ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–3497

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy

0301-42

doi:10.1

n Tel.:

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Strategic environmental assessment for energy production

Stephen Jay n

Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street Sheffield S1 1WB, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 1 December 2009

Accepted 8 February 2010Available online 21 February 2010

Keywords:

Strategic environmental assessment

Energy strategies

Grid systems

15/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.enpol.2010.02.022

+44 114 225 3211; fax: +44 114 225 3179.

ail address: s.a.jay@shu.ac.uk

a b s t r a c t

Amongst the approaches that have developed to improve environmental protection within the energy

sector, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has received relatively little attention. This is despite

its potential to overcome some of the shortcomings associated with project-level assessment by

intervening at higher levels of energy system planning. In this article, a review is presented of the extent

to which SEA has been adopted and otherwise promoted in strategic energy planning processes in a

wide range of countries throughout the world (with an emphasis on European Union nations). In this

regard, the growing importance of regulatory compliance is underlined, especially within the EU, with a

particular focus upon the application of SEA to grid systems. The case of the Belgian transmission

system is described, illustrating a proactive approach to SEA. But the difficulties inherent in introducing

SEA to an increasingly fragmented and liberalised sector are also drawn out, leading to suggestions by

which these difficulties may be addressed.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The consideration of environmental issues is now central tothe development of energy policy and to the activities of theenergy industry, whether in the search for more sustainable formsof energy or in the expectation of improved environmentalperformance by industrial operators (Hinrichs and Kleinbach,2006). Within this context, more widely established approachesfor achieving higher levels of environmental protection are takingon increasing importance. In particular, environmental impactassessment (EIA) is now a commonly accepted practice whendeveloping energy infrastructure, and is a regulatory requirementin many jurisdictions around the world (Petts, 1999). However,there are questions about the ability of EIA to deal adequatelywith the challenges now associated with energy supply; EIA isgeared to the environmental improvement of individual projects,whereas the issues we now face need to be addressed at a higherlevel of planning, at a regional, national or even super-nationalscale, and environmental protection needs to be built into overallenergy frameworks at a much earlier stage of conception.

This is not an argument that is unique to energy supply.Similar points have been made in relation to other sectors thathave major consequences for the natural and human environ-ment, such as transport and urban development (Therivel et al.,1992). This has led to the emergence of a form of environmentalassessment which is introduced during earlier stages of govern-

ll rights reserved.

ance than the point of project planning, such as during theformation of sectoral policy. Strategic environmental assessment(SEA) is now becoming an established practice, with legal backingin some jurisdictions (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005). But SEAhas not yet been widely adopted in relation to energy production.This is partly because of the relatively fragmented nature of theindustry which makes strategic planning itself more difficult(Byron and Sheate, 1997). Arguably, however, the need for SEA isgreatest within this sector, given its centrality to the nowgenerally accepted overwhelming need for carbon reduction,and to other longer-standing environmental concerns, such as airquality and landscape issues.

In this article, I present the background to the emergence ofSEA, including regulatory initiatives that have fostered its growth,and review the extent to which it has been practiced within theenergy sector. I then focus on the uptake of SEA within theelectricity industry, which is, for a number of reasons, one areawhere SEA is making some progress; this is illustrated withreference to the Belgian transmission system. Conclusions arethen drawn about both the challenges and opportunities of awider application of SEA to the development of energy strategies.

2. The emergence of strategic environmental assessment

2.1. Up-streaming environmental assessment

Over the last few decades, proposals for individual developmentprojects have come under increasing scrutiny for their possibleenvironmental consequences, with EIA becoming a well-established

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–34973490

means of minimising the harmful side effects of developments. EIAlegislation was adopted in the USA in 1969, followed by some otherdeveloped nations in the 1970s, the (now) European Union in 1985,and many other countries more recently; major developmentagencies also require EIA for projects which they fund (Glassonet al., 2005; World Bank, online). Energy projects feature promi-nently amongst the types of development for which EIA must becarried out (see, for example, the annexes of the EU’s directive onEIA European Commission (EC), 1997a).

However, doubts about the effectiveness of EIA in ensuringadequate environmental protection have been expressed foralmost as long as it has been in force. EIA is seen as coming intoplay too late in the planning process to make significantdifferences to the outcome of development proposals which havealready gained momentum, effectively invalidating other options.EIA’s focus on individual projects also renders it powerless toalleviate the cumulative effects of multiple projects (Lee andWalsh, 1992). An example of this is the assessment of a proposedmajor power station in the United Kingdom, with no thoughtapparently being given to the associated need for an environmen-tally damaging grid upgrade (Sheate, 1995). A higher and earlierlevel of environmental assessment was therefore envisaged, bywhich the environmental consequences of broad developmentstrategies are considered before individual projects are conceived;projects should then only be drawn up in line with strategies thathave already been ‘environment-proofed’ (Wood and Djeddour,1992). SEA should thus overcome the shortcomings of EIA, by ‘up-streaming’ the principles of EIA to higher levels of decision-making. This argument has been made specifically in relation toenergy production (Berube and Cusson, 2002).

It was originally thought that SEA would be carried out at threedistinct and hierarchical levels of planning, described, from thehighest to the lowest, as policies, plans and programmes (Woodand Djeddour, 1992). In practice, strategic initiatives do not fallinto such neat categories; for example, the EU’s system of SEA (seebelow) refers collectively to ‘plans and programmes’ withoutmaking a distinction between them. But the principle remainsthat an SEA process should run alongside the preparation of astrategic planning action, and ensure that environmental issuesassociated with the action are carefully assessed before project-level planning begins; EIA can then concentrate on the fine-tuningof project proposals which already respect the parameters drawnup through SEA.

According to this model, SEA is carried out in a similar way toEIA, following a well-defined sequence of stages (von Seht, 1999).These include:

�

Screening: determining whether SEA is necessary for thestrategic action in question. � Scoping: determining the environmental issues to be ad-

dressed in the SEA.

� Impact assessment: determining the likely environmental

consequences of the proposed action.

� Alternatives: considering whether the objectives of the action

could be achieved by other means.

� Impact mitigation: proposing measures that will minimise any

undesirable environmental consequences of the action.

� Report: publishing the findings of the assessment in a publicly

available form.

� Consultation: involving interested parties in the process and

inviting comments on the report.

� Monitoring: measuring the actual effects of the action, once

implemented.In practice, however, SEA has taken on different forms

according to the varying contexts in which it has been applied;

indeed, it is part of wider SEA thinking that a very flexibleapproach should be taken in order to adapt SEA to the manydifferent settings and types of strategic action to which it mayrelate (Verheem and Tonk, 2000). In line with this adaptability,one important shift away from EIA-based SEA has been theintroduction of objectives. Whereas an EIA-based approach seeksto make a quantitative forecast of the likely effects of a strategicaction upon a measured environmental baseline, an objectives-based approach seeks simply to determine the extent to which astrategic action will achieve certain pre-defined environmentalobjectives. For example, the proposals contained in a plan may beassessed for the extent to which they will lead to a substantialreduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that whenassessing strategic actions, this is a more useful and attainableapproach than attempting to apply the more quantitativemethods typically used when assessing individual projects(Partidario, 1996). This approach has also led to the use ofindicators, which are more specific parameters than objectives,intended to measure the possible achievement of objectives. Forexample, the growth or decline of a particular indicator speciesmay be evidence of wider environmental trends. The use ofobjectives and indicators has now become a common feature ofSEA in some contexts and is being more widely recommended(Therivel, 2004). Finally, attempts are also being made to combinethe EIA-based and objectives-based approaches into an integratedprocess, especially where regulatory compliance still demandsthat certain EIA-type elements are carried out, such as in the EU(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005; Sheate, 2001).

2.2. Experience in SEA for energy production

The earliest experience of SEA was in relation to land use plans;for example, UK planning authorities carried out a rudimentary formof SEA on their statutory development plans during the 1990s(Curran et al., 1998). Some attention was also given to SEA withinother public sectors, especially transport (Fischer, 2002). But fromthe beginning, the energy sector was also reckoned to be an idealcandidate for SEA. The central importance of energy to nationaleconomies, and the significant environmental issues associated withenergy supply and use, gave weight to this argument (Therivel et al.,1992). It was suggested that SEA should be applied both at a broadpolicy level and in the planning of new capacity, especially forrenewable energy (Sheate, 1996).

Indeed, there are examples of energy SEAs during this period,both for overall energy policy and for individual components ofthe industry. One of the earliest of these was an SEA in 1992 of theNetherlands’ national electricity supply plan, carried out bygovernment departments. The plan provided policy direction forthe country’s fuel mix, and indicated locations for plant andtransport facilities. The SEA involved the consideration ofdifferent energy scenarios and produced restrictive criteria forthe siting of power stations (Sheate, 1996). With regard to lowerlevel energy plans and programmes, examples from the 1990sinclude the following.

�

An analysis of clean coal technologies in the USA, to assesstheir potential environmental consequences (Byron and She-ate, 1997). � An assessment of a Swedish municipality’s energy plan,

commenting on the environmental issues associated withenergy use (EC, 1997b).

� A study for local wind farm development in Germany,

consisting of mapping environmental criteria restricting thelocation of wind farms and assessing the likely impacts of windfarms in the favoured areas (Kleinschmidt and Wagner, 1996).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–3497 3491

The point in common between these diverse exercises is thatthey were bringing environmental perspectives to bear at an earlystage of thinking about an overall strategy for the energy issue inquestion, well before the inception of projects that wouldimplement the strategy.

Most of the early SEA initiatives were carried out voluntarilyby the organisation concerned, and had none of the regulatoryweight that gives EIA such importance. SEA only had legalrecognition during this period in very few jurisdictions, includingthe USA and the Netherlands (Wood, 2003). However, SEA hassince risen to prominence and gained much greater institutionalrecognition thanks to recent statutory backing. Most importantly,an EU directive on SEA was adopted in 2001, entering into forcein 2004 (EC, 2001) (though has only recently been transposedinto national law by all the member states Commission of theEuropean Communities, 2009). This followed several years ofnegotiation between the member states, resulting in somecompromise over the content of the legislation. Nonetheless, the‘SEA Directive’ now requires the 27 (currently) member states ofthe EU to carry out a rigorous SEA process, in line with the EIAmodel described above, for a wide range of ‘‘plans andprogrammes which are likely to have a significant effect on theenvironment’’ (Article 1). Energy is specifically included amongstthe list of sectors that fall within the scope of the directive. SEAhas also been given a statutory basis in China (Zhu et al., 2005).Elsewhere, practice continues to be mostly voluntary andexperimental, though it is possible that the legally enforceablesystems are now exerting an influence further afield, encouragingwider uptake of SEA and providing models of a more rigorousprocess.

Some of the more recent exercises in energy SEA havetherefore been carried out in order to comply with regulatoryrequirements, or have had impending compliance in view.(Though early indications are that relatively few uniquelyenergy-related SEAs have yet been carried out under the termsof the SEA Directive; according to a recent survey, many hundredsare being prepared for land-use plans, with only a handful havinga primary focus on energy EC, 2009). At the same time, andespecially where there is no statutory form of SEA, practice hascontinued to evolve in a fluid and dynamic manner, with SEA-typeexercises being developed and adapted for different purposes(Partidario, 2000). Not all of these initiatives are even called SEA,but are considered part of the ‘SEA family’ by commentatorsbecause they follow the broad principles of SEA (Brown andTherivel, 2000). However, they may also draw on relatedtechniques of assessment, such as multi-criteria analysis. Thereis, therefore, a high degree of variability and experimentationinvolved in these emerging practices, which are often beingtrialled by academics and practitioners rather than beingpractised as part of official policy-making.

Energy sector SEA, in common with wider SEA experience, istherefore diverse and difficult to characterise. Nonetheless, recentinitiatives can be grouped under the following headings.

�

National energy policy. A number of studies have made use ofscenario analysis to explore the likely environmental effects ofdifferent energy mixes and degrees of energy conservation forwhole countries or regions. These have been carried out insome developing countries and countries in transition, such asPakistan and the Czech and Slovak Republics (Dalal-Claytonand Sadler, 2005). Energy scenarios have also been studied forCanada (Noble, 2002, 2009) and Iceland (Thorhallsdottir,2007). In South Africa, the national energy utility has appliedan SEA process to integrate environmental issues into itsoverall operations (Retief et al., 2007).

�

Individual energy technologies, especially for new and renew-able options. Academic studies have been carried out toinvestigate the impacts of bioenergy expansion in China(Owens, 2007), and the possibility of carbon capture andstorage schemes in the Netherlands (Koornneef et al., 2008). Ata sub-national level in the UK, an assessment has beenundertaken to facilitate the development of a regional renew-able energy strategy (Brooke et al., 2004). Many of thesustainability appraisal studies referred to below also focuson new and renewable technologies. � Offshore energy resources. Some important official SEAs have

been carried out for the potential exploitation of offshoreresources. In the UK, an ongoing SEA process over several yearshas been conducted for the exploitation of offshore energyresources (Sheate et al., 2004). Exercises for North Sea oil andgas exploration licensing and for offshore wind energy havenow been combined into a single approach to marine energyresources (Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC),2009a). Similarly, Ireland is conducting SEA for offshorehydrocarbons exploration (Department of Communications,Energy and Natural Resources (online)). SEA has also beencarried out in the USA for energy development in the Gulf ofMexico (Environment Protection Agency, 2004) and in Canadafor offshore oil and gas exploration (Noble, 2009). An academicexercise also explored the notion of holistic environmentalassessment of UK offshore oil (Salter and Ford, 2001).

� Grid systems. In the EU, a number of operators of large-scale

electricity grid systems have started to carry out SEA for theirdevelopment plans, in order to abide by the requirements ofthe EU SEA directive, such as in Italy (EC, 2009), Portugal(Partidario and Ricardo, 2009) and Belgium (see below). Somevoluntary experience in SEA has also been gained by a UK gridoperator, in relation to the upgrading of a regional network;this resulted in alternative solutions being studied that mightnot otherwise have been considered, such as the possibility ofnew embedded generation (Marshall and Fischer, 2006). Also,CIGRE (the International Council on Large Electric Systems,representing the electricity industry) has introduced SEA intoits recent discussions on environmental performance (Paradaet al., 2008).

� Planning Guidance. In addition to SEAs that relate to specific

aspects of energy production, there is also a growing body ofSEA practice for wider spatial planning guidance, which mayhave considerable consequences for the development ofenergy infrastructure. Examples of this are too numerous tomention, but many of the SEAs for land-use plans in the EU,referred to above, will have considered the implications ofenergy projects in their studies. This illustrates the widerimportance of planning frameworks in shaping patterns ofenergy production. Also, in the UK, draft planning guidance forenergy production has recently been subject to a broadsustainability appraisal (DECC, 2009b), exemplifying thefollowing point.

A further development in the evolution of SEA has been tobroaden the criteria used in assessment explicitly to includeeconomic and social, as well as environmental, factors. This iswith the aim of gathering all the necessary information fordecision-making about strategic options into a single report. This‘three-pillared’ approach is usually termed sustainability apprai-sal or assessment (Gibson et al., 2005, pp. 55–57). Many of theenergy-related examples of this are academic in nature, in whichmethods are being tested and presented as possibilities forapplication. They include analyses of options for entire energymixes, such as in Australia (May and Brennan, 2006). But they are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–34973492

mostly being used for demonstrating the attractiveness ofrenewable and other new energy systems, such as bioenergysystems (Elghali et al., 2007), bio-ethanol production in Thailand(Silalertruksa and Gheewala, 2009) and energy production fromgrassland in Germany (Rosch et al., 2009). Again, multi-criteriaanalysis features prominently in these exercises, such as instudies of renewable and other new energy systems (Afgan andCarvalho, 2008; Klevas et al., 2009; McDowall and Eames, 2007;see also Finnveden et al., 2003).

In order to explore further the uptake and potential of SEAwithin the energy sector, it is worthwhile to turn to the electricitytransmission and distribution industry. This is partly because gridnetworks, by their very nature, must be operated in a strategicmanner. The physical infrastructure of a grid system is diffusedover a large geographical area, is designed to connect points ofsupply with demand, and must be managed in an integratedfashion. Development of a grid must take into account changes inthe mode and location of generation and in the pattern ofdemand, including over the long term. Moreover, grid systems areassociated with a number of environmental concerns of the kindthat environmental assessment seeks to address. It might beexpected, therefore, that this industry would be well-placed toincorporate SEA into its planning and to benefit from it. I now turnto a recent and ongoing example of the application of SEA by agrid operator to illustrate the potential and the challenges of SEAfor both this industry and the wider energy sector (Du Four andJay, 2008).

3. Sea of a transmission system: early Belgian experience

The Belgian electricity transmission system is owned andoperated by Elia, a privatised, regulated company (Elia, online).Under the terms of the regulations, Elia must draw up a forward-looking plan, setting out anticipated development of the networkover a forthcoming 10 year period (though the plan is updatedevery three years). The plan must contain an estimate of transportcapacity requirements and state the investment programmeneeded to meet these requirements. It must also take into accountreserve capacity needs and development of the Europeantransmission network. The plan is covered by the scope of theEU’s SEA Directive, so following the transposition of the directiveinto Belgian legislation in 2006, it is subject to Belgian SEArequirements. Elia is currently working on the first plan which issubject to SEA, covering the period until 2018; the SEA processbegan in 2007, and is being carried out internally by theorganisation.

The main requirements of the Belgian SEA law are equivalentto the directive’s: to prepare a report on the likely significantenvironmental effects of a plan or programme, to consult withenvironmental authorities and the public, and to take the reportand consultation into account when finalising the document. Inaddition, the Belgian legislation introduces an independentadvisory committee which comments on the scope and contentsof SEA reports (Belgian Federal Government, 2006).

The initial phase of the SEA for Elia’s development plan isscoping. This has been understood to mean determining theissues to be assessed in detail and also identifying any alternativesto the plan that may deserve consideration. This stage is reckonedto be critical, as it sets the terms of the analysis upon whichdecisions about the plan will be based. More broadly, scopingensures that the SEA focuses on the key issues and that thepotential impacts of the strategic action are assessed in the mostappropriate way.

Importantly, the approach that Elia has taken to scoping hasinvolved the determination of objectives on which the assessment

is to be based, and the creation of indicators which will be used tomeasure the achievement of objectives. The introduction ofobjectives and indicators is not required by the legislationgoverning SEA in Belgium, but is in line with growing SEApractice, as described above. Elia has also chosen to expand theSEA to a full sustainability assessment, again reflecting the widertrends in SEA referred to above. This also goes beyond theregulatory requirements in Belgium (though is based partly on theSEA Directive’s overall goal of promoting sustainable develop-ment EC, 2001, Article 1). SEA objectives were thereforeformulated in relation to the most important pressures andimpacts associated with high-voltage transmission, following aninventory of these aspects. The environmental objectives relate tobiodiversity, noise, landscape, land use, and climate. Socialobjectives are linked to the consequences of development formaterial welfare and employment, including health. The econom-ic objectives include the support of economic growth and othersrelated to prices and liberalisation of the market.

Scoping was therefore undertaken in three stages, the first twoof which resulted in the formation of objectives and indicators.They are described as follows.

3.1. Inventory of impacts

All the possible impacts resulting from the transmissionnetwork and its expansion were considered, including the directimpacts of construction, siting and network operation and theindirect impacts on the energy system as a whole. Constructionimpacts (noise, energy use, etc.) were reckoned to be local andtemporary, so not very significant from a strategic perspective,compared to the more permanent effects arising from the physicalpresence of the infrastructure (visual impact, land use, etc.).Network development affects the daily operation of the network,impacting on the reliability of supply and the flexibility androbustness of the network. Modifications to the network alsoindirectly influence the energy system (prices, market structure,CO2 emissions, renewable generation, etc.). These considerationswere then sorted using the three pillar model of sustainability(though recognising the overlapping nature of these categories),as illustrated in Fig. 1.

3.2. Formulation of objectives and indicators

After analysing the above impacts, the most significant oneswere retained and formulated into a set of SEA objectives. First,traditional environmental protection and pollution concerns wereconsidered, and objectives drawn up linked to biodiversity, noise,landscape, land use, and climate. Second, social issues wereconsidered, leading to objectives related to the consequences ofdevelopment for material welfare, employment, health, and otherrelated concerns. Third, consideration was given to the balanceddevelopment of economic resources and benefits, throughobjectives dealing with the support of economic growth, prices,and liberalisation of the market. Following this step, indicatorswere drawn up relevant to the selected objectives. An indicatorwas understood to be a measurable (quantitative) or descriptive(qualitative) variable that permits the trend of a broader featureto be observed. Underlying data are reckoned to be essential tothe selection of an indicator, and should be both available and ofsufficient quality. Data available in the current grid developmentplan was therefore taken as a starting point. The resultingobjectives and indicators are shown in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Climate

Landscape

Biodiversity

Soil

Integration of

infrastructures

Noise

Land use

Welfare

Health

Employment Efficiency/competitiveness

Tariff

Liberalization

Diversification

of sources

Environmental

Economic Social

Fig. 1. Overview of the significant impacts associated with a transmission grid.

Table 1Overview of the SEA objectives and corresponding indicators.

Impact Objective Indicator Parameter

Land use Optimise land use and limit fragmentation Direct land use Surface� factor (fragmentation)

Biodiversity Prevent impact on protected and other green

areas

Presence of protected and other green areas Distance from length/surface � factor

(protection level)

Noise Minimise noise impact Noise level of installations Noise level� factor (norm)

Soil Minimise perturbation of soil and groundwater Situation in vulnerable soil Length/surface� factor (soil type)

Vicinity of water-collection area Distance from

Climate Reduce emissions of CO2 Electricity transmission losses Electricity loss� factor (CO2 emission)

Prevent SF6 losses SF6 volume in installation Volume

Landscape Preserve landscape integrity Visual impact installation Frontal surface� factor (surrounding)

Preserve protected buildings Presence/crossing of protected buildings/

landscapes

Distance from/length in

Material welfare Maintain reliability of residential structure Average interruption time (AIT) to the

distribution network

AIT

Employment Support employment Investments in new infrastructure Investment budget

Integration of infrastructure Take into account reluctance for new electrical

installations

Localisation of infrastructure in living areas Length/surface in living area� factor

(installation)

Health Minimise the electric risks Number of people living under a high

voltage line

Number of people

Economic efficiency and

competitiveness

Assure transmission to meet the needs of the

economy and society

Contribution to the increase of GNP % increase in power distribution to the

industry

Liberalisation of the market Develop international interconnections Increase of the import capacity Power

Increase independence of production Reduction of risk on re-dispatch Reduction stress factor installations

Tariff Find economic optimum for customers Optimal for the high/middle/low voltage

network

Diversification in sources of

provisioning

Receive new unities of renewable energy sources New connected renewable energy source

unites

Connected power

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–3497 3493

3.3. Identification of alternatives

The scoping stage was finalised by examining the alternativesthat could be considered in the SEA, taking the development planas a starting point. These are based upon different options thatwere identified in the previous development plan, regarding shortand long term options concerning import capacity, connection ofrenewable energy sources, and independence of production.

However, a delay in the preparation of the development planhas prevented the detailed elaboration of these alternatives. Inaddition, the no-action alternative (or ‘business as usual’) is usedas a baseline against which the other alternatives can becompared.

Another important aspect of scoping, which also goes beyondthe terms of the SEA Directive, but which is a requirement underthe Belgian law, is the need to refer to an official advisory

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–34973494

committee. This consists of 10 members representing the relevantfederal government departments; environment, marine environ-ment, public health, sustainable development, energy, economy,mobility and transport, home office, and foreign affairs. Theproposed scoping scheme will be submitted to this committee foradvice and approval. The final SEA report will also be submitted tothe advisory committee for approval. The work of this committeerepresents an important attempt by the Belgian government tointroduce a degree of independence to the SEA process, so that theprocess is not wholly in the hands of the body responsible for thestrategic action itself. This accords with wider SEA principlesbeing advocated by commentators, in which the need to buildadequate quality controls into the process is stressed (e.g. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005, p. 367). Additional scrutiny of the SEAreport, and of the plan being assessed, will be carried out viaconsultation with a range of official bodies, stakeholder groupsand the wider public.

It appears, therefore, that a constructive approach is beingtaken to the implementation of SEA for the development of theBelgian transmission system. This is due in part to the engage-ment of the federal government with the SEA system as a whole,expressed through setting up and resourcing the advisorycommittee, and giving it a statutory role in the process over andabove the requirements of the SEA Directive. It is also due to theproactive approach of Elia which has sought to apply widerprinciples of SEA rather than to restrict the process to therelatively narrow terms of the legislation. SEA is being seen as adecision-making tool that contributes all necessary informationon environmental, social, and economical considerations to thepreparation of the development plan. This in turn is intended tobridge diverse values and change the hearts and minds ofstakeholders in favour of high voltage grid development.

4. Challenges and opportunities for the sea of energystrategies

The examples given above of SEA within the energy sector areinevitably incomplete, but present a picture of steadily growinginterest in SEA as a tool for incorporating environmentalconsiderations more effectively into the development of energysystems. The contribution that SEA and related methods couldmake to energy strategies is being increasingly noted anddemonstrated especially at a hypothetical level, through agrowing number of academic exercises and other trials. However,the experience of officially sanctioned energy-related SEAsremains relatively scant, suggesting that authorised practiceremains slow to develop; this trend has previously been notedwhen a comparison is made with the take-up of SEA in otheressential service sectors (Byron and Sheate, 1997). The two mainexceptions to this appear to be in relation to offshore resourcesand grid systems, where there is some progress in making SEA anaccepted feature of energy planning. The case of Elia, in Belgium,suggests a proactive take-up of SEA in which the organisation isseeking positive gains from the process for its developmentactivities. One of the key elements to this success (from an SEApoint of view), and common to most of the examples given forboth offshore resources and grid systems, is the statutory backingthat SEA now enjoys in some areas. This is worth furtherexploration, by looking in more detail at the legal provision forSEA in the EU, as the jurisdiction with the most developed anddedicated SEA legislation to date. Here, I focus particularly on theimplications of the SEA Directive for the planning of grid systems.

At first sight, the SEA Directive appears to have a very widescope, requiring SEA to be carried out for ‘‘all plans andprogrammes which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fish-

eries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, watermanagement, telecommunications, tourism, town, and countryplanning or land use’’ (EC, 2001, Article 3). However, there are anumber of caveats, or screening criteria. First, the plan/pro-gramme must set the framework for development projects whichcome under the EU’s EIA legislation. Second, the plan/programmemust have official status of some kind, being prepared by anauthority (whether national, regional or local) with a statutoryresponsibility for a public service. Thirdly, the plan/programmeitself must have a statutory basis and not just be preparedvoluntarily by the authority (EC, 2001, 2003). In other words, thedirective envisages mainly the assessment of official public sectorstrategies, leading typically to large-scale and/or widespreadinfrastructure essential for public services or necessary for widereconomic activity. Indeed, SEA more generally has been restrictedto major, public land-use and sectoral planning, and some fundingactivities (Therivel, 2004). This contrasts with the relativelymeagre attention given to SEA by organisations operating in theprivate sector of national economies, partly because of theabsence of regulatory pressure to practice SEA.

Hence one of the difficulties involved in extending SEA practiceto energy production is the fact that the industry is increasinglyoperating within the domain of the private sector, which is lessconducive than the public sector to the application of SEA. This isthe result of the global trend towards the privatisation of state-owned enterprises which has taken place since the 1980s (Parkerand Saal, 2003). Not only energy, but many other previouslynationalised industries (especially in OECD countries), have nowbeen moved wholly or partly out of direct state control. However,in many jurisdictions, energy assets have undergone particularlyradical forms of privatisation, in which unitary industries havebeen dismantled into their constituent elements and restructuredinto a plurality of inter-competing bodies. This has been donewith the aim of introducing stronger economic objectives andovercoming the inefficiencies associated with public ownership(Feigenbaum et al., 1998; Surrey, 1996). For instance, in the UK,initial privatisation of energy assets led to the break-up of anational entity into approximately 30 component parts, and theintroduction of competitive behaviour between certain elementsof the industry.

One consequence of this de-integration and fragmentation ofthe industry has been to make the coordination of the develop-ment of the industry more difficult, and to erode the notions ofcentral planning and public service that characterised thepreviously nationalised energy systems (Robinson, 2000). Forexample, transmission system operators are now often in theposition of having to develop their networks in reaction to theinitiatives of competing generation companies, making forwardplanning of their networks problematic. In turn, this presentsdifficulties for the application of SEA, which assumes theexistence of clearly defined processes which can then be assessedfrom an environmental point of view. There would appear to belittle place for a strategic planning instrument where strategicplanning itself has become inherently weakened (Jay andMarshall, 2005). For example, there is far less likelihood ofmeeting the criteria of the SEA Directive described above inrelation to the planning activities of specialised, private energycompanies than for the production of national energy strategies.The institutional unity assumed for the effective application of theSEA Directive (and in fact for SEA in general Fischer et al., 2002) isfar from guaranteed. Some of the more theoretical SEA exercisesreferred to above may therefore have little practical credibility, asthey presume a degree of centralised control which may not exist,given the increasingly disaggregated and independent commer-cial nature of the sector. It is difficult to imagine, for instance, howa small-scale renewable energy company, seeking discrete

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–3497 3495

opportunities to develop new schemes, would prepare even amedium-term plan with sufficient locational etc certainties forSEA to be meaningfully carried out alongside it.

Having said this, certain parts of the energy industry retainofficial strategy-making functions, which explains to some extentthe pattern of SEA activity described above. These functions aremost apparent in the more strongly regulated arms of energysystems, especially transmission and distribution systems, whichhave survived restructuring as monopolies and have continued asunified operations run by regulated companies. As a consequence,they have tended to inherit public service functions, retainingstatutory obligations and strategic scales of operation, and aretherefore relatively well placed to adopt SEA. This is exemplifiedby the requirement on Elia to produce periodically a developmentplan, which comes under the terms of SEA legislation. Privatisedutilities are still considered to be ‘authorities’ under the terms ofthe SEA Directive when carrying out a statutory duty, such asproviding a supply of electricity. However, there is still someambiguity about the application of the SEA Directive to gridsystems in the EU. In the UK, for instance, the nearest equivalentto Elia’s development plan is a ‘Seven Year Statement’ producedby the main transmission system operator (National Grid, online);this provides a forecast of the performance capacity of the systemfor the coming seven years, including an indication of where thereis the greatest potential for new connections and increased levelsof transmission. Although this document is prepared by anauthority (in the terms of the directive) and has a statutory basis,fulfilling the second and third screening criteria mentioned above,it does not clearly fulfil the first, that the plan/programme mustset the framework for future development projects. This is partlybecause of the obligation that the grid operator is under toprovide a connection to any customer (generator) that requests it,regardless of the contents of the Seven Year Statement; indeed,the document is unlikely to be referred to when proposals forinfrastructure projects are passing through planning procedures(Jay, 2007). The most that could be said is that the Seven YearStatement provides guidance to potential customers regarding thecost-effectiveness etc of options open to them. There is clearly adifference of emphasis in the weight given to these Belgian andUK documents in planning decisions, which results in one comingunder the terms of the SEA Directive, and the other not.

The example of documents that give some form of strategicdirection to grid systems therefore illustrates both the opportu-nity for and the difficulties involved in the introduction ofa high-level form of environmental assessment within anincreasingly fragmented and liberalised economic sector. On theone hand, there is, arguably, an urgent need to apply theprinciples of environmental assessment to the major shiftsthat are occurring in energy production, and there areorganisational openings where this is becoming accepted andpractised. On the other hand, fundamental changes in the sectorhave undermined the relatively unified structures and purposesthat would have facilitated the adoption of SEA for energyproduction in a more coherent fashion. Even where there isbroad regulatory force behind the application of SEA, the publicservice background and ethos of SEA do not equip it well forengaging with the intricate workings of the new energy markets.(It will be interesting to observe the extent to which SEA will becarried out on possible plans for a European supergrid, whichwill necessarily have a public service rationale, given itstransnational character.)

Nonetheless, there are a number of ways by which the widertake-up of SEA as part of the preparation of energy strategiesmight be encouraged. First, SEA needs to be located within andowned by key organisational units, such as at a company level, sothat an SEA process relates directly to an organisational strategy

(however that strategy might be defined), and not simply carriedout (perhaps via academic exercises) for broad energy themes,such as a particular renewable energy technology. At the sametime, SEA could be linked more closely to the wider objectives of ahost organisation, so that it is not dependent on being adoptedsimply as a matter of regulatory compliance, but is taken on as amatter of good practice (Jay and Marshall, 2005). For example,SEA could be incorporated into existing environmental manage-ment practices within a company, with a view to improvingoverall environmental performance and contributing to corporatesocial responsibility.

Second, SEA could be adapted to the structural changes thathave taken place within energy industries, in line with theprinciple of shaping SEA to the strategic action that it is intendedto assist (Partidario, 1999). For example, it has been suggestedthat an SEA process could be designed to match the customer-oriented nature of Seven Year Statements, referred to above, andbe a mechanism for highlighting environmental issues thatpotential customers should take into account when consideringtheir options for grid connection (Jay, 2007). More generallywithin the energy sector, SEA could shift to being a means ofproviding signals to guide environmentally acceptable develop-ment, especially where development is determined by business-led initiatives.

Third, the positive benefits of SEA to an energy organisation’soperations could be advocated more strongly. For instance, one ofits intended advantages is greater engagement by stakeholdersand the wider public in the development of strategies that willhave significant consequences for society as a whole (asillustrated in the final sentence in the above description of Elia’sapproach to SEA). Unlike some of the more technically focusedexercises that have been used to assess energy options, usingmulti-criteria analysis for instance, SEA is intended to be aninclusive and participative process, in which there is anopportunity for deliberation and consensus-building. This argu-ment has been made particularly in relation to environmentallycontentious forms of energy development (Berube and Cusson,2002). Thus SEA can provide a forum for debate not just on theenvironmental assessment itself, but also on the wider strategiesthat are being examined.

In this discussion, I have focused on the possible expansionand acceptance of SEA within component organisations that makeup energy systems. Finally, however, a level of SEA is possible at ahigher policy-making level, where government bodies set thebroad framework for the development of energy infrastructure,including the consideration of energy mixes, broad criteria for thelocation and scale of development, likely future trends, etc.Scrutinising this level of strategic thinking via SEA is consideredparamount by commentators, as policy sets the conditions for alldownstream activities, as expressed in plans, programmes, etc.For this reason, the omission of policies from the scope of the EU’sSEA Directive is reckoned to be a serious deficiency (Fischer et al.,2002). (For example, the extent to which SEA will be carried outfor national renewable energy action plans, prepared under therecent ‘Renewable Energy Directive’ (European Parliament andCouncil (EPC), 2009) remains to be seen, given that they remain atthe level of broad policy rather than set the framework for EIA-type projects.) Some SEAs have been carried out for governmentalenergy frameworks, as exemplified by the initiatives regardingoffshore resources. But for SEA to become properly embeddedwithin the energy sector, priority must be given to the assessmentof this level of strategy-making. The current upheaval of nationalenergy policies in the light of climate change and energy securityissues, with potentially far-reaching consequences for energyinfrastructure and for environmental resources, makes this all themore urgent.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–34973496

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my grateful thanks to Vincent Du Fourof Elia for his invaluable input to the description of the SEAprocess for the Belgian transmission system.

References

Afgan, N., Carvalho, M., 2008. Sustainability assessment of a hybrid energy system.Energy Policy 36, 2903–2910.

Belgian Federal Government, 2006. Loi relative �a l’evaluation des incidences decertains plans et programmes sur l’environnement et �a la participation dupublic dans l’elaboration des plans et des programmes relatifs �a l’environne-ment, 13th February 2006. Brussels.

Berube, G., Cusson, C., 2002. The environmental legal and regulatory frameworks:assessing fairness and efficiency. Energy Policy 30, 1291–1298.

Brooke, C., James, E., Jones, R., Therivel, R., 2004. Implementing the strategicenvironmental assessment (SEA) directive in the south west of England.European Environment 14, 138–152.

Brown, A., Therivel, R., 2000. Principles to guide the development of strategicenvironmental assessment methodology. Impact Assessment and ProjectAppraisal 18 (3), 183–189.

Byron, H., Sheate, W., 1997. Strategic environmental assessment: current status inthe water and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Environmental Policyand Practice 6 (4), 155–165.

Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Report from the Commission tothe Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee of the Regions on the application andeffectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment(Directive 2001/42/EC), COM(2009) 469 final. CEC, Brussels. /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0469:FIN:EN:PDFS.

Curran, J.M., Wood, C.M., Hilton, M., 1998. Environmental appraisal of UKdevelopment plans: current practice and future directions. Environment andPlanning B 25, 411–433.

Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Source-book and Reference Guide to International Experience. Earthscan, London.

Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2009a. UK Offshore Energy StrategicEnvironmental Assessment: Future Leasing for Offshore Wind Farms andLicensing for Offshore Oil and Gas and Gas Storage, Environmental Report.DECC, London. /http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/consultations/Offshore_Energy_SEA/OES_Environmental_Report.pdfS.

Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2009b. Planning for New EnergyInfrastructure: Appraisal of Sustainability for the Draft National PolicyStatements. DECC, London. /http://data.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/documents/genericaos.pdfS.

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, online. IrishOffshore Strategic Environmental Assessment. http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Petroleum+Affairs+Division/Irish+Offshore+Strategic+Environmental+Assessment+(IOSEA+2)/.

Du Four, V., Jay, S., 2008. The development of a Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment methodology for transmission development planning in Belgium.Paper C3-211, presented at CIGRE Session 2008, Paris.

Elghali, L., Clift, R., Sinclair, P., Panoutsou, C., Bauen, A., 2007. Developing asustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. EnergyPolicy 35, 6075–6083.

Elia, online. Elia: Powering a World in Progress. /www.elia.beS.Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Preparation of a Programmatic Environ-

mental Assessment for Exploration Activities in the Sale Area of the EasternPlanning Area of the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf.. EPA, Washington/http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2002/June/Day-03/i13787.htmS.

European Commission, 1997a. Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certainpublic and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of theEuropean Communities. L73, 14 March 1997, pp. 5–15. /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997L0011:EN:HTMLS.

European Commission, 1997b. Case Studies on Strategic Environmental Assess-ment, Final Report, Vols 1 and 2. DGXI, European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission, 2001. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certainplans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities, L 197, 21 July 2001, pp. 30–37. /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:197:0030:0037:EN:PDFS.

European Commission, 2003. Implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC on theAssessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environ-ment. European Communities, Luxembourg. /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/030923_sea_guidance.pdfS.

European Commission , 2009. Study concerning the report on the application andeffectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), Final report, DG ENVIRON-MENT. European Commission, Brussels. /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdfS.

European Parliament and Council. 2009. Directive 2009/28/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use ofenergy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing

Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union,L140, 5 June 2009, pp. 16–62. /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDFS.

Feigenbaum, H., Henig, J., Hamnett, C., 1998. Shrinking the State: The PoliticalUnderpinnings of Privatization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Finnveden, G., Nilsson, M., Johansson, J., Persson, A., Moberg, A., Carlsson, T., 2003.Strategic environmental assessment methodologies: applications within theenergy sector. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23, 91–123.

Fischer, T., 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transport and Land UsePlanning. Earthscan, London.

Fischer, T., Wood, C., Jones, C., 2002. Policy, plan, and programme environmentalassessment in England, the Netherlands, and Germany: practice and prospects.Environment and Planning B 29, 159–172.

Gibson, R.B., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansley, J., Whitelaw, G., 2005. SustainabilityAssessment: Criteria, Processes and ApplicationsEarthscan, London.

Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 2005. Introduction to Environmental ImpactAssessment third ed. UCL Press, London.

Hinrichs, R., Kleinbach, M., 2006. Energy: its Use and the Environment fourth ed.Thomson, London.

Jay, S., 2007. Customers as decision-makers: strategic environmental assessmentin the private sector. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 25 (2), 75–84.

Jay, S., Marshall, R., 2005. The place of strategic environmental assessment in theprivatised electricity industry. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (4),315–324.

Kleinschmidt, V., Wagner, D., 1996. SEA of wind farms in the Soest District (andother German SEAs). In: Therivel, R., Partidario, R. (Eds.), The Practice ofStrategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan, London, pp. 47–61.

Klevas, V., Streimikiene, D., Kleviene, D., 2009. Sustainability assessment of theenergy projects implementation in regional scale. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 13, 155–166.

Koornneef, J., Faaij, A., Turkenburg, W., 2008. The screening and scoping ofenvironmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment ofcarbon capture and storage in the Netherlands. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review 28, 392–414.

Lee, N., Walsh, F., 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: an overview. ProjectAppraisal 7 (3), 126 136.

Marshall, R., Fischer, T., 2006. Regional electricity transmission planning and sea:the case of the electricity company ScottishPower. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 49 (2), 279–299.

May, J., Brennan, D., 2006. Sustainability assessment of Australian electricitygeneration. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 84 (B2), 131–142.

McDowall, W., Eames, M., 2007. Towards a sustainable hydrogen economy: amulti-criteria sustainability appraisal of competing hydrogen futures. Inter-national Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32, 4611–4626.

National Grid, online. GB Seven Year Statement 2009. http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/sys_09/default.asp?sNode=SYSandaction=andExp=Y.

Noble, B., 2002. Strategic environmental assessment of Canadian energy policy.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20 (3), 177–188.

Noble, B., 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmentalassessment systems and practices in Canada. Environmental Impact Assess-ment Review 29, 66–75.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005. Sustainability Appraisal of RegionalSpatial Strategies and Local Development Documents. ODPM, London http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/142520.pdf.

Owens, G., 2007. Analyzing impacts of bioenergy expansion in China usingstrategic environmental assessment. Management of Environmental Quality18 (4), 396–412.

Parada, F., Furtado, R., Bodlund, B., 2008. Special report for Group C3 (systemenvironmental performance), CIGRE, unpublished document.

Parker, D., Saal, D. (Eds.), 2003. International Handbook on Privatization. EdwardElgar, Cheltenham.

Partidario, M., 1996. Strategic environmental assessment: key issues emergingfrom recent practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (1), 31–55.

Partidario, M., 1999. Strategic environmental assessment: principles and potential.In: Petts, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 1.Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 60–73.

Partidario, M., 2000. Elements of an SEA framework: improving the added-value ofSEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (6), 647–663.

Partidario, M., Ricardo, J., 2009. Strategic environmental assessment of thedevelopment and investment plan of the Portuguese transmission grid ofelectricity PDIRT 2009–2014 (2019). Unpublished presentation.

Petts, J. (Ed.), 1999. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Blackwell,Oxford.

Retief, F., Jones, C., Jay, S., 2007. The status and extent of strategic environmentalassessment in South Africa: 1996–2003. South African Geographical Journal 89(1), 44–54.

Robinson, C., 2000. Energy economists and economic liberalism. The EnergyJournal 21 (2), 1–22.

Rosch, C., Skarka, J., Raab, K., Stelzer, V., 2009. Energy production from grassland:assessing the sustainability of different process chains under Germanconditions. Biomass and Bioenergy 33, 689–700.

Salter, E., Ford, J., 2001. Holistic environmental assessment and offshore oil fieldexploration and production. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 (1), 45–58.

Sheate, W., 1995. Electricity generation and transmission: a case study ofproblematic EIA implementation in the UK. Environmental Policy and Practice5 (1), 17–25.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S. Jay / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 3489–3497 3497

Sheate, W., 1996. Environmental Impact Assessment: Law and Policy – Making anImpact II. Cameron May, London.

Sheate, W., 2001. The rise of strategic assessment tools. Journal of EnvironmentalAssessment Policy and Management 3 (3), iii–x.

Sheate, W., Byron, H., Smith, S., 2004. Implementing the SEA Directive: sectoralchallenges and opportunities for the UK and EU. European Environment 14, 73–93.

Silalertruksa, T., Gheewala, S., 2009. Environmental sustainability assessment ofbio-ethanol production in Thailand. Energy 34, 1933–1946.

Surrey, J. (Ed.), 1996. The British Electricity Experiment: Privatisation: the Record,the Issues, the Lessons. Earthscan, London.

Therivel, R., 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. Earthscan, London.Therivel, R, Wilson, E, Thompson, S, Heaney, D, Pritchard, D, 1992. Strategic

Environmental Assessment. Earthscan, London.Thorhallsdottir, T., 2007. Strategic planning at the national level: evaluating and

ranking energy projects by environmental impact. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review 27, 545–568.

Verheem, R, Tonk, J, 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: one concept,multiple forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18 (3),177–182.

von Seht, H, 1999. Requirements of a comprehensive strategic environmentalassessment system. Landscape and Urban Planning 45, 1–14.

Wood, C., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review secondEd. Longman, Harlow.

Wood, C., Djeddour, M., 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies,plans and programmes. Impact Assessment Bulletin 10 (1), 3–22.

World Bank, online. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook and Updates. /http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTENVASS/0,,contentMDK:20282864�pagePK:148956�piPK:216618�theSitePK:407988,00.htmlS.

Zhu, T., Wu, J., Chang, I., 2005. Requirements for strategic environmentalassessment in China. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy andManagement 7 (1), 81–97.