Paper presented at symposium, SEA Implementazion and practive: Making an Impact? International Association for Impact Assessment, II Special Conference on SEA Prague, 21-23 September, 2011

1. MAKING AN IMPACT?
SPECIAL CONFERENCE ON STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
IAIA SEA PRAGUE II 2011
THEME 11 SEA FOR POLICY-MAKING - LESSONS FROM EUROPE AND INTERNATIONALLY
SESSION 11.2: HOW CAN POLICY SEA CONTRIBUTE TO GREENING GOVERNANCE?
COOPERATION IN SEA IN A
DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE
SYSTEM
Alessandro Bonifazi (Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy)
&
Carlo Rega (Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy)
21-23 September 2011
22/09/2011
Prague, Czech Republic

2.  Research Design
 Conceptual Background and Research Questions
 Information about the Context
 Methodology
 Discussion of key issues
 What is the procedural and substantial nature of institutional
cooperation in SEA?
 How is institutional cooperation in SEA interfering with the
environmental governance dynamics embedded in the existing
planning systems?
 What are the outcomes of institutional cooperation in SEA?
 Conclusions and Future developments
1/14 Overview of the presentation

3.  Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) aims to insinuate
ecological rationalities into systems of governance (Bina, 2007)
 In real SEA processes:
 issues are controversial (on scientific, epistemological and ethical
grounds);
 social and environmental aspects are intertwined; and
 no single player is empowered with full decision‐making power
(Bartlett and Kurian, 1999; Nilsson and Dalkmann, 2001; Nitz and
Brown, 2001; Nooteboom and Teisman, 2003; Runhaar and
Driessen, 2007)
 Institutional cooperation and public participation are allegedly
distinctive of SEA when compared to other forms of environmental
assessment
2/14 Research Design: Conceptual Background

4.  Is the implementation of the SEA-Directive in Italy
contributing to fostering institutional cooperation between
planning and environmental authorities?
 What is the procedural and substantial nature of
institutional cooperation in SEA?
 How is institutional cooperation in SEA interfering
with the environmental governance dynamics embedded
in the existing planning systems?
 What are the outcomes of institutional cooperation
in SEA?
3/14 Research Design: Conceptual Background

5. Competent
Authority SR= Scoping Report
RO= Reasoned Opinion
SR RO SEA= Strategic
SEA Environmental Assessment
Planning Environ. ER= Environmental Report
Authority ER Authorities
Highly
decentralised
ITALY: lagging planning (some) REGIONS
behind
system and forerunners
environmental policy
distributed (planning innovation)
innovation
environmental
governance
2/18 Research Design: Context

6.  Desktop analysis of regional SEA systems in
Italy, against the background of evolving national legislation
 30 semi‐structured interviews with key SEA players in
Italy (7 planners, 9 evaluators, and 14 civil servants in local
and environmental authorities), covering also institutional
cooperation
a dedicated questionnaire survey - only pilot study
completed so far: 15 respondents (similar distribution of
roles as above), 10 regions covered (only 3 with at least
three respondents), 150+ SEA processes considered, mainly
in the spatial planning sector
5/14 Research Design: Methodology

7.  24 different (types of) environmental authorities
reported, but only 6 more prominent (Environment
Protection, Health, Protected Area
Management, Government Departments of Planning and of
Environment, and bordering Local Authorities, plus Water
Catchment Management Authorities in Southern regions)
 Bilateral (technical) meetings and multilateral “ad hoc”
decision bodies, together with trans-organizational informal
interactions are considered the most effective methods to
foster cooperation
Knowledge sharing is clearly the main contribution from
environmental authorities, followed by decision support (on
both SEA and planning processes)
6/14 Key Issue 1: What Institutional Cooperation?

8.  As for the nature and modes of institutional
interactions, it appears to be:
 informative > consultative >> codecisional >>
implementation-oriented
 cooperative > negotiative >> competitive >>
conflicting
7/14 Key Issue 1: What Institutional Cooperation?

9. *
*
Government level where the CA for SEA of municipal spatial plans is established
8/14 Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

10. SEA may play a key role under alternative governance arrangements, by altering
the distribution of roles and powers
PIEDMONT (IT) * CAMPANIA (IT) ENGLAND (UK)
Regional Gov. / Provincial Regional Government National Planning
Gov. / Municipal Gov. Inspectorate
SEA Reasoned
checked Opinion plan and
draft plan plan ER
Provincial
Gov. Binding report
Municipality covering all
ER
planning issues
including SEA
SEA Reasoned
ER
Opinion draft plan
Local
Municipal Technical Authority
Municipality
Body
9/14 Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

11.  Despite it is a “Reasoned Opinion”, the final SEA
statement includes mainly binding prescriptions concerning
both the SEA process as reflected in the ER and the
plan, but these are very seldom of a strategic nature
 the introduction of SEA arrangements (in the opinion of
respondents):
 had no significant impact on power distribution
within multilevel governance relationships ,
 resulted in a greater need of coordination among the
many authorities involved, and
 might raise the status of environmental authorities
which were not in charge of issuing binding opinions
10/14 Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

12.  The most relevant outcomes in terms of pursuing high
policy objectives seem to be:
 increased transparency and accountability
 greater integration of environmental considerations in plan-
making, whereas
 a poor contribution is made to streamlining procedures and
reducing time and cost burdens
 Some environmental policy sectors are being better
integrated in planning through institutional cooperation in
SEA, including:
 SOIL PROTECTION (in terms of hydro-geological risk rather
than land use and urban sprawl)
 BIODIVERSITY
 LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
11/14 Key Issue 3: Outcomes of Cooperation

13.  Although all suggested items were deemed relevant, the
most important LIMITING FACTORS for INSTITUTIONAL
COOPERATION in SEA seem to be:
 HIGHLY FRAGMENTED environmental governance systems
 LACK OF ADEQUATE RESOURCES (human and
financial), especially for local authorities
 POOR ADAPTATION on the side of environmental authorities
to the PARADIGM SHIFTS centred on cooperation, both in
environmental assessment (from control to collaborative
planning) and in planning (from government to governance)
12/14 Key Issue 3: Outcomes of Cooperation

14.  The preliminary results (which will need to be reconsidered once the
study is completed) suggest that no SEA player is able to trigger
significant improvements :
 LOCAL AUTHORITIES are caught in between DECREASING
FINANCIAL ENDOWMENTS and increasing environmental
responsibilities (Bobbio, 2002; Owen et al., 2007).
 PRACTITIONERS (Planners and Evaluators) operate in SHRINKING
MARKETS and are bound to loyalty to commissioners (Dahler-
Larsen, 2006).
 ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES enjoy very different working
conditions in terms of the strength of (and public support for)
their institutional mandates
 Socio-economic dynamics at macro level (e.g. the erosion of local
authorities’ financial capacity to deliver public policy) affecting
institutional cooperation and the momentum of SEA at large are
beyond the scope of our reflections, however…
13/14 Conclusions and Future Developments

15. … to prevent SEA from being perceived as excess administrative
burden, serving purely conservationist goals and trapped into power
games within multilevel governance dynamics, we would argue for:
 better integration into planning systems, irrespective of whatever
governance arrangements is in place
 SEA capacity-building within environmental authorities (training in
planning and evaluation; negotiating the overlaps and interconnections
of tasks and expertise);
 resorting extensively to ICT-based tools for institutional
cooperation, by tapping into the “Digital Administration Code” agenda
and related funding initiatives
 focusing scarce resources on truly strategic policies (e.g. the
introduction of environmentally harmful subsidies in the energy sector)
and away from micro interventions currently falling under the scope of
SEA legislation
14/14 Conclusions and Future Developments

16. THANK YOU
Alessandro Bonifazi
Ph.D. in Spatial Planning, MSc in Human Ecology
Polytechnic University of Bari (Italy),
Italian Ministry for the Environment
email: a.bonifazi@poliba.it
Carlo Rega
Ph.D. in Spatial Planning, MSc in Environmental Engineering
Polytechnic University of Turin (Italy)
email: carlo.rega@polito.it
22/09/2011