21-23 September 2011Prague, Czech Republic

MAKING AN IMPACT?SPECIAL CONFERENCE ON STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENTIAIA SEA PRAGUE II 2011

Alessandro Bonifazi (Polytechnic University of Bari, Italy)&

Carlo Rega (Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy)

22/09/2011

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

Overview of the presentation1/14

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

2/14

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

Research Design: Conceptual Background

3/14

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?

Research Design: Conceptual Background

2/18

Black box vs. cabin luggage

Highly decentralised planning system and distributed environment

al governance

Competent Authority

Environ. Authorities

Planning AuthorityER

SR ROSEA

Research Design: Context

SR= Scoping ReportRO= Reasoned OpinionSEA= Strategic Environmental AssessmentER= Environmental Report

ITALY: lagging behind

environmental policy innovation

(some) REGIONS forerunners (planning

innovation)

Research Design: Methodology5/14

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

Key Issue 1: What Institutional Cooperation?

6/14

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)

Key Issue 1: What Institutional Cooperation?

7/14

As for the nature and modes of institutional interactions, it appears to be:

informative > consultative >> codecisional >> implementation-oriented

cooperative > negotiative >> competitive >> conflicting

Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

8/14

Government level where the CA for SEA of municipal spatial plans is established

**

SEA may play a key role under alternative governance arrangements, by altering the distribution of roles and powers

PIEDMONT (IT)

CAMPANIA (IT)

ENGLAND (UK)

Local Authority

National Planning Inspectorate

plan and ER

Binding report covering all planning issues including SEA

9/14

Municipality

Regional Gov. / Provincial Gov. / Municipal Gov.

Municipal Technical Body

ERSEA Reasoned Opinion

draft plan

checked plan

Provincial Gov.

Regional Government

Municipality

SEA Reasoned Opinion

draft plan

ER

Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

*

10/14

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

Key Issue 2: Environmental Governance Reloaded

11/14

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

Key Issue 3: Outcomes of Cooperation

12/14

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)

Key Issue 3: Outcomes of Cooperation

13/14

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…

Conclusions and Future Developments

14/14

… 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

Conclusions and Future Developments

THANK YOU

Alessandro BonifaziPh.D. in Spatial Planning, MSc in Human Ecology

Polytechnic University of Bari (Italy), Italian Ministry for the Environment

email: a.bonifazi@poliba.it

Carlo RegaPh.D. in Spatial Planning, MSc in Environmental Engineering

Polytechnic University of Turin (Italy)email: carlo.rega@polito.it

22/09/2011