1. SEA Process and
International System
Development
March 2014
Cedric Guo
Charles Clark
Colin Dykes
James Noakes
Jamie Lynch
Juan Ospina-Lopez
Lorna Meek
Samuel Nwogbo
Shahadat Hossain Shakil

2. 1. The extent to which SEA has become a
central component of national decision-
making
2. Identification of gaps between SEA
theory and practice
Aims

3. England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Countries

4. First aim divided in the following topics:
◦Mandatory and applicable to all sectors?
◦Clear process/procedure?
◦Best practice guidance available?
◦Does SEA influence decision making?
Second aim divided in the following topics:
◦Proactive or reactive?
◦What PPP level?
◦Who is conducting SEA? Same as who is creating
PPP?
Alternative revision under IAIA performance
criteria.
Results will be presented in colour code:
Colour Result
SEA system meet the criteria
Some aspects of the SEA system do not meet the criteria
SEA system does not meet the criteria
Methodology

5. Mandatory and applicable to all sectors?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
Mandatory? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
All sectors? Some
sectors
Some
sectors
Some
sectors
Yes Only
fisheries
Yes Some
sectors
No No

6. Clear process/procedure?
Best practice guidance available?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
Process /
procedure?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Best practice
guideline?
Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
Yes

7. Does SEA influence decision-making?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
Influence
decision
making?
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent

8. Proactive or reactive?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
Proactive
or
reactive?
Generally
proactive
Proactive Trying to
be
proactive
Proactive Trying to
be
proactive
Trying to
be
proactive
Trying to
be
proactive
Trying to
be
proactive
Trying to
be
proactive

9. What PPP level?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
PPP
level
Plans and
Progs.
Plans and
Progs.
Plans and
Progs.
Policy,
Plans and
Progs.
Mainly Plans
and Progs., but
provision for
Policy also
Policy,
Plans and
Progs.
Plans and
Progs.
Policy,
Plans and
Progs.
Limited but
considered
to an
extent in
all.

10. Who is conducting SEA? Same as who is creating
PPP?
England
France
Australia
Canada
Colombia
China
South Africa
Republic
of Ireland
Netherlands
Topic
areas
Eng Fra Ire Net Aus Can Chi Col SA
Who is
conducting
SEA?
Same as who
is creating the
PPP?
Largely local
authority.
Increasing
external
consultants
post-
directive.
External
body
Yes unless
external
consultant is
employed by
authority
Separate
authorities
and process
oversight by
independent
committees
Yes Yes, the
associated
dept (1 of 3)
Same
compiling
the plan is
responsible
verification
Mainly
Ministry
of Env.
Public
sector
Yes

11. IAIA performance criteria
Topic areas England France Ireland Netherland Australia Canada China Colombia
South
Africa
Integrated? Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Partially
yes
Partially Somewhat
Sustainability-
led?
Yes- though
not always
well defined
Partially Not really Yes Focused on
ESD not
alternatives
Yes No Focused in
Env. issues
Not really
Focused? To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
Not really
Accountable? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes To some
extent
No Yes To some
extent
Participative? Yes though
not always
effective
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes -
Public
participatio
n limited
Limited
Iterative? Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
Yes To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
To some
extent
Limited
experience

12. SEA mainly voluntary. Legislation is still evolving.
Canada and Netherland apply SEA to all sectors.
South Africa least developed SEA in terms of
provision and coverage.
Basic guideline developed in all countries. Netherland
and England leading countries in terms of legislation
and guidance.
SEA truly influence decision making only in
Netherland. SEA still considered as a routine
procedure with less weight than economic and social
factors during decision making processes.
Netherlands has the least gaps between theory and
practice.
China and Ireland failed to fulfil completely any
criteria.
Prevalent gap across countries: SEA being carried out
by the same organisation as is creating the PPP.
Conclusion

13. References
European Commission (2009) Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA
Directive (2001/42/EC), Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf, Accessed 16
March 2014
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2004) Assessment and Decision Making for Sustainable
Transport, Paris: OECD Publications Service
European Environment Agency (2004) Implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the
transport sector, Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/implementation-of-
strategic-environmental-assessment, Accessed 25 February 2014
Dalal-Clayton B and Sadler Barry,(1999), Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Rapidly Evolving
Approach Environmental Planning Issues Number 18, International Institute for Environment and
Development( IIED),London.
Partidario M.R, (2003), Strategic Environmental Assessment -Current Practices, Future demands and
Capacity-Building Needs, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) IAIA’03 Pre-Meeting
Training Course, Lisbon.
Marsden S,(1999), Legislative EA in the Netherlands-The E-Test as a strategic and Integrative Instrument,
European Environment. 9, 90–100
Verheem R and Tonk J, (1998), Present status of SEA in The Netherlands-Background paper for the 1998
Japan International Workshop on SEA.
NCEA, (2011), Factsheets on Environmental Assessment, Netherlands Commission for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) http://www.eia.nl/en Accessed on 15/03/2014.
https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/series10_strategic_environmental_assessment.pdf
Alfonso-Piña (2010). Las posibilidades de la Evaluación Estratégica Ambiental (EAE) integrada: elementos
para la reflexión sobre la sostenibilidad urbana en Colombia. Desafíos – Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá.
22 (2). Pp. 181-237.
Gómez, J. (2010). La EAE en Colombia: su adopción, criterios para la estructuración de su procedimiento
administrativo y su aplicación a los planes de ordenamiento territorial. Revista Científica, Bogotá DC. 12
(xx). Pp. 48-62
OECD (2006). Appliying Strategic Environmental Assessment: Good practice guidance for Development Co-
operatio.
Guevara, G., (2014). Evaluación ambiental estratégica para cuencas prioritarias de los Andes colombianos:
dilemas, desafíos y necesidades. Acta biol. Colomb. 2014. 19(1). Pp 11-24.
Inter-American Development Bank (2002) SÍNTESIS DEL ESTUDIO DE INSERCIÓN DE LA GESTIÓN
AMBIENTAL EN LAS POLÍTICAS SECTORIALES: El caso de la industria y energía en Colombia

14. References
Departamento Nacional de Planeación – DNP (2006). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2006 – 2010. Bogotá DC.,
Colombia.
The World Bank – WB (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment in the World Bank: Learning from
recent experience and challenges. Washington, DC.
WB (2005). Integrating Environmental Considerations in Policy Formulation: Lessons from Policy-Based SEA
Experience. Washington, DC.
Inter-American Development Bank – IDB (2012). Redwood, J., Managing the Environmental and Social
Impacts of Major IDB-Financed Road Improvement Project in Colombia: The Case of the Pasto-Mocoa
Highway.
Bina, O. (2008) Context and Systems: Thinking more broadly about Effectiveness in Strategic
Environmental Assessment in China. Environmental Management, 42, p. 717-733.
Bina, O., Wu, J., Brown, L. and Partidário, M. R. (2011) An Inquiry into the Concept of SEA Effectiveness:
Towards Criteria for Chinese Practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, p. 572-581.
He, J., Sun, S., Bao, C., Chen, F. and Jiang, D. (2011) Experts’ Perspective on the Performance of Chinese
Technical Guidelines for Plan Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 31, p. 587-592.
IAIA, (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment Performance Criteria. [online] Available at:
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/sp1.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2014].
Lam, K., Chen, Y. and Wu., J. (2009) Strategic Environmental Assessment in China: Opportunities, Issues
and Challenges. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(4), p. 369-385.
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP), (2009). The Regulations for
Plan Environmental Impact Assessment (in Chinese). [online] Available at:
http://zfs.mep.gov.cn/fg/xzhg/200908/t20090825_158090.htm [ Accessed 13 March 2014].
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP), (2003). Technical Guidelines
for Plan Environmental Impact Assessment (on trial). [online] Available at:
http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/hjbhbz/bzwb/other/pjjsdz/200309/W020110127326292205745.pdf [Accessed 13
March 2014].
National People’s Congress of People’s Republic of China (NPC), (2003). The Law for Environmental Impact
Assessment of People’s Republic of China (in Chinese). [online] Available at:
http://zfs.mep.gov.cn/fl/200210/t20021028_84000.htm [Accessed 13 March 2014].
Wu, J., Chang, I., Bina, O., Lam, K. and Xu, H. (2011) Strategic Environmental Assessment Implementation
in China – Five Years Review and Prospects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, p. 77-84.
Zhu, D. and Ru, J. (2008) Strategic Environmental Assessment in China: Motivations, Politics, and
Effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, p. 615-626.

15. References
Ashe, J. and Marsden, S. (2011). SEA in Australia. In B. Sadler et al., eds. Handbook of
Strategic Environmental Assessment. Oxfordshire, UK: Earthscan, pp. 21–35.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013a). A
Guide to Undertaking Strategic Assessments. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013b).
Strategic Assessment Prospectus. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Marsden, S. (2013). Protecting Heritage on Australia’s Coasts: A Role for Strategic
Environmental Assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,
15(03), p.1350014 (21 pages).
Marsden, S. and Ashe, J. (2006). Strategic Environmental Assessment Legislation in
Australian States and Territories. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management,
13(4), pp.205–215.
Therivel, R., Walsh, F., 2006. The strategic environmental assessment directive in the UK:
1 year onwards. Environmental impact assessment review, 26 (7). pp- 663-675.
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly
Government, and Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, 2006. A Practical
Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government), 2010. Towards a more
efficient and effective use of strategic environmental assessment and sustainability
appraisal in spatial planning: summary.
EPA (2012) review of effectiveness of SEA in Ireland
EPA (2012) SEA effectiveness review in Ireland: Action plan 2012-2016
Noble, B. F. (2009). Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assessment
systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(1), 66-75.
Noble, B. F. (2003). Auditing strategic environmental assessment practice in Canada.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(02), 127-147.
CEAA (2010) Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and
Program Proposals.