Keyexperts for different environm ental areas are identified across variousbranches, and they can provide expert assistance to desk officers with responsi-bility to undertake policy and program EA (CID A 1993).ASSIGNMENT OFSPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITYRELATIVELYTO KEY DECISION-MAKING POINTS. Responsibility for decision points in policy/program /plan formulation process and accountability for actual conse-quences are critical elements in the process of ensuring effectiveness of SEA /policy EA. Proponents of policy and program initiatives mu st be mad e respon-sible and accountable for the consequences of their proposals. This is a generalissue that has been vastly debated by Canadian researchers (Bregha et al.1990; Holtz 1991). Accountability depends crucially on the quality of the


14/25

44 MARIAROSARIOPARTIDPiRIO

reporting on performance (Holtz 19 91, p. 14). Self-reporting mechanismsand independent reporting are two options suggested by this author. However,in New Zealand practitioners find an independent review body inappropriate,and emp hasis is placed on public involvement in the planning process, persua-sion of central governm ent agencies, and the checks and balances providedby the Planning Tribunal (Dixon 1993; Dixon and Fookes 1995).

The Nethe rlands provides a different situation, whereby experience on SEAhas been gained from drafting advice and guidelines for specific proposalsby the EIA Com mission, an independent review body. According to NE PPAction point A1 41, each Ministry will report on how their policy and associ-ated set of instrumen ts will meet the objectives of sustainable development(Netherland s Directorate for General Policy Affairs 1992).

In New Zealand, councils are required to undertake full assessm ent inpreparation of policies and plans and in the consideration of resource consentapplications. Coun cils are also required to monitor explicitly the state of theenvironment and the effectiveness of the tools they are using (Veart 1994).PROVISIONSFORAREGULATORYFRAMEWORKTHATISAPPROPRIATEANDNECES-SARY. SEA m ust be adapted to existing policy and decision-mak ing processes.The establishmen t of a formal legislative framew ork for SEA depends onthe political culture and nature of decision-making processes in place. Existingexperience show s that, so far, no country has adopted a distinct legislatedprocess for SEA . Some countries have legislated provisions for SEA enshrinedin more wide-ranging and cross-sectoral acts (in the Resource Managem entAct in New Zealand and in the Planning and Building Act and NaturalResource Managem ent Act in Sweden) or as part of national EA legislationand guidelines, as in the Netherland s and the United States. O thers havenonstatutory requirements of a more advisory nature (e.g., Can ada, Den-mark, the United K ingdom). Advantages and disadvantages are seen in allsituations.

One of the questions is whether an integrated system of EA and planningwill result in improved decision-making and environmental man agem ent with-out the need for a separate SEA process. In New Zea land, there is a soundlegislative fram ework for SEA but a lack of guidance, tools, and techniques.In Sweden, only an EIS is required within the environment and planninglegislation, and no assessm ent process is regulated. New regulations are neces-sary to support existing acts in order to promote critical review and compulsorymechanism s to provide for the justification of decisions.The literal extension of an established projects EA legislation to addressmore strategic levels of decision-mak ing represents a legal context for compli-ance to be required, with the possible resu lt of court challenges. This legalsupport is desired by systems w here provisions for SEA are essentially of anadvisory nature. How ever, difficulties experienced in the Netherland s andthe United States proved the inappropriateness of applying detailed regulatory


15/25

SEA: KEY ISSUES FR OM RECENT P RACTICE 45

approaches, designed for project EA, to policy-oriented proposals, whichhave a lower level of accuracy, are non-site-specific, deal with different levelsof uncertainty and with policy rather than technical alternatives, and havea more qualitative, general, and indicative nature (V erheem 1992). In Can ada,when the federal environmental assessment and review process (EAR P) wasgiven the force of law by the courts, policy and program EA was coveredby a statutory requirement. Mo re recently, however, a nonlegislated processspecifically for policy and program proposals has been developed (Can ada,FEAR0 1993).

Political and attitudinal values and levels of environmental awarenessamo ng those involved in policy-making will have to determine the emphasisto be placed on the development of a regulatory framew ork. Some level oflegal requirement will certainly be necessary at an initial stage , but in a waythat does not undermine the necessary flexibility and adaptiveness that theEA of strategic decisions intrinsically requires. Practitioners need to be mu chbetter informed about the principles, concepts, and methods for SEA , andmost importantly, they have to be advised on how to mak e SE A a simple,rapid, and effective w ay of ensuring that there will be greater benefits of fromconducting SEA , and they mu st demonstrate good environmental perfor-mance.ProceduralSEA SHOULD BE AN INTRINSIC ELEMENT OF POLICY AND P ROGRAM DEVELOPMENTPROCESSES. Environmental considerations and assessment mechanisms m ustbe facilitated in policy formulation, from preliminary steps to review ofaccom plished results (full integration). Environmental issues mu st thereforebe an intrinsic elem ent of policy form ulation and analysis, in the same wayas for economic and soc ial issues. As sessing the degree of such integrationto bring in environmental sustainability and assessing the expected p ositiveand negative environmental impac ts of policy implem entation are key rolesof SEA. The Resource Managem ent Act in New Zealand is perhaps the bestexample of an integrated policy instrument. The Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agencys guide to policy a ssessment (CID A 1993) is anotherexamp le, whereby policy asse ssment tools are built in at various stages ofpolicy formulation.

SEA is to be seen as an aid to policy formulation, rather then a post-formulation approach to mitigation. Policies and plans are essentially instru-ments that drive the ongoing development process, setting the objectives,the priorities, and a strategy to follow-up. New policies being proposed oramendm ents to existing policies should therefore be based on the resultsaccomplished by previous policies or stages of implementation. This is arelatively comm on procedure in policy analysis in relation to economic andsocial issues. B ut the need to incorporate environmental issues is still not


16/25

46 MARIAROSP;RIOPARTIDARIO

fully recognized. Rather than using SEA only to assess future en vironmentalimplications, SEA can help shape n ew proposals on the basis of knowledgeon the environmental impac ts that resulted from previous policies.THE FOCUSOF SEA SHOULDBE ON THE FUNDAM ENTALELEMENTSOF POLICYPROPOSALS.The focus of SEA should be on process, rather than on product.Rather than the production of an SEA report, the key issue mu st be onan iterative and continuous process that assists the ongoing policy-makingprocess, informing decision-makers of potential environmental impacts, andproviding rapid and objective responses wh en required. The report may bea public information document, which accounts for the degree of politicalcomm itment to ensure integrated decision-making and the investment intoa sustainable development trend. It also consists of an informative elementin the learning w ith experience process, whereby environmental concernsbuilt into new policies derive from a process of acknow ledging the mism anag-ing effects of previous policies on the environment.

SEA should focus on the policy, planning, or program proposal goals,objectives, principles, and policies and examine the relationships with sustain-able development goals, relevant environmental aspects, environmental pol-icy, and other sectoral policies. In SEA, it is fundam ental to identify theproblem(s), the need(s), and the strategy contained in policies, program s, orplans as key elements to be assessed . A lthough a more detailed assessm entof policy, plan, or program activities m ay be necessary, this should only bedone to facilitate the identification of those relevant impacts that lead to theactual impacts of the overall proposal (cf., Nottingham Structure Plan inthe United Kingdom).

Some EA s of policy/plans have been conducted that focus on theimplemen-tation activities of the policy/plan, without even questioning the policy/planenvironmental effects as a policy and strategy approach (e.g., EAR P appliedto park management plans in Canada) (Canada, Canadian Parks Service1992). In such case s, the policy is not being assessed, but only the programor in some cases the activities per se.

In policy E A, it is essential tha t policy options are assessed and comparedin terms of potential environmental impacts. Once the various policy optionsare identified, the different actions to implement the policy m ust be identifiedfor each option to provide the basis for assessmen t.To WHATKINDOFINSTRUMENTSSHOULDSEA APPLY ? Policies can be generalor specific, stated or implicit, increm ental or radical, indepehdent or anelement of other policies (Bregha et al. 1990). The more specific, stated, andindependent a policy is, the more objective and easy it becomes for SEA .How ever, implicit policies may represent greater risk s as lead time fromformulation to implem entation is too short to allow prudent consideration


17/25

SEA:KEYISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE 47

of their consequences. This is another reason why SEA must be closelyintegrated in the policy-making process.The establishmen t of an SEA system therefore requires the identificationof:

1.

2.

The range of policy instrumen ts that a department/agency deals with,both in terms of levels of decision-making (Cabine t, Ministerial, Direc-tion-General) and the type of policy, whether implicit or explicit (seeBregha et al. (1990) for other types of policies);The definition of a screening process that will identify which instruments(policy, plan, and program) require greater concern in terms of a system-atic EA , according to its nature and characteristics that may determinesignificant potential environmental impacts (e.g., CID As institutionalapproach to policy EA, C IDA (1993)).

Similar to existing experiences in the Nethe rlands and Denmark, policy-making agencies should conduct a first survey to identify: (1) which kind ofpolicies shou ld be assessed on a regular, systematic basis; (2) those tha t mayeventually require SEA ; and (3) those that do not require SEA . This mu stbe done with assistance of peer expertise review (Den mark, Ministry of Envi-ronment 1994; Nethe rlands, Advisory Com mittee on the Environmental Test1993).WHENSHOULD SEA BEAPPLIEDTOPOLICIES,PLANS,ORPROGRAMS? Acrucialissue is to make SEA an intrinsic element of policy-making. In that context,there sh ould be no real specific moment for the application of SEA , as it mu stbe part of the policy-making process per se. There is no single decision-mak ingmom ent; however, the earlier in the process that environmental factors areconsidered, the more effective.

Policy is continually added to, modified, or even withdrawn . Thus, w hatmay need to be defined are checking points in the policy-making process toassess and review whether and how all relevant environmental factors an dconcerns are effectively being integrated. As such, SEA must develop mecha-nisms that enable testing of its actual performance at different points. Shortreports on findings arising from these checking points will be an informativeelement in the continuous policy-making process, providing for greater adap-tiveness and responsiveness in an ongoing process.

An acknow ledged approach is tiering for greater efficiency. T his concepthas been applied in the United States, ensuring a linkage between programand project EA . It is also a practice where planning , environmental quality,and natural resource man agem ent systems are interconnected and triggeredby specific requirements for certain kinds of initiatives. Such is the case inNew Zealand, Sweden, and certainly in the other Nordic countries whereplanning basically performs integrated physical approaches.


18/25

48 MARIA ROS ARIO PART IDARIO

Further in this tiering system is the need to ensure the linkage of policyformulation and policy implementation, through the subsequen t steps in thetiering decision-making process (toward p rogram s and projects) a s policyimplem entation can be different from original intentions.ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. A key principle of EA is that it should providesufficient information that will assist sound environmental decision-mak ing.Given the complexity and continuous nature of policy-making and the diffi-culty in identifying the relevant issues to be considered in the assessment, aflexible approach is required to enable SEA to be integrated in the formulationof proposals. One means of doing this is by asking the right questions duringpolicy formulation, review, and implementation stages. This approach hasbeen suggested in different national contexts, such as in the Du tch E nviron-men tal test, Danish guide for SEA of government policy proposals, andCanadian CID A guide for policy and program EA. Such an approach mayhelp to ensure that policy options are not inconsistent with environmentalsustainability.THE SCOPE OF SEA MUST BE COMPR EHENSIVE AND WIDE-RANGING TO BE ABLETO ACT AS A SUSTAI NABILITY TOOL. The type and nature o f the proposal mustdetermine the necessary scope in SEA. But to ensure that SEA contributesto sustainability, the scope of SEA m ust be as wide-ran ging as possible,encom passing social, economic, physical and ecological issues. This has beenthe approach adopted in the Netherland s and appears to be the same inAu stralia. Exam ples from other countries are rather more limited to eithereconomic issues (British policy ap praisal) or physical issues (such as in NewZealand and Denmark).

A broad interpretation in the assessm ent of environmental effects at strate-gic levels should include:

wide-ran ging factors, quantifying when possible (e.g., quantities ofwaste, levels of pollution, number of affected buildings, pre-historic sites,etc.)consequences on human welfaredirect or indirect impactsbeneficial or adverse impactscumu lative and synergistic effectsdifferent geo graphical levels: local, regional, global

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN POLICY-MAKING MUST HELP WITH THE IDENTIFI -CATION AND COMPAR ISON OF EQUALLY VALID OPTIONS. Environme ntal assess-me nt o f pol ic ies involv es the identi f i cat ion and assessment o f pol icy opt ions.I t i s about com paring equal ly val id o pt ions at a strateg ic level . Examplesexist that show this issue to be fundamental and qui te successful i f adequately


19/25

SEA:KEYISSUESFROMRECENTPRACTICE 49

conducted (e.g., Australian Resource Assessment Com mission Timber In-quiry, Agriculture Canada EA of Am endments to the Western Grain Trans-portation Act, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons C omplex R e-configuration PEIS).The selection of policy op tions mu st be done on the basis of wide-ran gingand sustainability criteria:

1. those that may have potential negative effects on the environment;2. those that are relevant to the achievement of sustainable development;in terms of:1. the potential positive and negative effects on the environment, including

the potential for cumulative impacts;2. the relevance to achieve sustainability, including issues related to bio-diversity and the environmental carrying capacity, social equity, and

economic efficiency.PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTSHOULD BEAFUNDAMENTALELEMENT IN THEPROCESSOF SEA . The importance of involving the public in policy assessment hasbeen argued by various authors (Bregha et al. 1990; Holtz 1991). It shouldbe recognized that public involvement may not alway s be possible; however,it is desirable. The identification of the type of public and forms of involvementin each particular circumstance and national context is therefore a crucialissue in SEA.Public involvement in policy assessm ent is a reality in countries such asthe Netherland s and the United States whereby, through the release of noticesof intent, the public is called to express its views and opinions on optionsproposed for a specific policy. In New Zealand, consultation is a strong featureof the Resource Managem ent Act, with specific provisions for pre-hearingmee tings, dispute resolution, and med iation (Dixon and Fookes 1995). Alsowhere the planning tradition has provided different opportunities for publicinvolvement, such as in Sweden or Britain, in relation to development plans,the public h as a specific role to play in helping with the identification ofrelevant issues and societal values in policy assessm ent. In Can ada, beforethe proposal is actually su bmitted to the Cab inet for consideration, there isan opportunity to investigate the public perception in relation to wh at isbeing proposed as long-term development issues. This provides an importantinformative element to policy decision-making.DEVELOPGUIDANCETHAT'WILLSETSEAINMOTION. Oneofthemaindifficultiesexperiencedinmostcountriesinrelationtotheadoptionandoperationaliza-tionof SEA is the lack of methodologies that specifically address SEA require-men ts. The development of guidance appears to be at this stage an essentialtool, which will provide indications on information issues and alternative


20/25


21/25

SEA: KEY ISSUES FROM RECENT PRACTICE

?? introduce manuals

51

?? exchange information between ministriesRecommendationsW hat follows are recomm endations for specific actions that can beundertaken under each of the three categories of SEA issues describedpreviously.Policy Framework

1.

2.

3.

4.

Ensure o penness and flexibility of decision-mak ing, whereby:?? there is political will to use SEA;?? there is an administrative mechanism to implem ent it.Identify a policy framew ork-e.g., a sustainability policy and strategythat will provide:?? objectives, principles, and strategies for sustainable development at

federal and provincial levels;?? sustainability benchmarks (indicators, criteria, issues).Develop plans of action rep resenting activities that will ensure integrateddecision-mak ing, to assist the implementation of a sustainability policy,andprovideguidance,asoperationaltools, onpriorityobjectives,strate-gies, and quality criteria.Relate SEA to existing planning, policy, and decision-making processes,through integrated resource planning or man agem ent approaches, andwithdraw the possible lessons that will enable greater integration of thedecision-making process.

Institutional1. Establish the institutional/administrative framework:

?? to oversee the SEA process (procedural and substantive role);?? to coordinate cross-sectoral activities that contribute to the establish-

ment of an SEA process;?? to ensure the fulfillment of pre-stages and follow-up activities.

2. Provide for greater responsibility and accountability at the ministrieslevel:?? ask ministries to identify policy areas and associated set of instru-

ments;?? ask ministries to determine the relationship between policy area (andassociated set of instruments) and sustainable development;


22/25

52 MARIA ROSPiRIO -PARTIDARIO

?? provide guidance to assist related tasks.3. D evelop the necessary regulatory framework that will ensure that SEA

principles, method s, and procedures are consistently applied in a clearand effective way.Procedural

1. Ensure that environmental issues and assessment mechanisms are anintrinsic element from policy, plan, or program formulation toward itsimplementation.

2. Provide for an assessm ent process that:?? is appropriate and tailored to the decision-mak ing process;?? focuses on causes rather than on effects;?? is to be seen as an help to proposal formulation rather than a post-mitigations finder.

3.

4.

5.6.7.

Concentrate on process rather than on product. More than a final report,SEA must aim at assessing environmental soundn ess in the policy-making, planning, and program-making processes.Identify which policies require S EA and hence the strategic instrum ents(sectoral policies, land-use plan s, sectoral plans, and programs) to whichSEA should apply.Identify in the policy-making, planning, and program -mak ing processesthe key stages that call for an effective application of SEA .As k the right questions at the right time, using tools that are appropriate(e.g., checklists, questionnaires).Develop an SEA approach (process and procedures) to assist individualministers and SEA practitioners in:?? assessing the environmental implications of new policy proposals;?? identifying and comparing policy alternatives;?? establishing the consistency between governm ent policies and sustain-

able development goals and objectives.8.9.

10.11 .

Ensure the consideration of cumulative effects and sustainability issuessuch as biodiversity, equity, and efficiency.Allow for public involvement and consultation, whenever po ssible.Develop g uidance and case studies of good practice. Provide training todesk officers, awareness to policy-makers.Develop a step-by-step plan and simple methods with the aim of providingnot a straitjacket but an aid to investigation, analysis, and review:?? use method s that help to facilitate the process and ensure flexibility

and adaptiveness;


23/25


?? identify data requirements.12. Requ est a policy EA paragraph/report that:

examines the relationship between proposed policy/legislation andrelevant environmental aspects and sustainable development;examines thecompatibilityof policy proposal with overall environmen-tal policy;indicates how potential impacts are to be avoided, minimized, or com-pensated.

This research p roject was developed as a collaborative initiative inv olving the NAT O FellowshipProgram and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The author acknowledges thesponsors of this research project, as well as all the SEA professionals in various countries andinternational organizations that have contributed so significantly by providing information onrecent literature and national docum entation on countries efforts to implement SEA systems.Further ackn owledgm ents are due to Professor Christopher Wo od, at Manch ester U niversity,United Kingdom , for his useful comm ents on a previous draft of this article.

ReferencesAustralia, Comm onwealth Environment Protection Agency. 1994 . Review of Com-

monwealth Environmental Impact Assessment-Assessment of Cumulative Im-pactsandStrategicAssessment in EnvironmentalImpact Assessment.Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Barton , Au stralia.

Balfors, B. 199 4. EIA and a General Plan in Sweden: A Case Study. Paper presentedto Nordic EIA Effectiveness Workshop, Tuusu la, Finland. (non-published)

Bregha, F. 199 0. Report on the Workshop on Strengthening the EnvironmentalAssessment ofpolicy. Report prepared fortheCanadianEnvironmenta1 AssessmentResearch Council, Ottawa, Canada.

Bregha, Franqois, Bendickson, Jamie, Gamble, Don, Shillington, Tom, and Weick,Ed. 1990. The Integration of Environmental Considerations into Governm ent Pol-icy, Report prepared for the Canadian Environmental Research Council, Ottawa,Canada.

Canada, CanadianParks Service, OntarioRegion. 199 2. GenericScreeningMethodol-ogy for the Environmental Assessment of Park Mana gement Plans, Prepared byLGL Limited Environmental Research Associates, Ottawa, Canada.

Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEAR O). 1993 . TheEnvironmental Assessment Process for Policy and Program P roposals, Hull, Qu&bet, Canada.

Canada, Project de SociCtC. 1994 . Towards a National SustainabIe D eveIopmentStrategy for Canad a- Canad ian C hoices for Transitions to Sustainability, vol. 5,Ottawa, Canada.


24/25

54 MARIA ROSP ;RIO P ARTIDP ;RIO

Canadian International Developm ent Agency (CIDA). 1993 . Guide to IntegratingEnvironmental Considerations into CZD A Policies and Programs. Prepared byResou rces Future International. Hull, Quebec, Canada.

Dalal-Clayton, B. 1993 . Mod ified EZA and Indicators of Sustainability: First StepsTowards Sustainability Analysis. Environmental Planning Issues. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Developm ent, London.

Denm ark, Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning Departm ent. 1994 . Guid-ance on Proceduresfor Environmental Assessment of Bills and Other Governm entProposals- cf. Administrative Order No. 31, Copenhagen.

Dixon, J. 199 3. EIA in policy and plans: New practice in Ne w Zealand. 13th AnnualConference of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Shanghai,China.

Dixon, J. 1994 . Strategic environmental assessment in New Zealand: A progressreport. 14thAnnualMeetingoftheZnternationalAssociationofZmpactAssessment,Quebec City, Canada.

Dixon, J., and Fooke s, T . 1995 . Environmental assessment in Ne w Zealand: Prospe ctsand practical realities. Australian Journal of Environmental Manag ement 2(2):104-111.

Elling, B . 1994 . Strategic assessment in Denm ark: Som e results and perspectives.14th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, Que-bec City, Canada.

European Union Comm ission. 1994 . Strategic Environmental Assessment - ExistingMethodology. Study prepare d by DH V Environment and Infrastructure BV forDirectorate-Generale for Environment, Nuclear Safety, and Civil Protection, Brus-sels, Belgium.

Goodland, R., andTillman, G. 1995 . StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment-Strength-ening the Environmental Assessment Process, Discussion draft, Washington, DC:The World Bank.

Holtz, S. 1991. Zssuesin theEnvironmentalAssessment ofPolicy:A Research Prospec-tus. Draft paper prepare d for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Resea rchCouncil, Ottawa, Canada.

Lerman,P. 1994.PhysicalplanninglinkedtoEIA:Amethodforprocessingknowledgethat prom otes sustainability and efficient procedu res. Third EU (European Union),Workshop on EZA, methodo logy and research, European Comm ission, DirectorateGeneral XI, Delphi, Greece: 173-176.

Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Ph ysical Planning and Environment. 1989 . Na-tional Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP)- To Choose or to Lose. The Hague,The Netherlands.

Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment. 1990 . Nu-tional Environmental Policy Plan-Plus (NEPP-plus). The Hague, The Nether-lands.

Netherlands, Advisory Comm ittee on the Environmental Test. 1993 . Advisory Reportof the Comm ittee on thelntroduction of an Environmental Testandan Environmen-


25/25

S E A : K E Y I S S U E S F R O M R E C E N T P R A C T I C E 55

tal Paragraph for National Government Policy Proposals. The Hague, The Nether-lands.

Netherlands, General Environmental Policy Division, Directorate for General PolicyAffairs. 1992. NEPP Action Point A 141-Strategy and Progress. The Hague, TheNetherlands.

Partidario, M .R. 1993. Anticipation in environmental assessment: Recent trends atthe policy and planning levels. Impact Assessment 1l( 1):27 - 44.

Partidario, M.R. 1994a. Key Issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Finalreport (unpublished), NATO /FEAR0 research project, Ottawa, Canada.

Partidario, M.R. 1994b. An Annotated Bibliography on Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Final report (unpublished), NA TO/FE AR0 research project, Ottaw a,Canada.

Partidario, M.R . 1995. The contribution of strategic environmental assessment intechnology development. Pape r offered to the NATO Advanced Research Work-shop on Knowledge, Technology Transfer and Forecasting, Budapest, Hungary,October 12-14.

Partidario, M.R . 1996 . SEAregulationsandguidelinesworldwide. InSEA-Learningfrom Practice, R. Therivel and M.R . Partidario (eds). London: Earthscan (in press).

Sadler, B. 1994 . Environmental assessment and development policy-making. In Envi-ronmental Assessment and Development-An ZAZA- World Bank Symposium, R.Goodland and V. Edmundson (eds). Washington, DC : The World Bank.

Therivel, R ., Wilson, E ., Thomp son, S., Heany, D., and Pritchard, D. 1992 . StrategicEnvironmental Assessment, London: Earthscan.

Therivel, R., and Partidario, M .R. 1996. SEA -Learning from Practice, London:Earthscan (in press).

United Kingdom, Cabinet. 1994 . Central government. Cha pter 29 . In SustainableDevelopment: The UKStrategy. London: HM SO (Her Majestys Stationery Office).

United Kingdom, Departm ent of the Environment. 1991 . Pohcy Appraisal and theEnvironment: A Guide for Government Departments. London: HMSO.

United Kingdom, Departm ent of the Environment. 1993 . Environmental Appraisalof Development PIans: A Good Practice Guide. London: HMSO.

United Kingdom, Departm ent of the Environment. 1994 . Environmental Appraisalin Government Departments. London: HMSO.

Veart, S. 1994 . Ne w Zealand status report-challenges for EIA. Emerging trends,issues, and some innovative approa ches. Pape r submitted to the Federal Environ-mental Assessment Review Office. Hull, Quebec, C anada.

Verhe em, R. 1992. Environmental assessment at the strategic level in the Netherlands.Project Appraisal 7(3):150-l 56 .

Wo od, C., and Djeddou r, M. 1992 . Strategic environmental assessment: EA of poli-cies, plans and programmes. Impact Assessment Bulletin 10(1):3-21.

1996_partidario_sea pontos principais que emergem da prática recente

Documents