The emperor's new clothes — Reflections on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.07.004Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper presents the results of research which evaluated the performance of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa in order to develop understanding of how SEA functions within a developing country with a voluntary SEA system. The research applied a combination of methods in a mixed research strategy, including a macro level survey of the SEA system together with case study reviews exploring micro level application. Three main ‘system features’ emerged, namely expansion of voluntary practice, diversity in practice and general ineffectiveness. The results also highlight a number of ‘application features’ such as a lack of focus due to an inability to deal with the concepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘significance’, as well as poor understanding and integration with decision-making processes. Moreover, it emerged that none of the case studies seem to have conducted an ‘assessment’ per se, but rather provided a framework for strategic decision-making. The paper puts forward a number of interrelated explanations for these system and application features. In a parallel to the fable of the ‘emperor's new clothes’, SEA in South Africa appears to be regarded as the answer to all environmental problems, whilst being ineffective in practice.

Introduction

International consensus supports the notion that SEA needs to be developed and refined within particular contexts (Marsden, 1998, Thissen, 2000a, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005). To date, the uptake of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has been greatest within the context of developed countries, and subsequently the majority of research and literature also reflects a developed country perspective. In these countries, SEA has mostly emerged as an extension of existing environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems. Developing countries have been much slower in embracing the concept,3 although progress has been made in recent years (Lee and George, 2000, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005, Schmidt et al., 2005). Funding and donor agency requirements, such as the World Bank safeguard policies, were the main drivers for SEA in these countries. However, there are two main reasons why environmental assessment generally, and SEA specifically, are critically important within developing country contexts.

The first relates to the structure of their economies. Developing countries rely heavily on primary economic activities such as agriculture, tourism and mining. Moreover, a large number of developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, also accommodate subsistence farming communities, which are particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation. This implies that the livelihoods and wellbeing of these countries are directly related to the way they manage their natural resources. Secondly, almost all so-called ‘biodiversity hotspots’, and the majority of pristine environments, are located within developing countries (World Conservation Monitoring Centre — WCMC, 2002). This means that sound environmental management in these countries is not only important from a global biodiversity and conservation perspective, but also in terms of ecosystem services provided and therefore contributes to wider well being in these countries.

South Africa is considered a leading developing country in terms of the evolution of SEA (Therivel and Partidario, 2000, Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005) and a key player in the development of environmental assessment in the African and Southern African Development Community region (Weaver et al., 2002, Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment, 2003, Tarr, 2003). It is also considered as one of the few developing countries to have developed a ‘home grown’ approach and identity for SEA, and SEA practice in South Africa seems to have expanded rapidly (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2000, Rossouw et al., 2000, Retief et al., 2007). Despite this, debates and reflection on the identity of SEA have stagnated recently. The need for SEA, together with its purpose and definition put forward in the SEA guidance, has not been critically reviewed since 2000, and empirical research on the wealth of practice has been very limited. The result is that there is little ongoing understanding of how SEA functions within the South African context. This can be considered a lost opportunity towards gaining a better understanding of SEA within developing countries, and how its evolution might be advanced.

In order to address some of these concerns, the research reported here provides one of the few attempts to gain a better understanding of how, and if, SEA works. A mixed research strategy was utilised which included a general survey to gauge the overall status and extent of SEA practice, as well as more detailed case study reviews on the quality and effectiveness of SEA. This paper first deals with the macro level ‘SEA system’ by highlighting key features and then provides four possible explanations for these features. This is followed by an analysis of the key features of the micro level ‘application of SEA’, for which explanations are also put forward. Each feature and explanation is described and justified based on the triangulation of the survey and case study research results, together with international and South African perspectives on SEA. The strength of each explanation lies in its ability to provide a plausible account, based on the research results from a range of sources, for each one of the relevant system or application features.

Section snippets

Methodology

Empirical research on the performance of SEA is regarded as one of the most important components of any well functioning SEA system (Sadler, 1996, Wood, 2003). Yet, it also proved the most difficult to conceptualise and there has been little empirical research on the subject (Cashmore et al., 2004, Partidario and Fischer, 2004, Sadler, 2004). Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005, p. 367) state that to take SEA forward there is a need to,

…undertake reviews of SEA effectiveness and performance, using a

Macro level — features of the SEA system in South Africa

Analysis of the 50 SEAs conducted during 1996–2003 indicated that the SEA system in South Africa is characterised by three key features, namely, expanding voluntary practice, diversity in practice and ineffectiveness. These are discussed below in the context of the international development of SEA theory and practice, and possible explanations for these key system features are discussed in the following section.

Explanations of SEA system features

The previous section highlights the three main features of the SEA system in South Africa, which raises the question, why would ineffective practice (system feature 3), be expanding (system feature 1), across such a diverse spectrum (system feature 2) within a voluntary SEA system in a developing country context? Four possible explanations are put forward to further elucidate each of the three features. These explanations relate to policy and legislation, the role of the consultancy sector,

Micro level — practical application of SEA in South Africa

The detailed analysis of six case studies from various sectors revealed (amidst the diversity in practice) three key features in the application of SEA in South Africa, namely lack of focus, lack of integration and lack of assessment. These are discussed below, and possible explanations for their occurrence are explored in the following section.

Explanations for SEA application practice features

The three key SEA application features described in the previous section: the lack of focus (application feature 1), lack of integration (application feature 2) and lack of ‘assessment’ (application feature 3), are explained through discussion of two main issues. These comprise the approach to SEA set out in the South African guidance (DEAT, 2000), and the technocratic-rational application of SEA applied in practice.

Conclusion

The various understandings and interpretations of SEA that have arisen internationally have led to SEA becoming something of an enigma to researchers who aim to formulate a common standardised understanding of SEA. However, it is increasingly being recognised that SEA is evolving into different forms according to the different contexts in which it is developed. In this context, the research described in this article illustrates the contribution that performance evaluation can make towards a

Dr. Francois Retief is a senior lecturer in the School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North West University (Potchefstroom Campus), South Africa. He completed his PhD at the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, focusing on the quality and effectiveness of SEA within the South African context. Previously he worked in the private sector as a professional town planner and environmental management consultant.

References (60)

  • Bina O. Re-thinking the purpose of SEA. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Cambridge University. Cambridge...
  • BrownA. et al.

    Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodologies

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (2000)
  • BuckleyR.

    Strategic Environmental Assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (2000)
  • CarattiP. et al.

    Analysing Strategic Environmental Assessment: towards better decision making

    (2004)
  • Carter J. Effect of appraisal procedures on the preparation of structure plans. PhD thesis, School of Environment and...
  • CashmoreM. et al.

    The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (2004)
  • Dalal-ClaytonB. et al.

    Strategic Environmental Assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience

    (2005)
  • Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

    Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in South Africa: Guideline Document

    (2000)
  • DuthieA.

    A review of provincial EIA administrative capacity in South Africa

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (2001)
  • FischerT.

    The theory and practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment

    (2007)
  • FischerT. et al.

    Strategic environmental assessment: effective planning instrument or lost concept?

    Plan Pract Res

    (2002)
  • International Association for Impact Assessment

    Strategic Environmental Assessment Performance Criteria — IAIA Special Publication Series No.1

    (2002)
  • JonesC. et al.

    Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: an international evaluation

    (2005)
  • KornovL. et al.

    Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment

    Impact Assess Proj Appraisal

    (2000)
  • LeeN. et al.

    Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries

    (2000)
  • MarsdenS.

    Importance of context in measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (1998)
  • Morrison-SaundersA. et al.

    Assessing Impact, Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up

    (2004)
  • NilssonM. et al.

    Decision making and strategic environmental assessment

    J Environ Assess Policy Manag

    (2001)
  • NitzT. et al.

    SEA must learn how policy making works

    J Environ Assess Policy Manag

    (2001)
  • NooteboomS.

    Environmental assessment of strategic decisions and project decisions: interactions and benefits

    Impact Assess Proj Apprais

    (2000)
  • Cited by (53)

    • A historical review of the cumulative science in SEA effectiveness

      2020, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
    • The potential contribution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to responsible tourism: The case of the Kruger National Park

      2019, Tourism Management Perspectives
      Citation Excerpt :

      Strategic environmental assessment is another distinct form of EIA that applies at the level of policies, plans and programmes rather than projects, and which has also emerged in response to the perceived limitations of project-level EIA (Sadler & Verheem, 1996; Thérivel, Wilson, Thompson, Heany, & Pritchard, 1992), particularly with respect to managing cumulative impacts (that is, impacts arising from different activities within the same geographic area) (Gunn & Noble, 2009). In South Africa, SIA is typically conducted as a component of regulatory EIA (Aucamp & Lombard, 2018), while SEA is a non-regulatory process sometimes conducted on a discretionary basis (Retief, Jones, & Jay, 2008). A broader literature search showed that all of these various forms of impact assessment have been identified by various authors as having the potential to contribute to sustainable tourism; for example Carvalho Lemos, Fischer, and Souza (2012) review the role of SEA in tourism planning; McCombes, Vanclay, and Evers (2015) look specifically at how SIA can contribute to responsible tourism; the works reported by Spenceley (2005) embraces EIA, SEA, ecological impact assessment and cumulative impact assessment; while Zubair et al. (2011) review EIAs in the context of sustainable tourism.

    • Strategic Environmental Assessment implementation and effectiveness bottlenecks: Lessons from Botswana

      2018, Environmental Development
      Citation Excerpt :

      This status of SEA in Botswana has similarities in other countries, including developed countries. Lack of a legally binding basis resulting in ‘voluntary’ SEA has been experienced in Botswana’s neighbours Namibia (Hipondoka et al., 2016) and South Africa (Retief et al., 2008). Australia, China, Colombia, Egypt and Nepal had similar problems of SEA lacking specific legislation (Table 4).

    • Strategic Environmental Assessment, key issues of its effectiveness. The results of the Speedy Project

      2018, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      The project, launched at the end of 2012, is structured in 7 phases through which the application models, practices, laws, regulations and experiences of the countries involved are compared and a digital platform is used to achieve the overall and specific Project objectives. The experimentation has highlighted the problem areas around the application of SEA, some already present in the literature on the theme (Jones and Scotford, 2017; EC, 2016; João and McLauchlan, 2014; Lobos and Partidário, 2014; OECD, 2012; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012; Bonvoisin, 2011; Therivel, 2010; Weiland, 2010; Retief et al., 2008; Bina, 2007; Persson and Nilsson, 2007, Chaker et al., 2006; Stoeglehner and Wegerer, 2006; Busca et al., 2005; Fabietti, 2005; Fischer, 2003, 2002; Partidario and Clark, 2000; Partidario, 1996, Partidario and Therivel, 1996), other new or specifics of the countries involved in the Project. The latter concern the principles underlying the Directive, but also the scope of action both in terms of approach (how the Directive acts, the methodologies (Brown and Thérivel, 2000)) and in terms of repercussion on other areas of the Assessment (the effects of the Directive on adjacent areas such as the EIA (Abaza et al., 2004; Brown and Thérivel, 2000; Lee and Walsh, 1992), AA, participation (Drazkiewicz et al., 2015; OECD, 2012; Coenen et al., 1998), training (OECD, 2012) or knowledge systems (Di Ludovico, 2017; Weinberger, 2011; Di Ludovico, 2011; Di Ludovico and Properzi, 2005).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Dr. Francois Retief is a senior lecturer in the School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North West University (Potchefstroom Campus), South Africa. He completed his PhD at the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, focusing on the quality and effectiveness of SEA within the South African context. Previously he worked in the private sector as a professional town planner and environmental management consultant.

    1

    Tel.: +44 161 275 6255; fax: +44 161 275 6893.

    2

    Tel.: +44 114 225 3211.

    View full text