Policy SEA: lessons from development co-operation

Abstract

This professional practice report reflects upon lessons learned from piloting and evaluating an innovative approach to policy strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in developing countries. The primary analytical focuses of the approach are institutions and governance characteristics, plus it places strong emphasis on learning. The piloting provides valuable insights about the conduct of SEA at the policy level and in socio-political where there is limited experience with SEA. From our observations we reflect upon the importance of appropriate ownership of an SEA; the practical implications of working in contested political environments; the challenges in using SEA as a tool to promote good governance; and the centrality of a long-term perspective to environmental and social mainstreaming.

Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation

“…The stated purpose of sustainability assessment may influence the perceived and real "ownership" of the process in a development cooperation context [42], and resonates with the more general question on the purpose of sustainability assessment effectiveness criteria which can be prescriptive or descriptive. Decision-making is a messy process subject to many influences [30], and the information generated by a sustainability assessment is only one of many factors influencing the final decision.…”

Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: adapting practice and participation in Kenya

“…Reviews of SEA practice have generally focused on the key steps or ideal conditions for SEA (Jha Thakur et al 2009;Axelsson et al 2012), on outcomes such as the what others have done, the Kenyan framework should build on its own experiences, learn by doing, and be inspired by local needs and evidence-based information to evolve into a value-added SEA tool that meets Kenya's sustainable societal needs' . This 'made in Kenya' approach provides the focus for our paper, particularly as it relates to public participation in SEA.…”

“…sustainable resource management in these sectors (Slunge & loayza 2012). More specifically, we examine these three attributes in terms of learning for improved governance (White & Noble 2013), evidence of SEA having altered a proposed policy, program or plan (Eales & Sheate 2011;Axelsson et al 2012), and whether monitoring and evaluation plans are in place (Gachechiladze-Bozhesku 2012).…”

“…Effective SEA requires transparency, accountability and good governance (Table 1) (IAIA 2002;Ahmed & Sánchez-Triana 2008;Jha Thakur et al 2009;Cashmore et al 2010;Axelsson et al 2012;de Jong et al 2012). Intangible, hard to measure, and often elusive, these attributes are nevertheless critical for an integral SEA process, meaningful outcomes, and influential links to decision-making.…”

Exploring the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process behaviour using sensitivity analysis

“…Whilst SEA has to date received increased attention in its theory and practice (see Bina et al 2011;Fischer & Onyango 2012;Pope et al 2013;caschili et al 2014;Lobos & Partidario 2014), the oft-repeated definitional claim that SEA is a systematic process (cEc 2003;OdPM 2005) remains relatively unresearched. This is exacerbated by observations that theory in SEA is ahead of practice (Kagston & Richardson 2015), highlighting a mismatch between assumptions and reality in SEA (Axelsson et al 2012;Lobos & Partidario 2014). Some scholars have argued that a lack of solid SEA theories and scientific rigour stems from the weak theoretical foundations of EIA out of which SEA emerged (Bartlett & Kurian 1999;Lawrence 2003).…”