Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Scottish Government SEA Pathfinder Project: Practical Implementation and recommendations for good-practice

Following implementation of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act (2005), the then Scottish Executive commissioned a high-profile and foresighted piece of research that would examine emerging Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice in Scotland with a view to informing and shaping future SEA policy in Scotland. In this article, Peter Phillips (EnviroCentre Ltd) and William Sheate (Collingwood Environmental Planning) describe the novel approach taken to the research and outline some of the key issues and recommendations that have emerged. 

Background to SEA in Scotland and the SEA Pathfinder Project
The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act (2005) came into force in February 2006, repealing the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations (2004). This Act, in itself, reflected a commitment at the time by Scottish Ministers to the environmental agenda in Scotland. Through Section 5(4), the Scottish SEA Act broadens the scope of European and UK SEA law to include all ‘plans and programmes’ (i.e. over and above those prepared for certain sectors, those that set the framework for future development consent of EIA Directive Annex I or II projects and those that require assessment in line with Articles 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive) deemed likely to have significant effects. In practice, Section 5(4) extends the scope of European and UK SEA law by capturing policies, strategies, legislation and some guidance documents (e.g. supplementary planning guidance) with significant environmental effects (referred to collectively as plans, programmes and strategies or PPSs). 

Given this significantly different approach to SEA policy from the rest of the UK, Scottish Ministers made a commitment to support the introduction of SEA and assist in building the capacity of the Responsible Authorities (RAs). This commitment was to be taken forward through day to day support and advice provided by the SEA Gateway and initiatives including the SEA Pathfinder Project and Scottish SEA Guidance and templates . 

SEA Pathfinder Project – Research Approach
The overall aim of the project was to examine Scottish SEA practice, identify emerging SEA implementation issues and develop potential good-practice recommendations. This aim drove the development of two key elements of the approach:

• Identification of volunteer Scottish SEA case studies; and
• Development of a consistent approach for evaluating case study SEA processes.

Seven Scottish RAs volunteered and were invited to participate, representing diverse SEA case studies across a wide range of PPSs and at a range of different scales (i.e. national level strategies to local level plans):

• Cairngorms National Park Authority – National Park Plan;
• Forestry Commission Scotland – Scottish Forestry Strategy;
• Fife Council – Local Biodiversity Action Plan;
• Orkney Islands Council – Community Plan;
• South Ayrshire Council – Core Paths Plan;
• West Dunbartonshire Council – Local Plan; and
• West Lothian Council – Local Transport Strategy.

The second element involved the development of a consistent evaluation approach to help ensure that information from the case studies could be captured and evaluated in a meaningful way. A key part of the research ethos was the concept of a participatory approach to project completion. This concept was taken onboard early on in the project through a highly collaborative approach to the development of an SEA Pathfinder ‘Evaluation Framework’. Initial development of the framework was informed by an extensive literature review and the experience of the project team. Subsequent development was undertaken in stages with individual elements subject to testing and approval by the project Steering Group (composed of key Scottish SEA stakeholders including Scottish Government, statutory Consultation Authorities, NHS and CoSLA ) and in regular Research Coordination Group (RCG) Meetings, which included the case study participants. Once approved, the finalised framework constituted a comprehensive and consistent approach for evaluating case study SEA processes. Among other elements it included:

• Bespoke Responsible Authority Evaluation Pro-Formas (facilitated case study self evaluation of approach at discrete stages of SEA);
• Scoping and Environmental Report ‘quality review’;
• Evaluation of Consultation Authority Response and Comments to consultation on Screening, Scoping and Environmental Reports;
• Ad hoc and formal interviews/ discussions with Responsible Authorities; and
• Research Coordination Group (RCG) & Steering Group meetings.

As the primary source of data, the case studies formed the basis of the project through the ‘real time’ tracking of their individual SEA and PPS-development processes. Given the longitudinal nature of the research (reinforced by PPS-development and SEA being linear processes to a degree), the process of applying individual elements of the evaluation framework to case study SEA processes was dictated by the progress of individual case studies. Throughout the duration of the project, regular RCG meetings were held to consider different stages of SEA e.g. Screening, assessment and preparation of Environmental Report etc. Attended by the Steering Group and case studies, the RCG meetings provided a forum for debating issues arising at each stage of SEA and identifying potential good-practice recommendations. Novel workshop approaches were often used to help focus debate at RCG meetings and to help sift out the most significant issues and the most practical recommendations.

Over the course of some three years, the evaluation framework produced a wealth of information for analysis. To make sense of the large volume of data generated, the issues emerging were mapped using a network analysis or complex mapping approach to aid understanding of the interactions and interdependencies of the issues raised. The information was reviewed during staged analysis to generate ‘maps’ (causal chains) of key issues on the basis of the evidence emerging from the evaluation framework components. The process of describing the potential linkages and interactions using this mapping process helped to identify further issues and interactions. The initial mapping of issues arising from the case study research helped to identify larger clusters of issues from which more refined good-practice recommendations began to emerge.

Scottish SEA practice – key issues
Throughout the duration of the project, the evaluation framework helped to capture and identify a broad range of SEA issues occurring in practice. In particular, the RCG meetings provided a forum of expertise and context for sifting out the most pertinent issues. The final evaluative interviews with the case studies were particularly valuable in being able to reflect back on the whole SEA process and allow the case studies themselves to consider how they approached the SEA and to identify where or how they might have done things differently, as well as suggest their own ideas for improving SEA more generally. 

In order to make sense of the wide ranging issues identified, similar issues were grouped and categorised. This approach helped to facilitate more useful discussions around the issues and enabled interrelationships between issues (and later the good-practice recommendations) to be discussed and explored more transparently within the Steering Group and wider RCG. Table 1 lists the issue categories and provides some example issues.

 

Table 1

Issue category	Example issue(s)
1. Undertaking SEA tasks as part of PPS-development process	Lack of recognition of what are SEA activities within existing plan-development process Scope for improving co-ordination between PPS developers
2. Integration of PPS-development and SEA processes	Opportunities to reduce duplication of effort between PPS and SEA processes
3. Communicating the SEA process	The outputs of SEA can be difficult to understand
4. Mitigation and monitoring.	Need for fuller assurance that mitigation/ enhancement measures prescribed in higher level SEAs are being implemented in the required lower level PPS and SEAs
5. Resources for SEA	Lack of personnel with the appropriate skills and experience in some authorities Scope to improve pre-planning and creative thinking about allocation of resources
6. Flexibility in approach	Toolkit erroneously perceived as requiring a set, formal template approach for compliance
7. Institutional stakeholders	Scope for improved strategic overview of SEA requirements and framework within SEA team and/ or organisations Opportunities for clearer and more logical tiering or consolidations of SEA assessments within PPS or between PPSs; including monitoring
8. Compliance	Continuing lack of awareness of the relevance of SEA and its statutory requirements

 

Given the scope of the project and the infancy of Scottish SEA implementation, the types of issues identified were mainly related to procedural matters and compliance. So, for example, separate screening of individual PPSs on a case by case basis invariably means that few authorities had developed strategic view across the range of PPSs produced to understand how they might relate to each other and how and where SEA will be needed. Such ‘strategic screening’ as we call it, could make a real difference to perceived value and actual effectiveness of SEA in influencing PPSs. 

At the time, it was too early for the project to try to establish whether or not SEA was making a difference in terms of environmental protection and enhancement (e.g. within the timescales of the project, none of the case studies reached Post-adoption stages of SEA). Future research might consider sectoral performance of SEA and examine the state and trends in Scotland’s environment in the context of Scottish SEA work undertaken to date (e.g. significant environmental effects identified, aspects of the environment likely to be affected, SEA monitoring plans etc).

Scottish SEA practice – key recommendations
Similarly to the process for identifying SEA implementation issues, a refined list of SEA good-practice recommendations was developed by grouping potential recommendations into categories and sub-categories. In particular, recommendations were developed to address specific issues or groups of issues already identified through the evaluation framework and RCG meetings and workshops. Particular examples of good-practice approaches observed in the case study SEA processes were integrated into the recommendations where appropriate. Following on from an initial mapping of recommendation categories, their inter-relatedness was explored to help identify potential synergies, conflicts, areas of overlaps and further good-practice recommendations. The recommendation categories and sub-categories are listed in Table 2; in all 94 good practice recommendations were made within these categories.

Table 2

Recommendation categories

1 SEA & PPS-development processes

1.1 Clarifying the purpose of the PPS for SEA

1.2 Integrating the development of PPS & SEA

2 Frameworks for SEA implementation

2.1 Integrating SEA with other assessment processes

2.2 Integrating SEA with wider policy aims

2.3 Planning for SEA resource requirementsÂ

2.4 Better working within institutions to facilitate SEA good-practice

3 Good-practice in SEA process

3.1 Appropriate approaches to SEA process

3.2 Communicating SEA purpose, requirements and findings

3.3 Delivering the outcomes of SEA

3.4 Good-practice assurance in SEA

4 Good-practice in assessment

4.1 Establish procedures to identify and encourage good-practice in SEA

4.2 Flexible and adaptable approaches for legislative complianceÂ

4.3  Appropriate methodologies for SEA

4.4 Useful assessment at an appropriate level of detail

5 Good-practice in public participation

5.1 Management of engagement and consultation processes

5.2 Approaches for effective engagement & consultation

6 Developing good-practice

6.1 Awareness-raising

Conclusions
In terms of the SEA implementation issues identified during the project, the overarching finding from the research was that, whilst the representative sample of Responsible Authorities studied had demonstrated some aspects of good-practice, the consistency with which significant issues were observed meant that, overall, there remains scope to improve the standard of SEA practice. Given that SEA implementation in Scotland was still in its infancy at the time the case studies commenced, this is perhaps not surprising and mirrors some of the issues experienced with implementation of the EIA Directive. It is also important to recognise the experience of SEA in Scotland has grown rapidly in recent years, and so many of the issues identified from these case studies have already been overtaken by improved capacity and expertise within responsible authorities.  However, many of the key points raised nevertheless remain valid.  There are many complex and highly interrelated reasons for the issues observed and indeed they are not the responsibility of a single group of SEA actors in Scotland.  

The research, then, provided a suite of recommendations to help authorities and practitioners develop and improve SEA implementation – practical measures that can improve both process and methodologies for SEA. However, an important element of the Pathfinder research was also to establish a basis for prioritising where action is needed by the Scottish Government and other actors to help facilitate the delivery of the good practice recommendations.  Recommendations for action were also developed, based on five key clusters of issues (or ‘nodes’) identified through the mapping process, and refined collaboratively through the RCG process, essentially:-

• Integration of PPS and SEA;
• Participation and engagement;
• Resources;
• Methodologies; and
• Process and governance.

The Scottish Government is therefore currently considering the findings and identifying how the most important recommendations can be taken forward. The intention is to publish a summary of the findings and the priorities for future action later in 2009, linking further capacity building measures with the recent expansion of the Scottish Government’s SEA team.

 

Authors:

Peter Phillips AIEMA
Environmental Policy Consultant, EnviroCentre Ltd, Glasgow.

William Sheate
Associate, Collingwood Environmental Planning, London, and Reader in Environmental Assessment, Imperial College London.