Comparing Legislative Mechanisms for Sea Screening and Decision-Making: Austrian and Australian Experiences

Abstract

Austrian and Australian approaches to strategic environmental assessment (SEA) are compared with particular emphasis upon the legal basis for the initial phase of agreement/screening and the final stage of SEA decision-making and implementation. In Austrian SEA, screening is compulsory and the outcome leads only to recommendations, meaning that the SEA results have to be considered, but are not binding for the approval decision. In Australia engagement in SEA is voluntary but the process results in legally binding conditions of approval that can be applied to relevant actions arising from an assessed policy, plan or program; the incentive for proponents to participate voluntarily is that subsequent project level activities may be exempt from further assessment processes. Examples of SEAs are provided to demonstrate the operation of the respective stages in the two countries. In Austria compulsory screening results in a lot of energy being spent avoiding triggering a full SEA. Although Australian proponents have been somewhat cautious in volunteering for SEA of their activities, there are signs that this is changing. We argue that the regulatory framework characteristics are a key determinant of the behaviour of proponents and the competent authority in practice and subsequently of SEA potential and outcomes. Consideration of the construct of the regulatory framework for SEA screening and decisionmaking provides a useful point of reflection for practitioners attempting to understand the effectiveness of SEA processes in a given jurisdiction.

Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case

“…This is a significantly different regulatory approach from strategic assessment conducted in other parts of the world (e.g. within the EU under the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive) (Stoeglehner, Morrison-Saunders et al 2010). The streamlining effect of strategic assessment in Australia is in fact its main raison d'etre, and the reason why it is attractive for potential project proponents such as Woodside to engage with it.…”

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

“…They provide an illustrative snap-shot of SEA practice in selected jurisdictions, but acknowledge that a comprehensive survey of international practice in SEA has not been conducted recently, although Sadler and Dalal-Clayton reviewed the state of practice in the early 2000s (Sadler and Dalal-Clayton, 2005). Practice is known to be highly varied, in terms of application, purpose and quality, especially outside the EU where processes are less clearly mandated, as illustrated by recent reports from Australia (Stoeglehner et al, 2010), Canada (Noble, 2009) and South Africa (Retief et al, 2008).…”

Determining the value and influence of informal strategic advice for environmental impact assessment: Western Australian perspectives

“…For example states such as South Australia and Victoria undertake informal SEA, as explained by Harvey (2002) and Dalal-Clayton (2005) in relation to coastal planning and marina development applications. At the Federal level voluntary SEA processes are also in place, with the first completed SEA on urban growth in Melbourne completed in 2010 (Stoeglehner et al, 2010), however these are relatively new and evaluation of effectiveness as yet to be undertaken.…”