PART D:  STEERING THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) PROCESS

D.1      The strengths of SEA

Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[90]

o        Indirect and cumulative effects are seldom taken into account in impact assessment or decision making in the SADC countries.

o        Many decisions on projects are made in a strategic vacuum.

Important to note:

o        SEAs are best integrated into policy formulation and the planning process, rather than being carried out as a separate exercise or in parallel.

o        SEAs should seek to find the specific policy, plan, programme or other strategic alternative that will best meet the criteria and desired outcomes for sustainable development given in Box C-1.  They should thus strive not only to minimize negative effects, but should look for opportunities to maximising benefits and improve ecosystem services.

D.2      The SEA process

Box D-1:  Critical success factors in the SEA process

o        Involving all the right people in the planning and decision making process early in, and at regular intervals throughout, the SEA process:

- regional representatives and relevant country representatives (where trans-boundary impacts are anticipated);

- competent national authorities responsible for sectors or specific interests that could be affected by the proposed activity;

- the authority responsible for biodiversity conservation;

- interested parties from relevant sectors;

- potentially affected parties (particularly local communities, poor and vulnerable parties); and

- probable beneficiaries. 

It is often useful to establish a forum at the start of the SEA, comprising the key authorities and interested / affected parties, to steer the SEA.

The key competent authorities should commit themselves at the start of the SEA to that SEA process, and to using the results in the planning or policy formulation process and implementation.

o        Using explicit sustainable development criteria and associated desired outcomes as the overarching direction towards which the SEA process should strive (Box C-1).

o        Deciding on a ‘vision’, with explicit goals, objectives, desired outcomes and/or targets of the strategic proposal.  The competent authority/authorities must participate in this exercise.  Unless we have a clear idea of what we want to achieve, we can’t get there.  

o        Determining appropriate time and space boundaries for the SEA.  Some policies, plans or strategies, for example, might have implications for neighbouring countries, the region and or the globe (e.g. trade or transport policies, energy generation strategies, etc.).  The effects of these policies, plans or strategies might be felt almost immediately, or only by future generations (e.g. climate change).  For the purposes of measuring the effectiveness of the strategic activity, clear timeframes are needed.

o        Adopting an ‘ecosystem approach’ that recognizes the inter-dependencies of social and ecological systems, and explores and evaluates the implications of change on these systems against desired outcomes and/or limits of acceptable change (the upper and lower thresholds within which those ecosystems would be resilient to disturbance or change, and beyond which impacts could be irreversible or lead to irreplaceable loss of natural capital).  This exercise needs to take into account possible scenarios that may influence these services.  It is important to note that the key ‘drivers’ of the local economy might be dependent on biodiversity or ecosystem services (e.g. fisheries reliant on healthy water bodies).

o        Identifying the opportunities and resource constraints of the natural environment, to enable the policy, plan, or programme to respect the capacity of the supporting ecosystem services.  That is, the potential constraints that the natural environment places on the proposed activity (e.g. floodlines, dynamic or mobile sand systems, unstable areas, erosion prone soils, etc.) as well as the opportunities it provides (e.g. source of food, fibre, medicines, grazing, flood regulation, water cleansing, etc.), should inform the identification of areas most suitable for specific activities.  Another way of identifying constraints is to explore any factors that may prevent the development vision or objectives from being reached (e.g. shortage of good quality drinking water, unemployment, etc.).  These factors should be prioritized in the SEA process

o        Ensuring that the proposed activity is consistent with ‘the bigger picture’ of protocols, policies, plans, programmes and strategies, as appropriate (Box D-2 gives a hypothetical example).  The strategic informants should include the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, as well as any national or local biodiversity conservation plans.

o        Identifying and evaluating alternatives that could meet the need, purpose and objectives of the proposal.  This process should be continual and iterative throughout the planning / SEA process.

o        Involving the right independent specialists who can address the key issues.  Where appropriate, independent review of specialists’ work should be carried out to check and verify their findings, and ensure that links across disciplines have been made and tracked by relevant specialists (e.g. between ecosystem services, and social and economic factors).

o        Striving to ensure that the full spectrum of environmental costs and benefits, incorporating consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services, is evaluated in an integrated way, adopting an ecosystem approach. 

o        Ensuring that not only the potential negative effects of different alternatives, but also the opportunities presented by each alternative, should be explored to maximise potential benefits.  For example, opportunities for supporting or contributing to the realisation of, amongst others, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, should be sought.

o        Ensuring that ways to mitigate the likely residual effects of the proposed policy, plan or programme (or of the cumulative effects of projects within a sector or geographical area) have been explicitly stated.  Provision should be made for monitoring and feedback loops to allow for adaptive management and continual improvement, as well as for changes to the policy, plan or programme, in response to any ‘alarm bells’ regarding significant negative effects on (amongst others) biodiversity and/or ecosystem services.

o        Providing a robust framework for ‘downstream’ planning, management and impact assessment.

Box D-2:  Proposed policy on biofuels

A national department of energy affairs is considering drafting a policy to increase substantially the use of biofuels and ethanol rather than oil-based fuels.

This policy could have major implications for the expansion of cultivated land, for switching crops from food and fibre to biofuel, with complex effects on health, wellbeing, and use of water, amongst others.

The likely consistency of this policy with policies on land use and agriculture, water use, and biodiversity conservation (amongst others, must be addressed as part of the policy formulation process.

D.3      Governmental co-operation, consultation and co-ordination in the SEA process

Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[92]

o        The environment is too often seen as a ‘stand alone’ sector, rather than a cross-cutting field of relevance to most departments; consultation generally happens only when it is required by law.  Responses to sustainable development challenges need to be integrated across sectors and authorities.

o        Early engagement of stakeholders and the early identification of biodiversity and ecosystem services issues facilitate a ‘best’ solution to sustainable development.

o        An inter-departmental panel or tribunal approach to steering an SEA would have considerable merit, since it would help to integrate a spectrum of interests and promote objectives-led decision making for the shared goal of sustainable development.

D.4      When should an SEA be done, and by whom?

Important to note: Triggers for SEA

Typical triggers from a biodiversity or ecosystem services perspective for an SEA on policies, plans or programmes would include[93]:

o        Proposals that would affect an area known for its important biodiversity (e.g. a centre of endemism, biodiversity hotspot, or identified as a priority in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan) or ecosystem services (see Example below);

o        Proposals known for their potentially significant effects on ecosystem services, either directly (e.g. conversion of land, pollution, resource use (see Examples below,) or indirectly through social and/or micro-economic change (e.g. change in settlement patterns, opening up unspoiled natural areas);

o        Proposals with uncertain indirect effects on ecosystem services (e.g. changes in consumption or land use patterns, changes in trade agreements or policy, changes in technology).

In practical terms, an SEA should be required:

o        Where a particular sector or industry is expanding rapidly, or likely to do so (e.g. in response to incentives or economic climate), and repeated impacts on a range of biodiversity and/or ecosystem services are probable, a strategic environmental assessment should be commissioned with a view to providing a robust framework within which to evaluate future development within that industry or sector.  The time and spatial scales of that SEA must be carefully determined to address the nature and scale of impacts anticipated.

o        Where a particular geographic area is experiencing rapid development of a diverse nature, and/or additive impacts on a range of biodiversity and/or ecosystem services (e.g. water resources, natural habitat such as mangroves for fisheries, proliferation of tourism developments, etc.), a strategic environmental assessment should be commissioned for that area, with a view to providing a robust framework within which to evaluate future development.

o        Where a particular geographic area is experiencing rapid development and/or additive impacts on specific biodiversity and/or ecosystem services (e.g. destruction of offshore reef habitat or coastal dune cordon that protects inland villages), a focused strategic environmental assessment should be commissioned for that area, with a view to providing a robust framework within which to evaluate future development, addressing that specific biodiversity or ecosystem service as a limiting factor for sustainable development.

EXAMPLE:  SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA

Proposed development: The Spatial Development Framework (SDF) for the municipal area gives strategic guidance on the location and nature of development, spatial patterns of land use, and guidelines for land-use management.  The Theewaterskloof Municipality covers an area of almost 326,000km² inland of the South-western Cape coast, about 100km east of Cape Town.  The area has a population of approximately 8,000 people characterised by high levels of unemployment and poverty.  Agricultural production of cereal crops in the low-lying areas forms the main economic base of the area. 

Potential significance of impacts on biodiversity: The area contains important mountain catchments, several public and private nature reserves located predominantly in mountainous areas, a number of relatively large rivers of high biodiversity conservation value, and part of South Africa’s first registered Biosphere Reserve (the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve). 

The impact assessment: The vision, planning principles and objectives for the SDF, were developed through stakeholder participation, and included a duty of care for biodiversity, facilitating spatial development consistent with ecological characteristics, and the sustainable use of natural resources.  Key issues identified by stakeholders were the need for sound management of water, pollution prevention, control of invasive alien organisms, and conservation of their natural heritage. 

The decision and key lesson/s: An approach was taken to arrive at an SDF that reflected both the biodiversity pattern and ecological processes of significance.  The SDF comprised a set of spatial planning categories, each linked to a set of land-use recommendations.  Spatial categories were informed by an analysis of the constraints of the existing environment (e.g. remnants of critically endangered vegetation and important catchments), opportunities for development (e.g. high potential agricultural land, nature-based tourism), and provision for persistence of ecological and evolutionary processes (through creation of ecological corridors along and across gradients at landscape scale).  By adopting this approach, biodiversity pattern and process, as well as key ecosystem services, were safeguarded.

EXAMPLE:  PLANNING WITH BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, SOUTH AFRICA

Two interesting examples from South Africa, using an SEA-type approach, are described below: Systematic Conservation Planning, and a Strategic Catchment Assessment.  Both approaches set clear objectives and/or targets, and/or identify core issues around which the SEA must focus.  Both approaches rely heavily on a core group of key stakeholders to guide the process.

Systematic Conservation Planning[94].  The objectives of systematic conservation planning are to ensure that biodiversity pattern is represented, and that the ecological and evolutionary processes that support that pattern are protected.  It gathers and synthesises spatial data for a range of biodiversity features within a defined geographical area (e.g. habitat transformation, existing protected areas, vegetation or habitat types, areas delivering essential ecosystem services, future land use pressures, etc), and then identifies and evaluates possible options to meet conservation targets.  These conservation targets (for ecosystems, ecosystem services, or species) are set, drawing on scientific information and taking into account the values of stakeholders in the study area.  The best options are determined, allowing areas to be prioritised for biodiversity conservation and for safeguarding ecosystem services.  This information can be used to inform spatial development plans and decision making on land use, to trigger more detailed EIA where priority areas could be affected by development, as well as to guide optimum management of different areas.  It can be undertaken at different spatial scales and levels of detail.

Strategic Catchment Assessment has been carried out in the Umhlathuze municipal area[95].  The objectives were to identify areas that should be protected in view of the value and importance of the environmental goods and services they provide, to identify areas for future development that would have minimum impact on the provision of these goods and services, as well as to identify planning and management controls that would need to be implemented.  Seven strategic sustainability issues were identified (including water supply, sustainable delivery of ecosystem services, air quality and related health, biodiversity conservation, costs of dealing with pollution, etc.)  A landscape assessment of catchment units was carried out to determine those areas that provided essential goods and services.  This study was followed by a status quo assessment of these areas to determine which areas were in good, moderate or poor condition with regard to their ability to meet demands on them for ecosystem services, and the associated opportunities and constraints to development. 

Important to note:

Decision makers need to monitor development patterns and trends in order to identify either geographic areas or sectors in which cumulative effects could be significant.  Some form of ‘watching brief’ of effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services by the authority or agency responsible for the natural environment is important in this respect.

Important to note:

SEAs should be undertaken by certified and independent environmental practitioners and specialists, to provide assurance of the quality of work.

D.5      What questions do we want answered, and what information do we expect from an SEA?

Box D-3:  Key questions to be answered in the SEA process

• Is the proposed activity consistent with existing protocols, policies, plans and/or programmes, as relevant?
• What are the reasonable alternatives that could meet the stated need for, purpose and desired outcomes of the policy or planning process?
• What are the probable effects – direct, indirect and cumulative - on biodiversity pattern and process of the different alternatives?
• What are the probable effects on ecosystem services (in the context of human wellbeing, livelihoods, and the resilience of society in general and vulnerable communities in particular) of the different alternatives?
• What are the probable effects of the different alternatives on social justice and equity, with regard to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services?
• What mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant negative effects associated with each alternative, and how feasible and effective are they likely to be?
• What is the capacity of the competent government institutions to monitor and enforce compliance with laws, regulations, standards and/or conditions, where the chances of the policy, plan or programme satisfying the criteria and meeting the desired outcomes of sustainable development (Box C-1) rely on that capacity?
• What levels of uncertainty and risk of significant impacts are associated with different alternatives?
• What are the opportunity costs associated with different alternatives?
• What potential opportunities are there for different alternatives to act as a catalyst for sustainable development, through direct, indirect, induced and/or cumulative effects in the short- to long-term?
• Which of the alternatives best meets the criteria and desired outcomes of sustainable development given in Box C-1?
• What are the recommendations for monitoring and the use of indicators during implementation, and do the responsible parties have sufficient capacity to carry out that monitoring?
• Is sufficient provision made for ‘feedback loops’ after implementation, to allow for corrective action or appropriate changes?
• What, if any, recommendations are there for additional surveys or studies, as appropriate, to inform optimum implementation?  Do the responsible authorities/agencies have sufficient capacity to finance or undertake these surveys or studies?
• What is the ‘framework’ within which subsequent EIAs should be undertaken that fall within the ambit of the SEA?  Guidance should be given on the triggers for EIA, parameters for optimising potential benefits and avoiding or minimizing risks and potentially significant negative impacts, where appropriate, and significance thresholds or limits of acceptable change.

D.6      What to look for when reviewing SEA

D.7      Decision-making criteria

 

Hot tips!

§         Call for SEA where a proposed policy, plan or programme could affect landscapes and ecosystems that are known for their unique or important biodiversity, and/or for valued ecosystem services.

§         Call for SEA where there is a risk of cumulative impacts of projects in a particular sector, or of projects in a particular geographical area, having a significant effect on biodiversity or ecosystem services.

§         Ensure that the SEA is integrated into the planning process from the start, not done as an afterthought!

§         You need to know where you’re trying to go in order to get there!  Deciding on a vision, desired outcomes, clear objectives and/or targets is essential to SEA.

§         Make sure that you consider carefully the links between natural systems and socio-economic systems, so that the SEA protects those ecosystems that provide important services that promote human wellbeing.

§         Build strong partnerships with other authorities, agencies and other key stakeholders in steering an SEA.

§         Use the decision criteria and desired outcomes (Box C-1) as a constant guide.

---