Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Exploring climate change criteria for strategic
environmental assessments
Paula J. Posas
Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, United Kingdom
Abstract
Climate change has become a high priority worldwide at the level of governments, business, and community due to growing
understanding of climate change’s implications for trade, security, the economy, ecosystems, and the well-being of humans and
other species. The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process is well-positioned to systematically help strengthen treatment
of climate change adaptation and mitigation in planning and development. This is due to its practical, analytical component, its
participation component, and its ability to engage with ethical issues and reconcile competing agendas. This monograph explores
criteria and good practices in addressing various climate change aspects in SEA and country environmental analysis (CEA). Climate
change criteria are developed and applied to two datasets to provide an initial information baseline on climate change treatment in
SEA and CEA, amended sets of climate change criteria for each, and an evidence-based resource for improving SEA and CEA
guidance and practice amongst interested academics, professionals, and practitioners in the UK, EU, development banks, and
developing countries. Overall findings are relevant to any individual, institution, or country interested in addressing climate change
and climate-related natural hazards within an SEA or planning framework.
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Strategic environmental assessment; Sustainability appraisal; Country environmental analysis; Climate change; Global warming;
Equity; International development; Planning
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3. SEA and climate change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.1. Strategic environmental assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.2. SEA procedural stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.3. Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.4. Literature on addressing climate change in an SEA context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.4.1. Peer-reviewed journal articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.4.2. Non-journal academic publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.4.3. Policy and practice guidance documents referring to climate change and SEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.5. Rationale for addressing climate change in SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.6. The need for due diligence criteria related to climate change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann
Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154
E-mail address: [email protected].
0305-9006/$ – see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.progress.2011.05.001
4. Climate change in English core strategy sustainability appraisals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.1. Introduction to the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.2. Review findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.3. Brief overview of practices by criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.1. Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.2. Policy reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.3. Objectives/indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.3.4. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3.5. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3.6. Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3.7. Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3.8. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.3.9. Equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.4. Proposed criteria for the EU SEA context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5. Climate change in development bank-supported CEAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.1. Introduction to the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.2. Review findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.3. Brief overview of practices by criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.3.1. Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.3.2. Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.3. Key sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.4. Programmes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.5. Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.6. Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3.7. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.8. Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.9. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.3.10. Equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.4. Proposed criteria for development banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6. Synthesis and further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.1. Overview of key findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.2. Re-examining some of the original research assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.2.1. Climate change not being routinely addressed in SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.2.2. The need for EU-based and developing country SEAs to have different climate change criteria. . . 146
6.2.3. The English case study findings feeding into the international case study findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.2.4. Complementary actions driving SEA’s potential to influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.2.5. The adequacy of climate change criteria to affect change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.3. Areas for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154110
1. Introduction
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a
systematic, participatory decision-making support pro-
cess undertaken to ensure that key factors relating to the
environment and sustainability are taken into account in
the development of policies, plans, and programmes
(PPPs). In European Union (EU) member states, SEA is
explicitly required under the EU SEA Directive (2001/
42/EC) to assess significant effects related to ‘climatic
factors,’ which is increasingly understood to include
climate change. Multilateral development banks
(MDBs) and international development agencies also
require SEAs for many of their projects in client
countries and express commitment to tackling climate
change. This commitment is partly due to their
mandate to reduce poverty, which is made much more
challenging due to climate change’s destabilising and
disproportionate impacts on the poor and other
vulnerable populations. Developing countries are also
becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of
climate change and reducing contributions to it. This
is due to growing awareness of climate change’s
many vexing dimensions, including environmental
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 111
(IPCC, 2007; MEA, 2005; Parmesan & Yohe, 2003),
health (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley,
2005; Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Gibbs, & Woodruff,
2008); economic (Stern, 2006), business and trade
(3C, 2007; Mani, 2007), security (Abbott, 2008;
Bevanger, 2006; CNA, 2007), development (World
Bank, 2007) and ethical dimensions (Brown et al.,
2006; Posas, 2007).
This research grew out of an interest in SEA and
climate change, a concern over the limited attention to
and understanding of how to address climate change in
SEA (Hacking & Guthrie, 2008; Hilden, Furman, &
Kaljonen, 2004), and a resulting compulsion to discover
how to more systematically and effectively go about
addressing climate change in SEA. Accordingly, the
overall aim of this research is to: explore how climate
change is being addressed in SEA literature and practice
and how climate change might be more systematically
incorporated into SEA processes going forward. To do
this, the research first examines SEA and climate
literature and their nexus. Secondly, by developing
analytical review frameworks, it investigates recent
SEA and country environmental analysis (CEA)
practice on addressing climate change in developed
and developing country contexts. Lastly, it discusses the
climate change criteria emerging from the frameworks
and offers recommendations for further research and
possible ways forward in creating a more ‘climate
change-enabled SEA.’ It is hoped that the information
and frameworks in this monograph help developed
countries, developing countries, MDBs, and interna-
tional development agencies to strengthen their
practices, guidance, and technical support for addres-
sing climate change (and linked challenges) through
SEA, CEA, and the planning process.
2. Methodology
One’s metatheory or set of presuppositions about the
nature of reality and knowledge, ‘implicitly or explicitly
. . . informs you as to what you can/cannot do (and even
see) and what kind of knowledge you can/cannot obtain –
if you want to do science’ (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006,
p. 295). Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism embodies this
research’s foundational assumptions about the nature of
reality and how it can be investigated. Critical realism, a
philosophy of science and social science, has been
employed worldwide in various academic and profes-
sional disciplines (Archer, Bhaskar, Collier, Lawson, &
Norrie, 1998) and in research methods generally
(Mingers, 2004; Robson, 2002). Of relevance to this
particular research, critical realism has been employed in
studying environmental impact assessment (Cashmore,
Bond, & Cobb, 2008), defended in the context of urban
and regional studies (Banai, 1995), proposed for research
in urban land use and transportation planning (Næss &
Jensen, 2002), advocated for human geography (Yeung,
1997), and suggested as the most suitable approach
presently available for ‘real world’ research aimed at
solving problems (Robson, 2002).
As with most philosophies of science and social
science, critical realism is defined by its particular
ontological (view of reality), epistemological (conditions
for knowledge), and methodological (appropriate tech-
niques for investigating knowledge) stances. Regarding
ontology, critical realism views reality as intransitive
(existing independently of humans) and stratified into
three linked ontological domains: the real or ‘deep’
(realm of mechanisms and structures with enduring
properties), the actual (realm of events and non-events
generated by mechanisms), and the empirical (realm of
events that are actually observed and experienced), where
‘lower’ domains and objects of knowledge are emergent
from the ‘higher’ ones. These ontological domains offer a
philosophically coherent way to argue that the empirical
realm is not all there is and thereby lifts many of the
restrictions on thinking that have come to be associated
with other philosophical traditions such as positivism,
idealism, and relativism (Bhaskar, 1975, 1979; Sayer,
2004). Critical realist epistemology holds that there can
be different lenses through which to investigate reality
and that researchers’ ‘access to reality’ is unavoidably
mediated by theory and values (Lipscomb, 2008, p. 41).
With regard to methodology, critical realists advise that
the choice of methods should be determined by the nature
of the research problem (McEvoy & Richards, 2006;
Mingers, 2004; Pratschke, 2003; Yeung, 1997).
Principal methods employed in this research are
document review, analytical review frameworks, and
content analysis. As the research aim required collect-
ing baseline data on treatment of climate change in two
distinct datasets, two analytical review frameworks
were developed for the research’s empirical component.
The analytical review framework for climate change
treatment in EU SEA Directive-based SEAs was
developed after reviewing various EU and United
Kingdom (UK) SEA guidance documents, in particular
drawing criteria from the Environment Agency et al.
(2007) guidance for practitioners, as it was the most
detailed on climate change. From this, eight climate
change review criteria were selected by which to assess
climate change treatment, including: identifying rele-
vant policy statements or targets; assessing climate
change implications in the alternatives considered; and
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154112
reference to mitigation and adaptation measures in the
final plan, amongst others. Using the eight-criteria
analytical framework, a review was undertaken of 36
final stage English local spatial plan sustainability
appraisals (SAs).
Setting up the review framework for international
CEAs required a different approach. As no MDB
document pertaining to SEA or CEA and climate change
could be found at the time of the research, climate change
review criteria had to be derived by other means. In the
end, the CEA review criteria were identified based solely
upon what was present in the 39 reviewed CEAs from the
World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB). Based
on review, broad categories were identified such that each
mention of climate (related to climate change and not
investment climate, etc.) could be classified into one of a
set of nine category headings. These included categories
not in the English review, such as: identification of
expected climate change-related impacts on key sec-
tor(s)/areas, mention of opportunities presented by
climate change for investment involving carbon finance
or mitigation/adaptation incentive funds, and mention of
relevant national and sub-national institutions and
agencies. Within the context of the above-mentioned
review frameworks and criteria, 36 English core strategy
SAs and 39 development bank CEAs were analysed
using content analysis.
With regard to dataset selection, the original
intended developed country dataset was English SEAs
for any sector, however, they were difficult to find
online, and those that were found were highly variable
in length, approach and style. Other alternatives were
also considered before settling on SAs of English Local
Development Framework (LDF) core strategies. LDF
core strategy SAs had the notable advantage of being
both plentiful and mandated to be publicly available
online. They are also required by law to comply with the
EU SEA Directive, and thus for all intents and purposes
function as SEAs.
The developing country dataset selected was inter-
national CEAs. CEAs became the focal point of the
international review instead of SEAs for several reasons.
There were many more CEAs readily available, and
comparisons could be made more successfully between
them than between same or different sector international
SEAs due to their basic common features. CEAs were
also publicly available on World Bank and ADB
websites, thus avoiding confidentiality issues. The
justification for CEAs being closely reviewed in research
about SEA is that, as Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005, p.
134) assert: ‘Many of the tools and analytical approaches
of CEA approximate to SEA. Their focus is large-scale
and general. In an individual country, lessons can be
drawn from previous SEA applications to provide key
inputs to the broader review in the CEA. Conversely, the
CEA can identify sectors and policies where a more in-
depth analysis through SEA could provide more specific
guidance for policy development.’ CEA and SEA
sometimes show significant overlap and also share a
common purpose of ensuring more environmentally
sustainable actions and outcomes.
3. SEA and climate change
To contextualise the empirical reviews described in
Sections 4 and 5, relevant literature on SEA, climate
change, and their nexus will be briefly discussed.
3.1. Strategic environmental assessment
The modern concept of SEA is between about 30 and
40 years old, the exact age depending on the perspective
taken (Andre, Delisle, & Reveret, 2004; Bina, 2007;
Partidario, 2000; Sadler & McCabe, 2002). Environ-
mental assessment was first institutionalised in the 1969
United States National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (US Congress, 1969), which gave rise to the
commonly known environmental impact assessment
(EIA) tool now used throughout the world (Sadler &
McCabe, 2002). NEPA was signed into law by then-
President Richard Nixon and came into effect on 1
January 1970. Caldwell (1998), who was instrumental in
writing and promoting NEPA, called the EIA NEPA’s
action-forcing feature. Yet, it was also much more, and
Caldwell (1998, p. xviii) characterises NEPA as
‘unconventional in its purpose to broaden understanding
and to assist in a reorientation of values, beliefs, and
behaviours . . . by giving them national visibility and
assisting in their implementation.’
SEA, which operates at the policy, plan, and
programme level, was implied in the language of NEPA
and operationalised in the California Environmental
Quality Act shortly thereafter (Sadler & McCabe, 2002,
p. 526), which applied to state agency-proposed or
approved activities including programmes, plans, and
staged projects. However, SEA only truly came into its
own at a wider level after two more decades because the
text referred generically to the ‘proposed action’ (NEPA,
1969) not specifying, project, plan, policy, decision, etc.
When environmental assessment legislation came to be
adopted in other countries – including Germany in 1975,
France in 1976, and the European Community in the mid-
1980s – ‘proposed action’ was interpreted to apply to
projects, leaving environmental assessment’s pertinence
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 113
1 The most widely adopted definition from the Brundtland Report
(WCED, 1987) reads: ‘Sustainable development is development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two
key concepts: the concept of ‘‘needs’’, in particular the essential needs
of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social
organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future
needs.
to PPPs undefined (Fischer & Seaton, 2002). Whilst in
1978, the U.S. President’s Council on Environmental
Quality defined the ‘actions’ to include regulations,
plans, policies, procedures, legislative proposals, and
programmes (Eccleston & Smythe, 2002), NEPA-based
assessment and EIAs worldwide tended to nevertheless
be applied almost exclusively to project proposals.
SEA has garnered international recognition (IAIA,
2002), been institutionalised in whole regions (Dalal-
Clayton & Sadler, 2005; Fischer, 2007; Sheate, Byron, &
Smith, 2004), and been adopted by international
organisations as a way to strengthen development
planning (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005; OPCS,
2004). SEA is practised in developing countries (Bao,
Lu, & Shang, 2004; Briffett, Obbard, & Mackee, 2003;
Chaker, El-Fadl, Chamas, & Hatjian, 2006; CSIR/DEAT,
2000; Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005; Lee & George,
2000), usually in connection with development bank
requirements (Alzina & Teixeira, 2005; Blanco, 2006;
Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005). In developed countries
(Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005; Fischer, 2007; Sheate
et al., 2004), SEA is practised more systematically and
often in association with formal requirements tied to EIA
law or in the case of European Union member states, in
connection with the ‘EU SEA Directive.’ The full title of
said directive is ‘Directive, 2001/42/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the Assessment of the
Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the
Environment,’ but for obvious reasons it is most
commonly referred to simply as the ‘EU SEA Directive.’
This shortened title is also the name by which it shall be
known henceforth in this monograph.
Currently there appears to be general consensus that
SEA is a participatory, decision-making support process
to improve integration of environmental and sustain-
ability considerations into PPPs. Many definitions of
SEA have been proposed over the years (Bina, 2003), and
many have persisted in emphasising only environmental
impacts of PPPs, rather than both those effects and
environmental impacts on a policy, plan, or programme
(e.g. climate change, climate variability, natural hazards).
One definition that explicitly encompasses these dual
dimensions of environment, and thus of climate change,
comes from South Africa (CSIR/DEAT, 2000; DEAT,
2007) and defines SEA as: ‘a process of integrating the
concept of sustainability into strategic decision-making’
that involves identifying the opportunities and constraints
that the environment and socio-economic conditions
present for future development. A definition such as this
one, by highlighting environmental opportunities and
constraints, makes the two-way nature of climate change
issues (e.g. potential to increase/decrease greenhouse gas
emissions and vulnerability to climate changes and
hazards) apparent, and thus probably also more likely to
be acknowledged and addressed. Lastly on definitions,
when speaking about biophysical environment, this
research adopts the technical definition appropriated
from earth science or geography where biophysical
environment is said to consist of ‘the interactions
between the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and
biosphere, as well as human activities’ (Hutchinson,
1998). With this understanding of ‘biophysical environ-
ment,’ it becomes even more clear that SEA should
provide for systematically considering the stationary
(natural and built) and dynamic dimensions of the
environment (including natural events and phenomena
such as floods, hurricanes, El Nino and climate change).
Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) condense the
rationale for SEA into categories of: strengthening
project EIA, addressing cumulative and large scale
effects, and advancing the sustainability agenda. With
regard to this third rationale, sustainable development1 is
widely held to be the ultimate goal of SEA, as has been
tracked in definitions of SEA since the early 1990s (Bina,
2003). Though sometimes a contested concept, numer-
ous authors see sustainable development’s value as the
potential for integration it provides (Connelly &
Richardson, 2005; Dovers & Handmer, 1993; Strydom,
2002). Strydom (2002, p. 128) calls sustainable devel-
opment a ‘cultural form with practical efficacy.’ ‘Issues
previously seen as separate—such as world deforesta-
tion, overpopulation, stratospheric ozone depletion,
desertification, basic needs for human existence, poverty
in poor countries, per caput resource consumption and
waste production in industrialised countries, and global
climate change—are now apt to be considered firmly
together in political and intellectual debates’ (Dovers &
Handmer, 1993, p. 217). In the context of sustainable
development, Connelly and Richardson (2005, p. 395)
view SEA’s role as follows: ‘. . . we can see SEAwhich is
oriented towards achieving sustainable development not
as generating a definable output, but as providing a
framework for approaching the integration of difficult
environmental risks, challenges, conflicts, and trade-offs
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154114
Table 1
Models encompassing different conceptions of SEA.
Analytical science model Information provision
model
Participation model Environmental governance
model
Purposes Informing decisions and
enhancing scientific
understanding
Informing decisions Participatory decision
making
Deliberative democracy
Type and form
of science
Applied, experimental
science; naturalistic
philosophy of science;
prominent role for ecology
Extensive use of the
natural scientific method;
limited role for the
social sciences
Extensive role for both
natural and social
sciences
Extensive role for social
sciences; limited role for
natural sciences
Role of social values Strict separation of facts
and values
Strict separation of facts
and values
Distinct, but valid role
for both facts and
judgments
Emphasis on social values;
all information is a product
of social constructs
Level of stakeholder
involvement
Information provision or
consultation
Consultation or limited
participation
Early and open
participation
Delegated power or
citizen control
Common terminology Systematic, comprehensive,
quantitative, experiments,
modelling, monitoring
Systematic, comprehensive,
quantitative, consultation,
predictive, informative
Inclusive, deliberative,
quantitative, qualitative,
predictive
Emancipation, plurality,
heterogeneity, equality,
justice
SEA as applied science SEA as civic science
Increasing emphasis on stakeholder involvement and value judgments ! Increasing emphasis on natural scientific method
Source: Adapted from Cashmore (2004).
into everyday decision-making.’ With specific relation to
climate change, Pizarro (2009, p. 227) identifies a
consensus amongst a number of authors that ‘sustainable
development is perhaps the most appropriate conceptual
and practical framework to identify problems, to involve
the public, and to devise strategies to deal with [climate
change] mitigation or adaptation in communities large or
small in countries of the ‘‘First’’ or the ‘‘Third World.’’’
As observed by Cashmore (2004) in relation to EIA,
epistemological beliefs place constraints on the
perceived purposes of SEA and the role of science
within SEA. In particular, they determine the types of
questions, information, and participation perceived to
be an acceptable part of environmental decision making
(Cashmore, 2004; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003). Due to the
influence of epistemological beliefs and varying bio-
sphysical, socio-economic, and geopolitical circum-
stances, SEA operates along a spectrum of
philosophical beliefs and values, ranging from logical
positivism on one side to relativism on the other. In
between these are other philosophical positions,
including critical realism, the underpinning philosophy
of this research. As understood by this author and
consistent with critical realist philosophical under-
pinnings, SEA is seen as a civic science, falling
somewhere between the information provision and
participation models shown in Table 1.
Under the paradigm of civic science (a pragmatic,
inclusive and deliberative form of science, see
Cashmore, 2004), one of the important purposes of
SEA is ‘to be a mechanism for public engagement’
(Dalal-Clayton & Sadler, 2005, p. 20), as further
developed and powerfully argued by Wilkins (2003),
Cashmore et al. (2008), Elling (2008), and Runhaar
(2009). Public engagement and opening up of decision
making to public scrutiny are amongst the multiple
causal processes identified by which SEA influences
outcomes, along with: provision of credible informa-
tion, internalising externalities, influencing corporate
attitudes, enhancing institutional environmental capa-
city, and others (Bartlett & Kurian, 1999; Cashmore,
Bond, & Cobb, 2007). As Cashmore et al. (2007) have
observed, in addition to informing decisions, SEA may
have an impact on sustainable development by
contributing to learning outcomes, governance out-
comes (e.g. Ahmed & Sanchez-Triana, 2008), attitu-
dinal and value changes, and developmental outcomes.
3.2. SEA procedural stages
The most commonly known EIA-based SEA process
consists of seven main procedural stages – screening,
scoping, analysis of alternatives, report preparation and
review, decision making, follow up and monitoring, and
consultation and participation (Fischer, 2007; Sadler,
2001). Screening is conducted to determine whether an
SEA is needed, due to legal requirements or the nature
of the policy, plan, or programme. Scoping is done to set
the parameters (geographic, temporal, and level of
detail) of the assessment and determine which
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 115
information will be included in the SEA process and
associated environmental report. Fischer (2007, p. 29)
identifies these further activities that are a part of well-
done scoping:
� Establish baseline information and data needs,
identify existing sources and gaps, describe environ-
mental problems and protection objectives.
� Consider not only the biophysical environment, but
also economic and social development objectives.
� Identify any other policies, plans, programmes, or
projects that may be important and relevant to the SEA.
� Check the consistency of different sustainability
objectives and targets.
� Identify different development alternatives that may
be available for meeting environmental, economic,
and social objectives.
� Identify suitable methods and techniques for the
assessment, as well as potential stakeholders/actors.
� Conduct consultation and participation.
From the standpoint of climate change and
associated hazard inclusion, this is perhaps the most
critical stage. For an increasing number of PPPs,
climate change and hazards should be explicitly
included in the scope of the SEA and its written terms
of reference (as applicable).
Analysis of alternatives at the strategic level can
facilitate more powerful decision making for sustain-
ability, which incorporates social, economic, and
environmental pillars of sustainability and yet recognises
that there will be conflicts, compromises, and trade-offs
(Desmond, 2007; Gibson, 2006). Since SEA is typically
undertaken for long-term or large-scale PPPs or even
large projects, consideration of alternatives opens up the
opportunity to consider different ways of achieving or
addressing certain visions, goals, aims, and issues.
Alternatives should ‘be able to both deal with existing
problems and/or meet a plan or programme vision or
objectives depending on the specific context’ (Desmond,
2007, p. 261). Kørnøv and Thissen (2000) note that in the
past SEAs tended to formulate alternatives with known
outcomes, whereas increasingly more attention needs to
be given to ‘formulating the problem, identifying the
values of interest and identifying a wide enough range of
alternatives.’ Regarding presentation, Kørnøv and This-
sen mention empirical evidence showing that one’s
judgement of a situation (and therefore decision making)
is affected by the way the situation is framed and the
ordering of alternatives and presentation of conse-
quences, so both substance and presentation of alter-
natives require careful consideration.
The environmental report stage builds on the
information collected and the analysis undertaken to
write the report. Analysis needs to be robust and
transparent to convince stakeholders of its reliability and
validity. It should also attempt to predict and evaluate
possible impacts, indicating how remaining undesired
impacts can be minimised, mitigated, or compensated.
Where negative impacts on the environment appear
unavoidable, the mitigation hierarchy should be applied,
which emphasises principles in this order: avoid adverse
impacts, minimise adverse impacts, rehabilitate/restore,
and then as a last resort when all other options have been
exhausted, compensate for any residual, adverse impacts
that could not be avoided (Quintero, Roca, Morgan, &
Mathur, 2010; Quintero, Shi, & Posas, 2011). As Fischer
(2007) notes, the environmental report itself
� Documents the assessment findings, proposed alter-
natives, and likely impacts on the environment
� Serves as a basis for consultation and public
participation and should be taken into account in
decision making
� Establishes significant environmental impacts of the
various development options and alternatives
� Justifies the assessment methods and techniques
employed in the SEA
� Presents how other documentation was taken into
account and how the consultation and public
participation were conducted and taken into account
in the SEA process and report
� Makes recommendations to decision makers regarding
preferred alternatives and possible measures for
avoiding or minimising any remaining potential
negative impacts.
The report feeds into the decision-making stage,
wherein the decision maker(s) weigh and reconcile
economic and social considerations with the environ-
mental ones identified in the SEA report. Decision makers
in the context of the EU SEA Directive are expected to
explain how their decisions were made, which informa-
tion was used to make the decision, and how concerns
from consultations were taken into account. These
requirements help ensure that the information resulting
from the SEA process influences decision making.
In order to be most effective, SEA needs to extend
beyond the decision-making stage to the post-decision
monitoring and evaluation or ‘follow-up’ stage. Follow-
up includes ‘all activities and processes subsequent to
SEA, covering the elements of monitoring, evaluation,
management and communication’ (Morrison-Saunders
& Arts, 2004). Ideally the parameters for monitoring
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154116
will be largely set during the scoping stage, in such wise
that, per Hanusch and Glasson (2008):
� Environmental objectives have associated targets
which can be used as benchmarks for monitoring.
� Identification of likely significant effects can define
the scope of monitoring.
� Measures/conditions for monitoring will have been
envisaged.
Follow-up is needed to monitor significant effects and,
amongst others, detect any unforeseen adverse effects so
that appropriate remedial action can be taken (EU SEA
Directive, Article 10). Bond, Langstaff, and Ruelle
(2002, p. 1) give the following rationale for follow-up:
� To check the accuracy of predictions with a view to
improving prediction techniques
� To monitor compliance with agreed conditions and
regulations
� To ensure mitigation measures are implemented
� To provide learning opportunities for improving
mitigation measures on future projects.
Recent empirical literature has highlighted other
reasons to undertake follow-up monitoring, including
to: provide a better baseline, fill in data gaps, ensure
mitigation measures are successful and effective, and
establish a causal link between the implemented
programme or strategy and anticipated/likely effects
(Hanusch & Glasson, 2008).
Although public participation is one of the main stages
of SEA, it is often lacking due to various factors,
including insufficient databases, inappropriate institu-
tional conditions, and limited personnel and financial
resources (Hanusch & Glasson, 2008). Consultation and
public participation occur in various ways at various
stages including, most commonly, the scoping and report
review stages. However, public participation can also be
invited when: defining SEA objectives, supporting
comprehensive collection of baseline information,
identifying alternatives, choosing between them, identi-
fying mitigation measures, and ensuring effective
implementation of the policy, plan, or programme
(Fischer, 2007). Aschemann (2008, p. 151) lists four
requirements for effective public participation:
� Inform and involve interested and affected actors such
as citizens, public authorities and interest groups.
� Explicitly address their comments, concerns, and
inputs, both in documentation and decision making.
� Ensure that all relevant actors and parties are involved
or at least represented.
� Ensure sufficient access to all relevant documents and
information concerning the project or the policy, plan,
or programme.
There are a multitude of rationales for public
participation in the SEA process. Amongst them are
enhancing the transparency of decision-making pro-
cesses and enhancing the completeness, validity and
reliability of the relevant information. The belief that
public participation is important and helps create better
decisions is not only a theoretical idea (Beierle, 2002;
Dietz & Stern, 2008). An analysis led by Beierle (2002)
of over 239 U.S. published case studies of stakeholder
involvement in environmental public decision making
indicates that the quality of decisions tends to improve
with stakeholder involvement.
Also important with regard to public or stakeholder
participation are issues clarified by Wilkins (2003) in
relation to the subjective elements of EA. Specifically,
Wilkins argues that EIA (and relatedly SEA) opens
opportunities for social learning and development of
less individualistic and more communitarian values.
EIA, he says, provides ‘a temporary community forum
at which various perspectives and viewpoints can be
considered in the decision-making process and in
discourse,’ likely resulting in stronger community
values and the possibility that longer-term environ-
mental discourse can be fostered and generated in other
fora (Wilkins, 2003, p. 410). He sees environmental
assessment’s strengths, and thus also the objectives it
fulfils, as its qualities of public participation, transpar-
ency, promotion of discourse, social learning, and
transformation of values (2003, p. 411). Significantly,
stakeholder participation is one of the two most cited
factors (along with SEA fitting into the decision-making
context) contributing to SEA influence on decision
making (Runhaar & Driessen, 2007), and its importance
is re-affirmed in recent empirical studies, such as those
by Cashmore et al. (2008) and World Bank et al. (2011).
A last important concept to mention in relation to the
SEA process is tiering, which refers to the hierarchical
(sometimes only theoretical) nesting of policies, plans,
programmes, and projects (PPPPs). These PPPPs are
known as decision tiers, and the value of a tiered
approach to SEA lies in ‘its potential to enable greater
transparency and integration, supporting more effective
streamlining of strategic planning’ and avoiding
duplication (Fischer, 2007, p. 10). Bundled up in this
characterisation is the assumption that higher level
decision tiers inform lower level decision tiers, and that
there is effective information flow between them. A
number of authors have argued that tiering is an important
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 117
factor contributing to SEA effectiveness (Fischer, 2007;
Hilden et al., 2004; Sheate et al., 2003). Nevertheless,
there are barriers to effective tiering and its operability
has come into question in both developed and developing
countries, as cogently discussed in Bina (2003) and more
recently re-asserted by Quintero (2008). Specifically, in
some cases and countries, policies may not be well-
reflected in lower planning levels, intermediate links
between national policies and individual projects may be
lacking, and the top-down direction may be reverted as
large-scale projects may begin to drive plans and policies
(as summarised by Bina, 2003).
The seven stages described above – screening,
scoping, analysis of alternatives, environmental report
and review, decision making, and monitoring and follow-
up, with consultation and participation interspersed – and
tiering (to whatever degree it may exist in a given context)
allow SEA to work in the manner of a decision support
process, information generating instrument, and sys-
tematic decision framework (Fischer, 2007), all of which
can aid in successfully addressing climate change in
PPPs, as well as large projects.
3.3. Climate change
‘Climate’ refers to the average meteorological
conditions in a particular place over a long period of
time, and ‘climate change’ is understood to be any
change in climate over time, whether due to natural or
human induced causes (IPCC, 2007). The term ‘global
warming’ is sometimes used interchangeably with
Fig. 1. Diagram of the greenhouse gas effect [illustrated b
climate change, but the terms are different. Global
warming refers to an average increase in near-surface
temperatures, whilst climate change is a broader term that
refers to any significant change in measures of climate
(temperature, precipitation, wind, etc.) lasting for an
extended period (decades or longer). Present climate
change embraces but does not consist only of global
warming and is known to be influenced by human
activities that significantly increase greenhouse gas
emissions into the atmosphere. Important natural green-
house gases are water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3). By contrast,
nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which also make up a
large part of the atmosphere, do not interact with long-
wave radiation and play no part in the greenhouse effect
(Callander, 1995). The greenhouse gas of greatest
concern generally is CO2, which has a long atmospheric
lifetime (50–200 years) and since the mid-Eighteenth
Century has been released into the atmosphere in large
quantities by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation,
and certain other types of land use change. Fig. 1 depicts
how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ‘trap’ heat and
cause the ‘greenhouse effect.’
The greenhouse effect on average keeps the Earth
approximately 33 8C (60 8F) warmer than it would
otherwise be (Callander, 1995). However, the amount of
heat currently being trapped is rising at such a steep
pace that climate and landforms are changing signifi-
cantly; maps are literally having to be redrawn
(Thompson, 2007). Ten measurable planet-wide features
used to gauge global temperature changes are moving in a
y Schwandes (2011); adapted from GGWC (2009)].
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154118
3 These three objectives have some potential to be in conflict and
require judgements about how trade-offs are made between them. It has
been convincingly argued that these judgements cannot be given by the
natural or social sciences, but rather that they are judgements that need
to be based on ethical principles (Klepper, 2005; Ott et al., 2004).
direction consistent with a warming world. The seven
rising indicators are: air temperature over land, sea-
surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea
level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature
in the ‘active-weather’ layer of the atmosphere closest to
the Earth’s surface. The three indicators in decline are
Arctic sea ice, glaciers, and spring snow cover in the
Northern hemisphere (Arndt, Baringer, & Johnson,
2010). Other documented climate change impacts include
accelerated glacier retreat in tropical (not just Arctic)
regions, longer growing seasons, shift of species ranges,
increases in extreme meteorological events (such as
severe storms, drought, and heat waves), ocean acidifica-
tion, and changing weather patterns (IPCC, 2007).
Each of these situations has wide reaching impacts,
whether through direct environmental consequences or
economic, social or security ramifications (Barnett,
2003). For example, many people rely on glaciers for
their water supply. Ocean acidification affects corals and
reduces breeding grounds for fish on which many people
depend for food and livelihood. The rising sea level is
salinising aquifers in many coastal areas and threatening
the territorial integrity, livelihood, and survival of
populations in small island states such as Tuvalu and
the Maldives. Rising temperatures and unpredictability
in the weather and natural environment is also drastically
impacting the health and culture of traditional popula-
tions, from the polar regions to the tropics. Changing
weather patterns make agricultural production difficult
and more insecure in almost all regions of the world, and
can exacerbate resource conflicts. Changes in climate
also impact animal populations (Parmesan, 2006),
forcing migrations and already causing some extinctions,
such as in the case of climate-driven disease epidemics
amongst certain amphibians (Pounds et al., 2006).
The full extent of climate change’s future effects are
not yet known, and changes are in some instances
occurring more rapidly than models had predicted (Tin,
2008) and at a rate that is threatening ecosystems’ ability
to adapt naturally. This in turn threatens humans and all
other populations that depend on ecosystems for water,
food, and other services. In recognition of the seriousness
of this situation, the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),2 currently
ratified by 194 countries, has the goal to stabilise
2 The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March 1994. It ‘sets an
overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the chal-
lenge posed by climate change’ and ‘recognizes that the climate
system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by
industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases’ (UNFCCC, 2008).
greenhouse gas concentrations at a ‘level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.’ Such a ‘safe’ level is defined as one
which would be ‘achieved within a time-frame sufficient
to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climatic change
to ensure that food production is not threatened and to
enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable
manner’ (UNFCCC, 1992, Art. 2; see UNFCCC, 2008).3
The global mean temperature has risen approximately
0.76 8C (1.4 8F) since 1850 and continues to rise.
Without successful efforts to reduce worldwide green-
house gas emissions, particularly of CO2, the global mean
temperature is likely to rise an estimated 1.1 to 6.4 8Cover the next 100 years (IPCC, 2007). However, increases
in global mean temperature of just 1.5–2.5 8C will
provoke major changes in ecosystem structure and
function, threatening many species and negatively
impacting ecosystem goods and services on which
human and other populations rely. Fig. 2 shows these and
further consequences of global warming over a range of
global annual average temperature changes up to 5 8C.
In order to stabilise the atmospheric CO2 to between
445 and 490 parts per million (for an estimated global
mean temperature increase of 2–2.4 8C above the pre-
industrial average), drastic reductions in CO2 emissions
are needed worldwide, and simultaneously societies must
adapt to the changes already underway or projected to
come.
The two main types of responses to climate change are
known as mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to
efforts to reduce sources or enhance sinks (absorbers) of
greenhouse gases, so as to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases that end up in the atmosphere.
Adaptation, on the other hand, involves adjustments in
human and natural systems to actual or expected climatic
changes, in order to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts
and take advantage of positive opportunities (Smit &
Pilifosova, 2001). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change,4 commonly known as the IPCC, cites
4 The IPCC was formed in 1988 as a joint effort between the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). It is a respected intergovernmental scientific
body that presents broad consensus views about climate change
science, impacts, and response strategies based on international
peer-reviewed research. It has issued major multi-volume reports in
1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007. More information about its work,
purpose, and influence can be read here: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 119
Fig. 2. Consequences of global warming over a range of temperature rises (sourced from IPCC (2007), Figure SPM.2; used with permission).
both types of responses as critical and recommends
climate change be tackled with a portfolio of strategies
including mitigation, adaptation, technological develop-
ment (to enhance both adaptation and mitigation), and
research (on climate science, impacts, adaptation and
mitigation). The IPCC recommends that the portfolio
also include incentive-based policies and ‘actions at all
levels from the individual citizen through to national
governments and international organisations’ (IPCC,
2007, p. 20).
In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called
climate change ‘a defining issue of our era’ (UNNS,
2007a) and five months later, after a global trip
witnessing the changes firsthand, he referred to it as
‘the defining challenge of our age’ (UNNS, 2007b).
Heather Campbell (2006, p. 201), planning professor at
the University of Sheffield, acknowledged climate
change as one of planning’s ‘wicked issues,’ calling it
‘complex, multifaceted, and dynamic.’ The concept of
‘wicked problems’ was proposed by Horst Rittel and
Melvin Webber (urban planners at the University of
California, Berkeley) in a 1973 treatise for social
planning. The term ‘wicked’ in the planning context is
reserved for issues that are complex, evolving, and
difficult to resolve or treat with traditional linear,
analytical approaches. They usually involve environ-
mental, economic, and socio-political issues, may
themselves be symptoms of other problems, and require
behaviour change as part of the solution (APSC, 2007;
Kemp & Loorbach, 2006).
3.4. Literature on addressing climate change in an
SEA context
As long ago as 1996, the SEA literature referred to
‘climate warming’ and loss of biodiversity as ‘truly
global and pervasive cumulative effects’ to be addressed
in SEA (Sadler, 1996, p. 161). Yet in the intervening
years, the published literature on SEA and climate
change has remained quite sparse. This section will
briefly review relevant publications and information
pertaining to climate change and SEA and any insights
the documents may have provided towards developing
climate change criteria for SEA.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154120
3.4.1. Peer-reviewed journal articles
Through Scopus database and online searches using
the terms ‘strategic environmental assessment’ and
‘climate change’ (and other variations such as global
warming and greenhouse gases) finalised on 25 January
2009, six articles were located and examined for their
coverage of climate change in SEA and possible pertinent
insights. George (1999), who wrote about testing for
sustainable development through EA, posed greenhouse
gas emissions as one of 18 criteria for testing EA/SEAs
for sustainability. Zakkour, Gaterell, Griffin, Gochin, and
Lester (2002), writing about a sustainable energy strategy
for a water utility, advocated SEA to help stakeholders
understand environmental impacts and support better
policy in the context of global warming. Poulsen and
Hansen (2003), on the topic of an SEA of alternative
sewage sludge management, talked about global warm-
ing as an environmental impact category considered in
assessing alternatives in the SEA. Noble and Christmas
(2008) proposed a methodological framework for SEA
using greenhouse gas mitigation policy in the agricultural
sector as a case study. Wilson and Piper (2008), in the
context of spatial planning for biodiversity in Europe,
recommended EIA and SEA as measures to ‘climate
proof’ PPPs for biodiversity conservation. Carter, White,
and Richards (2009) discussed the role SEA and SA
could play in managing future flood risk in the context of
climate change.
What is drawn from these articles is that SEA and SA
have a strong potential role in reducing flood risk which
will be exacerbated by climate change (Carter et al.,
2009); that greenhouse gas emissions should be assessed
in determining sustainability in an SEA context (George,
1999); that global warming should be a consideration
when assessing alternatives in sewage sludge manage-
ment (Poulsen & Hansen, 2003); and that strategies exist
to help ensure that the link between biodiversity and
climate change is more effectively addressed (Wilson &
Piper, 2008). Relevant to SEA more generally, Zakkour
et al. (2002) usefully highlight SEA’s role in helping
stakeholders understand environmental impacts and
support better policy, and Noble and Christmas (2008)
argue persuasively in favour of systematic and structured
methodological frameworks for SEA. In summary, these
articles span 1999–2009; four were published prior to
2003 and four have been published since 2007. There is
no single article that has climate change and SEA as its
main focus, but together the articles suggest that climate
change should be considered in SEA in relation to
alternatives, greenhouse gas emissions reduction and
monitoring, and in relation to stakeholder involvement
and biodiversity conservation.
3.4.2. Non-journal academic publications
Several written works of an academic nature (which
are not peer-reviewed journal articles) provided further
insights into climate change in an SEA context. Barry
Sadler (1996), with support from impact assessment
experts and organisations worldwide, undertook an
international study of the effectiveness of environmental
assessment. Sadler (p. 197) proposed a ‘quick start’
agenda for applying environmental assessment to global
change that would build on existing processes and
involve:
� Taking the UN conventions on climate change and
biological diversity as policy references and legal
commitments (for signatory countries)
� Developing national guidance and interpretation as to
the use of environmental assessment as an imple-
menting mechanism
� Using existing methods and procedures to the fullest
extent possible
� Building more integrative approaches as required
� Recognizing the specific and differentiated problems
and policy characteristics of biodiversity and climate
change in process design and application.
Though focusing on environmental assessment gen-
erally, the report includes sections on global change and
SEA. Sadler considers that SEAs permit more effective
assessment of climate change implications of PPPs and
development decisions than EIA of projects, though the
two can be possibly most powerful when tiered. The SEA
process, he argues, can serve as an early warning
mechanism for identifying major CO2 emitting projects,
particularly for energy and transport sector proposals, and
helping secure reductions through the consideration of
alternatives. What is interesting about this insightful
document is its exclusive focus on mitigation rather than
adaptation, reflecting the time in which it was published.
Prior to 2000, mitigation was give the most attention and
generally viewed as a much higher priority than
adaptation (Klein, Schipper, & Dessai, 2005; Metz and
Kok, 2008; Metz, Davidson, Martens, Rooijen, &
McGory, 2000).
Sadler also makes a major contribution in identifying
probably the first known mention of the need to include
climate change in ‘SEA.’ It was found in the NEPA-based
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (USCEQ), 1989
guidance for federal agencies to consider global climate
change at the programme level, since project level EIA
‘would not provide meaningful information in most
instances.’ The specific wording referred to: considera-
tion of significant effects ‘on the global commons outside
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 121
the jurisdiction of any nation,’ and regulations on
cumulative impact which required agencies to consider
‘the incremental impact of an action when added to past,
present or reasonably foreseeable future actions.’ As
Sadler (1996, p. 200) observed, USCEQ advised agencies
that global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion
were to be considered ‘reasonably foreseeable.’
Shillington, Russell, & Sadler’s (1997) Addressing
Climate Change through Environmental Assessment: A
Preliminary Guide provides a ‘practical overview of the
opportunities for and constraints to addressing climate
change within the environmental assessment process.’
This document appears to be one of the earliest and most
theoretically and practically oriented views of climate
change alongside the environmental assessment process.
It pertains to the environmental assessment process
generally, but many of the points made apply also to SEA.
Shillington et al. (1997, p. 19) propose climate change
considerations corresponding to the various steps of the
environmental assessment process and argue that:
Environmental assessment (EA) managers, in par-
ticular, need to become aware of the emerging
climate change policy regime, and be prepared to
position EA as a practical tool for helping decision
makers meet new climate change policy require-
ments (whatever their specific details). In this way,
EA can remain a relevant tool for promoting
decisions in response to global change and in
support of sustainable development.
Dalfelt and Næss (1997), in their report Climate
Change and Environmental Assessments: Issues in an
African Perspective, provide an overview of climate
change and environmental assessment in the develop-
ment context, particularly geared towards the energy
and forestry sectors in Africa. Of interest, they contrast
the benefits and drawbacks of EIA and SEA in
addressing climate change, and conclude with Sadler
(1996), that SEA is often a more appropriate tool for
dealing with climate change than traditional EIA. This
is because EIA, whilst well-established with known
procedures, typically has been largely reactive rather
than proactive and does not take cumulative effects into
account. SEA, by contrast had the advantages of:
� Including climate change earlier in the process than
traditional environmental assessments
� Being based on a holistic approach and encouraging
long-term strategic thinking
� Linking climate change with other policy aims
� Facilitating regional co-operation
� Encouraging a focus on causes instead of only effects.
They also sharpen their characterisation later, stating
that SEA and project-level EIA are complementary, and
that in general and for climate change, using SEA for
policy and needs assessment should then be followed by
EIA in relation to site-specific considerations. Dalfelt
and Næss also identify potential conflicts and synergies
associated with addressing climate change through the
environmental assessment process and notably address
both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Kirwan’s (2005) 80-page MSc thesis collected
information on UK public authority practitioners’
awareness, use, and opinions of the Environment
Agency et al. (2004) guidance entitled Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Climate Change:
Guidance for Practitioners. Kirwan’s work, completed
a little over a year after the release of the guidance, was
done partly with the aim to help facilitate improvements
to the guidance. The research findings showed that the
guidance had at that point not been particularly widely
known or used and that practitioners especially sought
case study examples and climate change indicators. As
a result, Kirwan compiled a practitioner-ranked list of
climate change indicators for SA/SEA, with the top five
most useful indicators being: emissions of greenhouse
gases (million tonnes carbon equivalent); air tempera-
ture; seasonality of precipitation (% precipitation
falling in winter); average energy efficiency of new
buildings; and total vehicle kilometres. Amongst her
conclusions, Kirwan (2005, pp. 52–54) stated:
Considering the undeveloped nature of the consid-
eration of climate change in SA practice, and best
practice ideas, it is not surprising that no absolute
judgements can be made about whether the
[guidance] note is effective or not. . . . As practice
develops further, some assessment of best practice
will need to be made, so that criteria could be
developed to select case studies to be used as
examples in the guidance. This would allow the
development of review criteria for assessing the
effectiveness and usefulness of guidance, and a
framework for writing guidance that would be both
effective and useful.
Thomas Fischer, in a 2001 report, empirically
evaluated 36 PPPs in England, Holland, and Germany
and found that transport and spatial/land use PPPs
involving SEAs were almost three times more likely
(43% vs. 15%) to have considered climate change
(greenhouse gas emission targets) than those that did
not involve SEAs. Various monographs, which fed into
creating the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency guidance (CEAA, 2003) on climate change,
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154122
also conducted empirical reviews of climate change in
environmental assessment, a few of which included
SEAs. Monograph authors include: Lee (2000), Barrow
and Lee (2000), Bell et al. (2002), Byer, Yeomans, and
Lalani (2001), Gauthier, Lepage, Simard, Saint-Amant,
and Lachappelle (2002), and Singh, Gagnon, and Davey
(2002).
3.4.3. Policy and practice guidance documents
referring to climate change and SEA
Several recent publications on climate change, from
policy statements to guidance for practitioners, have
touched on the topic or attempted to frame and define the
appropriate nexus of SEA and climate change. Relevant
policy-oriented guidance identified in the literature
review comes from the UNFCCC, EU, and UK. The
UNFCCC’s (1992) Article 4(1) states: ‘All parties (. . .)shall (. . .) Take climate change considerations into
account, to the extent feasible, in their relevant social,
economic and environmental policies and actions, and
employ appropriate methods, for example impact
assessments, formulated and determined nationally, with
a view to minimising adverse effects on the economy, on
public health and on the quality of the environment, of
projects or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or
adapt to climate change’. The reference to impact
assessments of relevant social, economic, and environ-
mental policies and actions clearly includes SEA, and the
overall statement says that climate change considerations
should be taken into account within them. The EU SEA
Directive (2001) requires environmental reports to
include ‘the likely significant effects on the environment,
including on issues such as biodiversity, population,
human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic
factors [emphasis added], material assets, cultural
heritage including architectural and archaeological
heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between
the above factors. . .’ where effects ‘should include
secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and
long-term permanent and temporary, positive and
negative effects.’ The EU Green Paper (2007, p. 18)
specifies that: ‘Climate-proofing must be integrated into
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive
and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Directive.’ The UK’s Department for Communities and
Local Government (DCLG, 2007, p. 11) Planning Policy
Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement
to PPS1 says that: ‘sustainability appraisal (incorporating
strategic environmental assessment) should be applied to
shape planning strategies and policies that support the
Key Planning Objectives. . .’ which include: contribute to
delivering government’s climate change programme;
secure the highest viable resource and energy efficiency
and reduction in emissions; reduce the need to travel,
especially by car; minimise vulnerability and provide
resilience to climate change, in ways consistent with
social cohesion and inclusion; conserve and enhance
biodiversity, recognising that the distribution of habitats
and species will be affected by climate change; enable
communities to contribute effectively to tackling climate
change; and respond to concerns of business and
encourage competitiveness and technological innovation
in mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Practice-oriented publications identified in a web
search finalised on February 14, 2009 are: the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency guidance (CEAA,
2003), which built on the work of Shillington et al. (1997)
and others; the Environment Agency et al. guidance
(2007); the Scottish Executive SEA Toolkit (2006); the
OECD’s (Risse & Brooks, 2008) Strategic Environ-
mental Assessment and Adaptation to Climate Change
publication; and the OECD’s (Gigli & Agrawala, 2007)
report Stocktaking of Progress on Integrating Adaptation
to Climate Change into Development Co-operation
Activities, whose Annexes 6 and Annex 7 contain two
short, very instructive guidance documents relevant to
addressing climate change in SEA from the UNDP and
DANIDA. The UNDP guidance is revisited for its
implementation principles in Section 3.6.
From these peer-reviewed journal articles, other
academic publications, and publications with a policy
or practice focus, some insights were gleaned to help
orient and advance this research. First, the idea of
addressing climate change in SEA was affirmed. Second,
the approach of identifying climate change interventions
corresponding to SEA process steps adopted by Shilling-
ton et al. (1997), CEAA (2003), and the Environment
Agency et al. (2007) was seen as promising and was
subsequently built upon in creating climate change criteria
for this research. Third, many of these sources helped in
the identification of key rationale for addressing climate
change in SEA, as will be explored in the next section.
3.5. Rationale for addressing climate change in
SEA
Climate change is inextricably linked in with the
rationales for SEA identified in the literature – concern
for sustainable development, looking at the big picture,
and taking into account long-term and cumulative
effects, of which climate change is a prime example.
From a legal perspective, the UNFCCC (1992, Article
4(1)) signatories are committed to ‘Take climate change
considerations into account, to the extent feasible, in
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 123
their relevant social, economic and environmental
policies and actions, and employ appropriate methods,
for example impact assessments . . . with a view to
minimising adverse effects on the economy, on public
health and on the quality of the environment, of projects
or measures undertaken by them to mitigate or adapt to
climate change.’ Also, addressing climate change is
required in the EU SEA Directive insofar as ‘climatic
factors’ are interpreted as encompassing climate
change. Whether or not ‘climatic factors’ were
originally designed to include climate change is rapidly
becoming a moot point, as leading EU authorities
contend that climate change, and specifically ‘climate-
proofing’ should be even more strongly reflected in the
EU EIA and SEA Directives (EU, 2007, p. 18).
Development banks for their part identify SEAs and
CEAs in their policy frameworks as needing to reflect
key environment-development priorities, of which
climate change is indisputably an important one.
SEA is considered by many to generally be a more
effective and influential vehicle than EIA for addressing
climate change, though EIA too is acknowledged to
have an important role in helping reduce emissions and
manage climate impacts (Dalfelt & Næss, 1997; Sadler,
1996; USCEQ, 1989). The core issue is that considering
climate change issues in SEA is crucial since: (a)
planning decisions and PPPs have the potential to
increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change impacts, and (b) climate change and
climate variability will impact plans and programmes.
Also, SEA provides a systematic way to help address
climate change, since PPPs in many sectors are becoming
subject to it, whether through the EU SEA Directive,
other legislation, or development bank requirements.
Addressing climate change issues in SEA can thus
facilitate significant contributions to reaching local,
national, and international targets for greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and to accomplishing climate
change adaptation and risk reduction goals.
Furthermore, very practical and tangible near-term
benefits accrue from addressing climate change within
SEA, including some identified by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA, 2003)
for project-level environmental assessments. Drawing
inspiration from some of their observations, climate
change considerations in SEA can, inter alia:
� Increase attention to, and awareness of, greenhouse
gas emissions amongst decision makers
� Stimulate consideration of less emission-intensive
development pathways and more energy-efficient
alternatives in various sectors
� Help in the management and reduction of potential
climate-related risks
� Reinforce to the public the importance of climate
change and reassure concerned members of the public
that climate change issues are being taken into
account
� Assist in determining whether projects are consistent
with jurisdictional actions and initiatives to manage
greenhouse gas emissions
� Aid decision-makers and project, plan, and pro-
gramme proponents in using best practices for
adapting to possible climate change impacts, includ-
ing changes in the frequency or intensity of extreme
weather events, increases in mean temperatures, and
altered precipitation patterns and amounts.
It must be borne in mind though, that reasons and
benefits notwithstanding, SEA is not the only way, or
even always the best way to manage climate change
issues. Addressing climate change in SEA is likely to be
and should be supported by parallel efforts at multiple
levels, in order for mitigation and adaptation to be
increasingly mainstreamed into societal activity. For
extensive discussion of the strengths and limitations of
various other approaches to addressing climate change
and proposed criteria for measuring their effectiveness,
see the IPCC TAR Report’s Chapter 13 (Gupta et al.,
2007), which discusses complementary measures
including regulatory standards, emission taxes, tradable
permit systems, voluntary agreements, subsidies and
incentives, research and development to stimulate
technological advances, public disclosure requirements,
awareness and education campaigns, and non-climate
policies on land use, trade, etc.
3.6. The need for due diligence criteria related to
climate change
The SEA community as represented by International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) recognises
the need to consider climate change adaptation in
impact assessment, yet perceives a lack of consensus on
how this should be achieved. Recent IAIA conferences
are now looking into this and how climate change is
being addressed in SEA and EIA (e.g. IAIA, 2010).
Relating to SEA in international development, Gigli and
Agrawala (2007, p. 10) state that: more efforts ‘are
needed to assess the implications of climate change on
development co-operation activities’ and that: ‘In
general, the work on developing operational measures
is still at a very early stage . . . approaches used are
diverse and often ad-hoc.’ Uncertainty about what to do
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154124
and lack of readily available or endorsed standards with
regard to climate change in SEA affect the work of SEA
practitioners as well as SEA outputs and potential to
influence.
According to SEA expert recommendations (e.g.
Partidario, 1996) and affirmed by anecdotal experience
of professional colleagues, checklists and explicit
minimum standards are extremely useful as a guide
and very powerful for achieving greater consistency and
higher standards of output. Clear guidance in the form of
checklists or distilled principles also builds confidence of
the users and speeds up their work process. Thus, this
research proposes climate change ‘due diligence’ criteria
for SEAs for both the EU SEA-Directive-based and MDB
contexts. The term due diligence first came into common
usage with the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, where it was
mentioned in relation to disclosures about securities (i.e.
stocks and bonds). But ‘due diligence’ in this research is
not meant in either that sense or a strict legal sense. It is
meant in its present-day general usage of being ‘a
measure of prudence, responsibility, and diligence that is
expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable
and prudent person under the circumstances’ (Business
Dictionary, 2008). The reason for mentioning the term
due diligence is to differentiate from the idea of minimum
criteria or the bare minimum. Minimum criteria and ‘best
practice’ can be determined by an individual or
organisation given their particular interests, needs, and
politics. The interest here is in more than minimum
criteria and less than ‘best practice’; it is in what
constitutes adequacy, meaningfulness, and reasonable
effort. Climate change ‘due diligence’ criteria are being
proposed and used in this research in order to collect
baseline information on the nature and extent of
treatment of climate change in SEA, but they are equally
importantly envisaged to be useful to practitioners as a
guiding framework for action and attention, providing a
way to evaluate adequacy of efforts, definitively help
raise and stabilise standards for addressing climate
change, and track progress over time.
Beyond climate change due diligence criteria, an
accompanying distillation of key implementation
principles and good practice examples (which are part
of guidance, not criteria per se) can also be valuable for
obtaining a stronger grasp on how to proceed towards
meaningfully addressing issues in SEA, including
climate change. This research therefore investigates
criteria as the focus, but also touches upon implementa-
tion principles and identifies good practice examples.
Ideally, the climate change criteria proposed in this
research would become part of a larger guidance
document, as guidance is needed to fill out and add
shape to concise legal statements or broad policy
visions. For example, the EU SEA Directive describes a
desired outcome (SEA process and report) rather than
how to carry out an SEA; thus guidance has needed to be
developed for purposes of practical implementation and
standardisation of practice (Kirwan, 2005). Similarly, in
the development bank context, guidance on how to
address various issues within SEA and EIA has been
necessary as new understandings, emerging issues, and
lessons learned from practice are taken into account.
This can be observed in the World Bank’s Environ-
mental Assessment Sourcebook Updates published
since 1993 and in the UNDPs guidebook on EIA and
SEA by Abaza, Bisset, and Sadler (2004). Benefits of
such guidance include promoting good practice and
clarifying methodological approaches (Spooner, 1998),
as well as a fuller range of items listed in Table 2.
As noted in the previous paragraph, implementation
principles might usefully be presented alongside climate
change criteria to guide their application and the overall
effort to effectively address climate change. What are
perceived to be the most useful sets of implementation
principles encountered during the literature review are
presented on the next page, and their application in some
of the strongest SEAs and CEAs in the empirical review
could be observed. Future research will help in fine
tuning of implementation principles, including for more
specific sectoral or contextual conditions.
Principles for a more climate-enabled SEA (and for
more climate-aware plans with or without SEA) span
climate change mitigation and adaptation and have been
drawn from various sources. For the EU SEA Directive-
based criteria, suggested implementation principles are
listed in Table 3.
For the international CEA context, the following
(Table 4) are suggested as principles to guide
implementation of the climate change criteria.
As alluded to in the last points of Tables 3 and 4, it is
necessary to guard against a narrow, non-contextualised
view of climate change. Climate change must be
considered in its social, economic, environmental, and
ethical context so as to address it appropriately and
effectively and not lose sight of important values and
other sustainability issues also requiring urgent attention.
For SEAs in the context of international development,
the principles listed in Table 5 are considered helpful.
Perhaps lastly, it should be emphasised that in SEA
context matters (i.e. Bina, 2003; Cashmore et al., 2008;
Fischer & Gazzola, 2006; Fischer, 2002, Marsden, 1998;
Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadottir, 2007; Retief, 2007).
Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadottir (2007, p. 667) assert
that ‘there is a relationship between the awareness of
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 125
Table 2
Benefits and expectations of EA/SEA guidance documents.
Some examples of what practitioners and bureaucrats like about guidelines Some common expectations of the purpose of guidelines
They assist in the preparation of terms of reference Endowing quality control for legal or procedural adherence
They provide a useful training resource Clarifying reporting requirements
They simplify decision making Establishing benchmarks for minimum standards
Their formulation leads to wider debates about integrating
environmental considerations in planning
Providing technical guidance
They are perceived as promoting best practice Encouraging transparency in impact assessment practice
They provide a framework for impact assessment Promoting information flows between impact
assessment ‘stakeholders’
They clarify methodological approaches Improving the formulation of terms of reference
They can be updated Simplifying decision making
They save time by providing references/links to more detailed
information and further resources
Filling gaps in existing regulations
They help to meet requirements on the first try Providing a tool for training
They clarify the expectations for a particular context or institution Improving awareness
Source: Adapted from Spooner (1998, p. 16).
Table 3
Suggested implementation principles for the English and EU SEA Directive-based context.
1. Consider adaptation with mitigation so that actions taken to address one do not make the other worse.
2. Seek opportunities to incorporate adaptation into new and existing developments.
3. Work in partnership with communities (households, public and private sectors).
4. Incorporate flexibility to deal with changing risks.
5. Understand existing vulnerabilities to climate and identify critical thresholds.
6. Identify key climate change risks using the latest climate change scenarios.
7. Look for no regrets, low regrets, win-win and adaptable measures to manage climate risks.
8. Adopt a sequential and risk-based approach to development decisions.
9. Avoid actions that will make it more difficult to cope with climate risks in the future
10. The proposed provision for new development, its spatial distribution, location and design should be planned to limit carbon dioxide
emissions.
11. New development should be planned to make good use of opportunities for decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy.
12. Appropriate indicators should be selected for monitoring and reporting on in regional planning bodies’ and planning authorities’
annual monitoring reports.
13. Adaptation to climate change can be evaluated through generic principles seeking to promote equitable, effective, efficient and legitimate
action harmonious with wider sustainability.
Source: Compiled by the author from Shaw et al. (2007), DCLG (2007), and Adger et al. (2005).
Table 4
Suggested implementation principles for the international CEAs.
1. Give priority to ‘no regrets’ investments and policy options that provide benefits even without climate change, such as improvements
in weather monitoring or disaster preparedness.
2. Buy ‘safety margins’ in new investments to increase climate resilience, often at low cost (i.e. the marginal costs of building a higher
dam or including additional groups in a social protection scheme).
3. Favour reversible and flexible options, such as urban zoning to anticipate new flooding patterns or crop insurance to protect farmers
against a projected higher frequency of drought.
4. Plan based on scenario analysis and an assessment of strategies under a wide range of possible futures, and then periodically review
these alongside investments for iterative learning.
5. Evaluate adaptation to climate change through generic principles seeking to promote equitable, effective, efficient and legitimate action
harmonious with wider sustainability.
Source: World Bank (2009b) and Adger et al. (2005).
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154126
Table 5
Climate change implementation principles specific to SEA.
1. Establish the goals, objectives and timescale of the assessment, and prioritize key systems sensitive to climate change.
2. Identify key environmental problems, including those caused by climate variability and climate change.
3. Take stock of existing environmental and development objectives of the country, including those related to climate change and
adaptation (e.g. objectives stated in national development strategies, Millennium Development Goals).
4. Identify stakeholders, including groups particularly vulnerable to climate change and develop a plan for their involvement.
5. Identify criteria and indicators that will be applied for assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Include indicators for monitoring and
assessing effects of climate change, vulnerability to climate change, and effectiveness of implemented adaptation measures.
6. Identify methods for assessing future vulnerability and adaptation needs, for characterising future (climate-related) risks, for assessing
future socio-economic conditions and capacity to adapt, and for characterising uncertainties related to climate change.
7. Establish the policy, plan or programme baseline, including current climate risks and impacts, current vulnerability of the system,
current capacity and institutional arrangements, programmes and policies.
8. Identify options to minimize risks and negative impacts and maximize positive benefits to the policy, plan or programme for the
environment and human development.
9. Consult the public and solicit comments on the process and the conclusions included in the document. Make sure that knowledgeable
people on climate change risks and adaptation are involved in the consultation process.
Source: Selectively culled by author from the UNDP’s SEA Approach in Gigli and Agrawala (2007, p. 66).
context, context sensitivity, and the success of SEA
implementation.’ Context generally is defined as the set
of facts or circumstances surrounding a situation or event.
Within SEA discourse, Hilding-Rydevik and Bjarnadot-
tir (2007, p. 668) have defined it as: ‘the set of factors or
circumstances that have an impact on chosen approaches
to SEA . . . [and] the set of facts and conditions that have
an impact on the outcomes of SEA implementation.’
Context matters at many different levels. For example,
knowledge of context is necessary to understand which
role SEA implementation is playing in a given context
(e.g. providing information, supporting alternatives
assessment, improving the planning system, validating
a project, plan, or programme decision, influencing
decision context and strategic initiatives) (Hilding-
Rydevik & Bjarnadottir, 2007; Vicente & Partidario,
2006). Bina (2003, p. 331) notes that in a MDB context,
SEA is seen as a ‘mechanism that could compensate for
the lack of a ‘‘strategic outlook’’.’ Knowledge of context
is also pivotal to understanding what might be reasonable
expectations for SEA outcomes in different contexts
(Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadottir, 2007).
Various authors affirm the importance of flexibility
and tailoring of SEA to local conditions (CSIR/DEAT,
2000; Fischer & Gazzola, 2006; Kjorven & Lindhjem,
2002; Partidario, 2004; UNEP, 2002). SEA is always
applied within a unique legal, administrative, and
political context, and thus the process needs to be
refined and adapted to suit the context in which it is
applied (CSIR/DEAT, 2000). Kjorven and Lindhjem
(2002, p. 23) observe that ‘the choice of technique
depends on a whole range of factors, including the
purpose of the SEA, the availability of data, local
environmental assessment capacity, decision-making
structure and culture, and resource constraints.’ These
context factors differ between developed and develop-
ing countries, and even within countries (Hilding-
Rydevik & Bjarnadottir, 2007; Retief, 2007). Within the
parameters of the climate change criteria being
proposed, it is envisaged that different contextual
circumstances (including both constraints and oppor-
tunities) can be accommodated.
4. Climate change in English core strategy
sustainability appraisals
4.1. Introduction to the review
This section summarises the findings of the review
using the aforementioned analytical framework with
eight climate change review criteria derived from EU
and UK guidance and in particular, the Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Climate Change:
Guidance for Practitioners (Environment Agency
et al., 2007). The criteria were:
1. Describes current and expected future climate
baseline;
2. Identifies relevant policy statements, agreements, or
targets;
3. Develops climate change-related objectives and
possibly indicators;
4. Assesses climate change-related implications of the
alternatives considered;
5. Includes mitigation strategies and measures in the
final plan;
6. Includes adaptation or risk reduction strategies and
measures in the final plan;
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 127
Table 6
Reviewed English core strategy SAs.
1. Ashford Borough Council SA, October 2006 19. Reading Borough Council SA, October 2008
2. Bedford Borough Council SA, June 2006 20. Redbridge (London Borough of Redbridge) SA, November 2006
3. Bracknell Forest Borough Council SA, October 2006 21. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council SA, July 2005
4. Chelmsford Borough Council SA, November 2005 22. Richmond upon Thames (London Borough of Richmond
upon Thames) SA, March 2008
5. Colchester Borough Council SA, 2007 23. Sheffield City Council SA, September 2007
6. Crawley Borough Council SA, November 2007 24. Slough Borough Council SA, November 2007
7. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council SA, June 2006 25. South Cambridgeshire District Council SA, January 2006
8. Hambleton District Council SA, December 2005 26. South Hams District Council SA, January 2006
9. Harrogate Borough Council SA, September 2007 27. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council SA, March 2006
10. Havering (London Borough of Havering) SA,
November 2006
28. Southend-On-Sea Borough Council SA, November 2006
11. Horsham District Council SA, 2007 29. Spelthorne Borough Council SA, April 2007
12. Lancaster City Council SA, April 2007 30. Tandridge District Council SA, May 2006
13. Mid Suffolk District Council SA, May 2007 31. Telford and Wrekin Borough Council SA, November 2007
14. Middlesbrough Borough Council SA, June 2005 32. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council SA, October 2005
15. North Norfolk District Council SA, June 2007 33. Tynedale District Council SA, October 2006
16. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit SA,
January 2007
34. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council SA, January 2008
17. Plymouth City Council SA, July 2005 35. Waveney District Council SA, January 2008
18. Poole Borough Council SA, May 2008 36. Wycombe District Council SA, April 2006
7. Undertakes consultation with statutory consultees
and the public that allows for climate change to be
discussed;
8. Includes provisions for monitoring climate-related
measures.
An LDF core strategy sets out the long-term (15–20
year) spatial vision for a local planning authority area, the
spatial objectives, and strategic policies to deliver that
vision. The core strategy is one of a set of documents
comprising the LDF, which is in turn influenced by
regional strategies5 and national policies and plans. The
core strategy SAs examined in this review were
submission stage documents whose core strategies were
passed on their ‘soundness’ criteria. This means that the
SAs had been submitted, had been examined by an
inspector along with the core strategy and other
documents, and that the core strategy package had been
given a kind of stamp of approval and deemed fit-for-
purpose and compliant with government requirements.
The first step towards solidifying the dataset was to
identify all approved core strategies as of 1 July 2009.
The second step required finding their corresponding
5 Regional strategies were revoked in July 2010 under s79(6) of the
Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act
2009. Currently, they no longer form part of the development plan
for the purposes of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004 (DCLG, 2010a).
submission-stage SAs online. The third step was to
review the core strategy SAs for the eight climate
change review criteria. In order to determine whether
the eight criteria were addressed, a search of each SA
was done using the term ‘‘climate’’ as a starting point,
followed by a more targeted keyword search for missing
criteria. Finally, the results were analysed.
4.2. Review findings
Forty four core strategies were deemed ‘sound’ as of
1 July 2009 (Planning Inspectorate, 2009). Four SAs
had to be excluded as they pertained to National Park
Authorities rather than Councils, leaving 40 SAs. Upon
closer inspection and looking up the website addresses
of the SA documents, four further SAs had to be
excluded due to Council websites being disabled in
relation to an April 2009 local government reorganisa-
tion. A total of 36 SAs then were ultimately included in
the review, as listed in Table 6.
Of these 36, the percentage of reviewed SAs by
region is shown in Fig. 3. The combined percentage
from the Southeast and East comprised 50% of the
dataset, whilst only one SA was reviewed for each the
East Midlands, Northwest, and West Midlands. The
majority of SAs in the dataset were dated 2006 (36%)
and 2007 (33%). Seventeen percent were dated 2005
and 14% were dated 2008.
The average (mean) number of pages in the main
body of reviewed SAs was 62, but ranged from under 20
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154128
Fig. 3. Regional distribution of SAs.
Fig. 4. Percentage of reviewed SAs that addressed 0–8 of the climate
criteria.
to 156. With appendices included, total document
length ranged from 73 to 756, though typically stayed
under 350 pages. Thirty nine percent (14/36) of the SAs
were undertaken by consultancies. These were: Atkins,
Baker Associates (2), Enfusion, Entec UK Limited (2),
Faber Maunsell/AECOM, Halcrow Group Limited,
Land Use Consultants (2), Scott Wilson (2), Waterman
Environmental, and White Young and Green.
The 36 reviewed SAs addressed an average (mean)
of 5.5 climate change review criteria and ranged from
addressing zero to eight of the criteria in percentages
shown in Fig. 4. What is also interesting to observe from
Fig. 4 is that three quarters of the SAs addressed six to
eight of the climate change criteria. This is at odds with
existing perceptions that climate change was not being
addressed with much consistency in SEAs. Within the
reviewed English core strategy SA dataset, there is a
rather consistent scope of attention to climate change
across a range of criteria areas. The level of overall
quality of attention to these areas is a different matter
and is not directly addressed in this research, except in
Table 7
Percentage SAs by region covering each of the climate change criteria.
Baseline Policy reference Objectives/indicators A
East (n = 8) 50% 75% 88%
London (n = 3) 67% 100% 100%
NE (n = 4) 25% 75% 75%
SE (n = 10) 60% 60% 90%
SW (n = 4) 75% 50% 75%
Y&H (n = 4) 50% 75% 100% 1
the identification of various good practice examples in
Section 4.3.
The percentage of SAs by region addressing the eight
climate criteria are shown in Table 7. Many regions
performed strongly on the majority of the criteria. The
data suggests however that SAs in the Northeast may
wish to give more attention to presenting baseline and
future climate projections, whilst London Borough
Council SAs may benefit from giving more attention to
climate change-related monitoring. Across all regions,
either climate change seldom came up during public
consultations or such discussion or recommendations
were not well reflected in SA reports.
Fig. 5 indicates few definitive trends when looking at
the SAs by year of publication. Some criteria appear to
become more consistently addressed over time (e.g.
consultation), whilst others seem to be in relative decline
(e.g. monitoring). It does seem unjustified that monitoring
should be decreasing whilst consideration of the climate
baseline and projections are increasing and further
monitoring tools and statistics have become available.
Likewise, when disaggregating the SA data by
Council-authored or consultancy-authored (Fig. 6), it
was seen that there was somewhat increased treatment
lternatives Mitigation Adaptation Consultation Monitoring
88% 88% 88% 38% 75%
67% 100% 100% 33% 33%
75% 100% 100% 25% 50%
70% 90% 90% 30% 80%
75% 75% 75% 50% 50%
00% 100% 100% 50% 50%
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 129
Fig. 5. Climate change areas covered by reviewed SAs, shown by year of publication.
by consultancies of some criteria (particularly alter-
natives and monitoring, where consultancies addressed
these issues more than 20% more often than Councils
did). Although the percentage of consultancies addres-
sing most criteria was slightly higher, overall the
frequency of treatment of the criteria in the remaining
areas was relatively similar and stayed within 11
percentage points of difference.
Fig. 7 depicts which variables were covered in
general in the 36 reviewed SAs from 2005 to 2008.
The areas most commonly covered in English core
strategy SAs relate to climate change mitigation and
climate change adaptation. Though the findings placed
them as even in terms of coverage, still the emphasis in
the documents appeared to be relatively more focused
on mitigation and reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. This is probably appropriate given the
Fig. 6. Climate change areas covered by reviewed
importance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction and
the UK’s international commitments. Energy efficiency
in new buildings/housing standards, renewable energy,
and modal shift in transport (including reducing the
need to travel by car) were commonly covered. The
areas covered under adaptation tended to relate most
frequently to flood risk (which was addressed in 86% of
reviewed SAs). Biodiversity in relation to climate
change was also addressed in 42% of the SAs and other
issues such as health implications, protection of built
environment, water resources, and water storage also
arose. The issue of climate change appearing amongst
objectives and/or indicators was also seen in a high
percentage of SAs (86%), with many of them having an
individual SA objective specifically pertaining to
climate change. Current and future climate baseline
data in SA documents at the submission stage was
SAs, shown for Councils and consultancies.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154130
Fig. 7. Percentage of reviewed SAs that addressed the climate change criteria between 2005 and 2008.
surprisingly low, however, during the review it was
noted that several documents referred to the baseline
information being present in the scoping stage SA and
not included in the submission stage SA.
The amount of times climate change came up in
public consultations was relatively low compared to the
Table 8
Examples of consultation’s impact on the consideration of climate change.
Council SA date Comment source Substance of comm
Harrogate Sep-07 Countryside
Agency (p. 60)
Lack of objectives
reductions, and red
Mid Suffolk May-07 Consultation
responses (pp. 52–53)
Related to renewab
North Norfolk Jun-07 Preferred Options
consultation
Whilst in line with
renewable energy t
Poole May-08 Natural England (p. 23) Greater considerati
climate change and
drainage systems i
Reading Oct-08 Consultations
(pp. 19–20)
Update sustainabili
Redbridge Nov-06 Public consultation
(6, 45)
Insertion of referen
Environment
Slough Nov-07 Environment
Agency (p. 309/E-7)
Sustainable drainag
storm run-off, etc.
South Hams Jan-06 Key stakeholders (p. 23) Reducing the need
Southend-on-Sea Aug-06 CPRE Essex
(p. 46/Appendix1:2)
Support SA’s recom
climate change
South Tyneside Mar-06 Consultations, Ms. L Hale
(pp. 5, 7, 92)
Revision of Policy
reducing emissions
Spelthorne Apr-07 Highways
Agency (p. 16)
Advising [more cli
transport, cycling,
Tandridge May-06 Public
consultation (p. 7)
New development
minimise the emiss
change
Tynedale Oct-06 Preferred options
consultation (p. 14)
Improve wording a
other indicators (13/36 cases), but this low percentage
masks some significant findings. In at least 11 of the
cases (see Table 8), it was input from the public
consultations and statutory consultees that resulted in
more being added or greater emphasis on climate
change overall in the SA and/or the core strategy.
ent Taken into
account?
relating to climate change, CO2
uced use of energy and natural resources
Yes
le energy Yes
government guidelines, too conservative with
argets
Response
given
on of cumulative impacts of 2 projects in light of
rising sea levels, also benefits of sustainable urban
n climate change context
Response
given
ty objectives to include a climate change objective Yes
ce to climate change in Strategic Policy 2: Green Yes
e systems to incorporate climate change-related Yes (on this
item)
to travel by car and others Yes
mendation for core strategy to have an objective on Yes
ST1 to include reference to sustainable settlements,
, and climate change
Yes
mate friendly] alternatives to the car (i.e. public
walking) and businesses to draw up green travel plans
Yes (broadly
speaking)
should incorporate appropriate technical solutions to
ions that would otherwise have an impact on climate
Yes
nd more specific references to climate change issues Yes
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 131
Southend-on-Sea, South Hams, and Tandridge SAs, for
example, provide evidence of the SA climate change-
related recommendations being incorporated into the
core strategy. In a few cases (i.e. Poole, Slough),
responses to the stakeholder comments argued that the
particular climate change-related items had already
been adequately taken into account or that they would
be given greater attention through some other means or
in future projects. Additionally to be noted, the issue of
climate change was reported to have come up in some
core strategy inspector reports. For example, the
Inspector’s Examination (2007, p. 4) of the North
Norfolk Core Strategy submission documents specifi-
cally looked at: ‘How are climate change issues
addressed and how is this linked to more detailed
policy such as the spatial strategy, sustainable con-
struction and renewable energy?’
Two caveats of the review should be mentioned. First,
the individual climate change criteria percentages may
not perfectly reflect what is done over the whole of the SA
process, as only submission stage SAs (not earlier
scoping or issues and options stage SAs) were reviewed.
Specifically, in some cases, (1) individual criteria may
have been addressed at other stages of the SA process and
not included in the submission stage SA document, or (2)
some criteria may not have been included in the write-up
of the SA but of the core strategy itself. Evidence for the
former situation became apparent for two particular
criteria during the review. There appeared to be little to no
information on climate baseline and future projections in
many of the submission stage SAs. However, several SAs
mentioned that such data had been presented in the
scoping stage SA, and could be referred to by looking
back to that earlier document. Regarding consultation, it
happened in some cases that the feedback was not
summarised in the submission SA but in another
document, separate appendix, or earlier draft of the
SA. This fact may have lead to a lower overall percentage
of SAs counted as including discussion of climate change
within the consultation process than would have been the
case if considering the whole SA process from scoping to
submission stage documents.
Second, the reviewed SAs, whilst complete in terms of
including all submission stage SAs of approved core
strategies up to 1 July 2009, may not be fully reflective of
the whole of England. After all, nearly 50% of the
reviewed SAs came from Councils in the Southeast and
East, and their attention to climate change may be
influenced by regionally specific differences and issues.
Furthermore, the SAs of these first 36 approved core
strategies may have their own particular characteristics.
They may be stronger on climate change in relation to
Council proactivity, or it may be that later core strategy
SAs become stronger on climate change due to evolving
guidance or lessons learned from earlier experiences of
other Councils.
4.3. Brief overview of practices by criterion
Following is a brief overview of general and good
practices noted during the review of SAs.
4.3.1. Baseline
Half of the reviewed SAs included information on
the current baseline and expected future climate
projections. A number of the SAs reported expected
changes specific to the region (i.e. Chelmsford SA,
2005), representing better practice than those that
mentioned expected impacts for England as a whole or
none at all. Stronger practice was seen in a few SAs that
were able to talk about the expected future climate
changes and key implications at the plan or borough
level (e.g. Southend-on-Sea SA, 2006, p. 17; Poole SA,
2008, p. iv in relation to flood risk).
4.3.2. Policy reference
Most SAs (67% of those reviewed) mention relevant
climate-related policy statements, agreements, or
targets. Some do this by identifying relevant interna-
tional agreements, EU-wide policies, national policies,
and local strategies. The strongest practice seen was
when the main implications of each of these relevant
policies were specifically highlighted, because then
actions that needed to be taken in the SAs and core
strategies were clear (e.g. Poole SA, 2008, p. 18;
Reading SA, 2008, pp. 13–20). The Reading SA, for
example, summarised in a user-friendly table the
relevant elements and targets set out in each of a list
of relevant policy documents.
4.3.3. Objectives/indicators
Most of the reviewed SAs (86%) mentioned climate
change amongst sustainability objectives and possibly
associated indicators and targets (e.g. reducing carbon
emissions by 10% in new dwellings). However, not all
SAs started out (at the scoping stage) having climate
change considerations amongst their objectives. It was
through the SA process and consultations (Table 8) that
a number of SAs adopted objectives pertaining to
climate change mitigation and adaptation. These in turn
influenced the strength of core strategy policies
pertinent to climate change in a number of cases
(e.g. Southend-on-Sea, South Hams, Tandridge, and
Wakefield).
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154132
4.3.4. Alternatives
Seventy-eight percent of reviewed SAs addressed
climate change in the consideration of core strategy
plan or policy alternatives. Good examples of climate
change being taken into consideration in the
analysis of alternatives can be seen in the Slough
(2007, p. B-4) and Redbridge (2006, p. 30) SAs,
which each took CO2 and greenhouse gas impacts
into account in the alternatives considered and
chosen. These alternatives related to density of future
development and housing targets (for further detail,
see Posas, 2011).
4.3.5. Mitigation
Eighty nine percent of SAs addressed climate
change mitigation; 89% also addressed climate
change adaptation. These are the two criteria that
the largest number of SAs addressed, as might be
expected given existing national policy guidance on
climate change. Good examples of addressing
mitigation and adaptation can be seen in the Bedford
SA (2006, p. 80) and South Hams SA (2006, p. 32).
The Bedford SA is relatively more focused on
mitigation, whilst the South Hams SA is more
focused on adaptation.
The Bedford SA cites the Council’s Policy CP27 on
Climate Change and Pollution as:
The Council will require development to:
i. Minimise the emission of pollutants into the wider
environment; and,
ii. Have regard to cumulative impacts of development
proposals on air quality, in particular in relation to
air quality management areas; and,
iii. Minimise the consumption and use of energy,
including fossil fuels by design and choice of
materials; and,
iv. Achieve a 10% reduction in carbon emissions
(below the normal requirement of the Building
Regulations) in all new dwellings and above a
threshold of 500 m2 in new non-residential
development; and,
v. Follow a sustainable construction code such as that
produced by the Building Research Establishment
(BREEAM and EcoHomes) and achieve a rating of
at least ‘very good’; and,
vi. Utilise sustainable construction techniques; and,
vii. Incorporate facilities to minimise the use of water
and waste; and,
viii. Limit any adverse effects on water quality, reduce
water consumption and minimise the risk of
flooding.
Furthermore, it states that developers will be
expected to submit a sustainability statement and
energy audit with proposals for development.
The majority of listed items relate to climate change
mitigation. This is an example of a strong policy, in
particular because it commits the Council to actual
targets such as the 10% reduction in carbon emissions in
all new dwellings above a certain size, at least ‘very
good’ BREEAM and EcoHomes ratings, and energy
audits with proposals for new development.
4.3.6. Adaptation
As noted, 89% of SAs addressed adaptation. One good
example of this is the South Hams SA (2006, p. 49),
which referred to Council’s Policy CS11 Climate Change
and advised adding the below bolded language to it:
New development should reflect the need to plan for
climate change, through addressing its causes and
potential impacts. New development should progress
the:
� reduction of energy usage;
� reduction of private car usage and encouragement
of alternative forms of sustainable transport;
� development of renewable energy resources; and
� management of the impacts of climate change
through the design and location of development,
including sustainable drainage, water efficiency
measures, and ensuring no net loss of flood
storage capacity.
The Poole SA (2008, pp. 30–31) also addressed
adaptation comprehensively, addressing not just the
issues of flooding and water storage, but also expected
impacts on human health, natural habitats, and heritage
sites and ways to mitigate them through planning.
4.3.7. Consultation
Climate change was reported to have come up in the
consultations of 36% of the reviewed SAs, as mentioned
earlier in relation to Table 8. Illustrative examples of
consultations can be viewed in the Reading SA (2008, p.
36), which mentions the requirements being followed,
the groups consulted (including statutory consultees,
primary care trusts, and neighbouring authorities) and
what types of feedback were being sought from the
consultations. Following the Reading SA Scoping
Report consultations and new national guidance on
climate change, changes were made to several of the
Core Strategy sustainability objectives to reflect ‘the
need to cut CO2 emissions’ and take into account
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 133
concerns about increased flooding as a result of climate
change (Reading SA, 2008, p. 33). The London
Borough of Redbridge SA also gave a clear description
of its approach to consultation, mentioning that
consultation on the SA was being undertaken jointly
with consultation on the Submission Core Strategy
Document and giving details of the consultation
process. In the Redbridge SA (2006, p. 6), it was
reported that a limited number of policy revisions were
made following the conclusion of the public consulta-
tion on the Core Strategy Preferred Options Report.
Amongst these revisions were new references to climate
change and/or greenhouse gas emissions reduction in
the Council’s Strategic Policy 2 ‘Green Environment’
and Strategic Policy 5 ‘Movement and Transport.’
4.3.8. Monitoring
If they had provisions for monitoring progress in
managing causes or impacts of climate change (58% of
reviewed SAs did), most SAs and their associated core
strategies only identified a few general indicators for
monitoring. Occasionally they identified targets in
relation to monitoring as well or sources for information
collection on indicators. The Slough SA (2007, pp. 7–8)
shows an example of indicators with targets and
information sources (i.e. Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, the UK Climate Change
Programme, and Slough Borough Council). The Wake-
field Metropolitan District Council SA (2008, p. 28),
prepared by Waterman Environmental, developed one of
the best lists of indicators on climate change (see Table 9)
Table 9
Indicators for monitoring climate-related objectives and relevant data sourc
Indicator
CO2 emissions by end user
CO2 emissions by sector and per capita emissions (tonnes per year)
Energy use (gas and electricity)
Energy use per household
Energy efficiency of the economy
Thermal efficiency of housing stock
Energy efficiency of road passenger travel/average
fuel consumption of new cars
Proportion of energy supplied from renewable sources
Depletion of fossil fuels
Ozone depletion
Road traffic growth levels
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment data
Properties at risk from a flood event
Condition of flood defences
Number of Water Abstraction Licences in the district
Source: Wakefield Core Strategy SA (2008, p. 28).
seen during the review, specifically in their words,
pertaining to ‘minimal greenhouse gas emissions and a
managed response to the effects of climate change.’ This
list is additionally significant in light of the fact that many
SAs acknowledged difficulty with identifying measur-
able indicators of climate-related actions and with
finding sources of data with which to monitor them.
Lastly, relevant but not only to climate change, the
South Hams SA (2006, p. 52) offered helpful
suggestions on the proposed monitoring strategy,
including that it should ‘clearly set out who is
responsible for the monitoring, as well as its timing,
frequency and format for presenting results.’
4.3.9. Equity
Though not initially seen as a separate criterion, after
the review, there seemed to be a case for regarding
equity considerations as an individual criterion separate
from the adaptation criterion. The concern for equity
can be seen as implicit in the EU SEA Directive in that
its objective is to ‘provide for a high level of protection
of the environment and to contribute to the integration
of environmental considerations in to the preparation
and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to
promoting sustainable development.’ Sustainable devel-
opment, as defined in the Brundtland Report (WCED,
1987) definition, has explicit (inter- and intra-genera-
tional) equity dimensions. Also, many SAs pointed out
equity’s importance in UK, regional, or local level
strategic planning documents. For example, the Read-
ing SA (2008, p. 35) describes numerous documents and
es.
Source, where known
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
Audit Commission Voluntary Quality of Life Indicators
(Definitions Handbook, Audit Commission, 2002–2003)
DEFRA Local Quality of Life Counts
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
Audit Commission Voluntary Quality of Life Indicators
(Definitions Handbook, Audit Commission, 2002–2003)
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
DEFRA Quality of Life Counts
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154134
their relevant stipulations, including summarising
relevant items from the 2008 South East Regional
Sustainability Framework, whose vision is to realise:
‘A socially and economically strong, healthy and just
South East that respects the limits of the global
environment’ (para. 1.3). The achievement of this
depends on the ‘active involvement of all individuals
to deliver a society where everyone, including the
most deprived, benefits from and contributes to a
better quality of life.’
The Poole SA (2008, p. 16) took the connection
between equity and climate change a step further,
identifying the following health and equalities issues
and challenges associated with climate change:
� Vulnerability of specific groups to climate change
(mainly extreme heat or cold) due to age, health,
housing quality or income;
� Elderly and infirm;
� Residents in deprived areas and poor quality housing
(substandard insulation or heating);
� Homeless;
� Inaccessibility to nearby facilities;
� Affordability of heating;
� Flood risk implications for residents with limited
mobility (economic and housing) in high risk areas
(principally parts of Town Centre, Regeneration Area
and Hamworthy).
As reported in the reviewed Poole SA, scoping to
uncover health and equalities issues was done during
the SA of the Core Strategy Preferred Options to
supplement the original scoping done for Poole’s LDF.
This was amongst the best practices seen on recognising
the connection between climate impacts and equity
considerations.
4.4. Proposed criteria for the EU SEA context
The proposed climate change criteria include one
criterion more than the eight included in the initial
Table 10
Amended climate change criteria for the EU SEA Directive-based context
1. Describe current and expected future climate baseline (or scenarios
2. Identify relevant policy statements, agreements, or targets
3. Develop climate change-related objectives and indicators
4. Assess climate change-related implications of the alternatives consi
5. Include mitigation strategies and measures in the final plan
6. Include adaptation or risk reduction strategies and measures in the
7. Undertake consultation with statutory consultees and public that all
8. Include provisions for monitoring climate-related measures
9. Consider climate-related distributional impacts, equity, and vulnerab
review of English SAs. This ninth and last criterion
relates to consideration of climate-related distributional
impacts, equity, and vulnerable groups. This criterion’s
importance became evident following the international
review, but was supported from within the EU and UK-
based SEA literature and from within the concept of
sustainability itself (Section 3.1), which hinges upon
intra and intergenerational equity. In the English
context, such considerations might include climate-
related vulnerabilities of the poor, elderly, farmers, and
marginalised groups, as well as the needs of those
whose geography makes them particularly vulnerable to
climate-related impacts such as flooding. A strong
example of meeting this vulnerability criterion can be
seen in the Poole SA, as discussed. The amended set of
climate change criteria for the EU SEA Directive-based
context is listed in Table 10.
5. Climate change in development bank-
supported CEAs
5.1. Introduction to the review
The developing country-focused, empirical aspect of
this research involved the analysis of country environ-
mental analyses (CEAs). CEA is defined in the World
Bank context as ‘a diagnostic analytical tool that helps
to evaluate systematically the environmental priorities
of client countries, the environmental implications of
key government policies, and countries’ capacity to
address their environmental priorities’ (World Bank,
2009a). At the ADB (2009a), CEAs are described as
feeding into the Country Strategy and Program and
providing ‘a strategic assessment of the lending and
technical assistance pipeline in the context of the
country’s key environmental issues.’
The World Bank and ADB climate strategies (World
Bank, 2008; ADB, 2009b) explicitly mention the
perceived relevance and role of CEA in tackling
climate change issues. The technical report of the World
Bank’s climate change strategy (2008, p. 87) lists a
.
)
dered
final plan
ows for climate change to be discussed
le groups
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 135
Table 11
Reviewed World Bank and ADB CEAs.
World Bank CEAs ADB CEAs
Country Year Country Year
Bangladesh 2006 Afghanistan 2007
Belarus 2002 Azerbaijan 2005
Colombia 2006 Bangladesh 2004
Dominican Republic 2004 Bhutan 2004
Egypt 2005 Cambodia 2004
El Salvador 2006 China 2007
Ghana 2007 Indonesia 2005
Guatemala 2006 Kazakhstan 2004
India (National) 2007 Kiribati 2006
India (Northeast) 2007 Kyrgyz Republic 2004
Namibia 2008 Marshall Islands 2005
Nepal 2007 Mongolia 2005
Pakistan 2006 Nepal 2004
Peru 2007 Pakistan 2008
Senegal 2008 Palau 2007
Serbia and Montenegro 2003 Philippines 2004
Tajikistan 2008 Samoa 2006
Tunisia 2004 Solomon Islands 2007
Tajikistan 2004
Uzbekistan 2004
Vanuatu 2007
‘possible application’ of CEA as being to ‘discuss climate
change issues within sectoral or thematic context and
identify mitigation and adaptation options and their costs
and benefits.’ The climate change strategy of the ADB
(2009b, p. 38) reveals that: ‘Current practices for country
environmental analysis and disaster risk assessment,
which form an important part of CPS [Country Partner-
ship Strategy] preparation, will be strengthened to include
the identification and characterisation of climate-related
and disaster risks, as well as an assessment of the most
appropriate ways in which unacceptable risks can be
managed.’ With these intentions and MDBs (2007, p. 3)
‘attempting to expand their knowledge of climate risk
management, build more comprehensive screening tools,
and develop best-practice guidance to support their
clients’ long-term sustainable development goals,’ a
review of how climate change has been addressed in
CEAs thus far and might be better addressed in future
CEAs can potentially provide MDBs and developing
countries with useful information and ideas for improved
screening tools and guidance.
Twenty-one CEAs were located for the World Bank
(three were excluded due to unavailability or non-
standard format) and 26 for the ADB (five were
excluded because of being unsearchable or due to
unusual shortness in length). Thus, with the noted
exceptions, the 39 CEAs reviewed (18 for World Bank,
21 for ADB) represented the full set of completed,
searchable CEAs up to the end of 2008.
The methodology for reviewing the CEAs involved
first searching them using the word ‘climate’ and
reading a sentence or up to a paragraph around the
reference to climate or climate change. This familiaris-
ing step was undertaken in order to gain a sense of what
was being done. Secondly, the CEAs were scanned for
impressions from which to identify review criteria that
would capture baseline information on how climate
change was being addressed. At the time of research and
to date, there is no MDB document pertaining to SEA or
CEA and climate change from which climate change
review criteria could be derived. Thus, the review
criteria identified were based solely upon what was
present in the reviewed CEAs and designed such that
each mention of climate (related to climate change)
could be classified into one of nine category headings.
The nine review category headings or criteria to emerge
from this process were:
1. Description of existing or likely impacts/threats;
2. Mention of relevant laws, agreements, and policies;
3. Identification of expected climate change-related
impacts on key sectors/areas;
4. Mention of other programmes related to addressing
climate change in the country;
5. Mention of opportunities presented by climate
change for investment, such as carbon finance
opportunities like Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) or incentive funds;
6. Mention of adaptation or risk reduction measures to
be taken;
7. Mention of arrangements for greenhouse gas reduc-
tion/mitigation;
8. Mention of national or sub-national institutions and
agencies, whether in terms of relevant responsibili-
ties or needs for institutional strengthening;
9. Mention of climate change amongst the recommen-
dations made in the CEA.
Using these criteria, the CEAs were systematically
searched using the word ‘climate’ to locate areas from
which to collect data. The collected data was then
analysed.
5.2. Review findings
The 39 CEAs reviewed, 18 from the World Bank and
21 from the ADB, are listed in alphabetical order in
Table 11. Of the 39 CEAs included in the review, the
distributions per year were: one in each 2002 and 2003,
11 in 2004, five in 2005, seven in 2006, nine in 2007,
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154136
Fig. 8. Percentage of World Bank and ADB CEAs that addressed climate change criteria, in two year increments, between 2003 and 2008.
and five in 2008. Due to the small number of CEAs in
some years, it was decided to observe trends in two year
increments, thus ensuring at least 12 CEAs for each
2003/2004 (n = 12), 2005/2006 (n = 12), and 2007/
2008 (n = 14). The percentages of CEAs that covered
the nine criteria over this time period are shown in
Fig. 8.
One thing that is noteworthy is that by 2007/2008, all
identified climate change criteria were covered by well
over 50% of the CEAs. In fact, impacts, laws, key
sectors, and adaptation actions were covered by over
75% of the CEAs, and 79% included climate change-
related CEA recommendations. As well, Fig. 8 makes
clear that ‘opportunities,’ which entail consideration of
CDM and other new beneficial arrangements and
sources of financing, were consistently the least
addressed parameter. Particularly in the development
context, this is an advantageous area to consider, which
Fig. 9. Percentage of World Bank and ADB CEAs that addresse
is likely to spark the interest of developing country
counterparts and help them promote the idea of
addressing climate change to constituencies and
colleagues in other government ministries. Fig. 8 shows
a positive relationship between year of CEA publication
(as grouped) and both identification of impacts and key
sectors. These relationships and other possible trends
are shown by individual year in Fig. 9.
It is interesting to note that whilst adaptation shows a
strong upward trend, attention to mitigation has not
shown as much change and declined between 2007 and
2008, seemingly affirming the widely noted shift in
attention from mitigation to adaptation in development
cooperation (Mani et al., 2008; MDBs, 2007).
Overall, with data from all years combined, the 39
CEAs addressed the criteria in the following percentages
(Fig. 10). Of interest, the findings show a rather steadily
increasing treatment of the issue of climate change across
d impacts, key sectors, adaptation, and mitigation by year.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 137
Fig. 10. Percentage of World Bank and ADB CEAs from 2003 to 2008 that addressed climate change criteria.
a range of parameters. This is notable particularly since
there appeared to be no explicit written requirement or
guidance for CEAs to address climate change until at
least late 2008 at the World Bank and 2009 at the ADB (in
their respective climate strategies). It could be argued that
since a majority of CEAs are covering all of the areas
included in the review, guidance could be issued
mentioning that typically CEAs consider climate change
in relation to at least these areas. Within guidance
materials, the review category headings could be
established as basic or recommended elements to be
addressed. MDBs often express reluctance to codify topic
areas to be addressed in CEAs and SEAs (e.g. OECD,
2006, p. 17 avoidance of ‘single, fixed or prescriptive
approaches’). However, it is worth considering the
improvements and reduction of transaction costs of
having established guidance, as mentioned in Table 2.
Consistency and clarity about expectations and guidance
on how to meet them is an asset and time saver for MDB
staff, consultants, and clients alike. Furthermore,
guidance provides an opportunity to reference and draw
upon new materials and information. It was earlier noted
that MDBs (2007, p. 3) are ‘attempting to expand their
knowledge of climate risk management, build more
comprehensive screening tools, and develop best-
practice guidance to support their clients’ long-term
sustainable development goals.’ This finding of emerging
common practice on climate change amongst CEAs
represents a prime opportunity for formulating guidance
that helps support clients’ long-term sustainable devel-
opment goals in the face of a changing climate.
The addressing of these nine criteria/categories is not
an indicator of overall CEA quality or of the quality of
treatment of climate change, but it may be suggestive of
it. The number of criteria addressed is likely to reflect
the degree of well-roundedness of the consideration of
climate change. With this understanding, two World
Bank CEAs addressed all of the review categories –
Peru and Tajikistan. The Peru CEA exhibited care in
detailing the development of climate-related efforts in
the country, providing an inventory of activities relating
to various aspects of climate change, including
mitigation, adaptation, and institutional capacity build-
ing. The Tajikistan CEA was strong in linking climate
change with priority environment-development issues,
and in particular water resources. These and other
World Bank CEAs up to the present are available from
http://go.worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0. ADB CEAs
that addressed all review categories were China,
Mongolia, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, all of
which can be found online at http://www.adb.org/
environment/cea.asp. Amongst the CEAs reviewed, the
ADB’s Vanuatu CEA stood out as very good practice in
many dimensions. Several examples of good practice
include the identification of no-regrets adaptation
opportunities in sensitive sectors (agriculture, human
health, water resources, and coastal development
amongst others) and expected main impacts of climate
change including decreased agricultural production,
water shortage, flooding, and bleaching of coral reefs.
Further good practices from the above-mentioned CEAs
and others will be explored in the next section.
5.3. Brief overview of practices by criterion
For each of the climate change criteria, a few
examples and good practices, as applicable, are
highlighted and briefly discussed.
5.3.1. Impacts
The impact criterion was considered to be met if
there was description of existing or likely impacts
associated with climate change. Twenty-five out of 39
CEAs (64%) addressed this criterion. The World Bank
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154138
Peru CEA (2007, p. 102) and ADB China CEA (2007, p.
xxviiii) demonstrated the good practice of identifying
country- and region-specific impacts and using numer-
ical figures to illustrate their severity.
5.3.2. Laws
The laws criterion was considered to be met if there
was mention of relevant laws, agreements, and policies
related to climate change. Thirty out of 39 CEAs (77%)
addressed this criterion. Most of these 30 CEAs simply
mentioned signatory status to the UNFCCC and Kyoto
Protocol, as applicable. Exceptions include the World
Bank Peru CEA (2007) and ADB Solomon Islands CEA
(2007), which both went beyond just mentioning the
international agreements and also discussed how the
country was attempting to meet its obligations under
them. The Peru CEA (2007, p. 27) identified relevant
international agreements and what they have meant in
practice and how they have been construed and
implemented in the Peruvian context. This included a
1993 resolution creating a National Commission on
Climate Change, and two years later another resolution
to establish the presidency and constitution of the
commission. It also included decrees for a national
strategy on climate change and for implementing
activities linked to the CDM under the framework of the
Kyoto Protocol. The CEA also detailed additional
studies and compliance activities undertaken in relation
to climate change. The Solomon Islands CEA (2007, p.
39) went one step further, signalling work still pending
to comply with obligations, such as the need to establish
a national CDM Designated Authority and mainstream
climate change into the national policy agenda.
5.3.3. Key sectors
The key sectors criterion was considered to be met
when key sectors or areas were singled out in relation to
anticipated climate change-related vulnerabilities and
impacts. Twenty-five out of 39 CEAs (64%) addressed
this criterion. The World Bank Nepal CEA and the ADB
Solomon Islands CEA both effectively identified key
sectors and the corresponding issues of concern. The
Nepal CEA (2007, p. 85) discussed over the course of at
least two paragraphs the implications of climate change
for these key areas: public health, forestry and
biodiversity, agriculture, and water resources. The
water resource implications paragraphs mentioned
changes in peak river discharge months due to earlier
snow melt in the Himalayas and also expressed high
concern over the increased likelihood of glacial lake
outburst floods. The Solomon Islands CEA (2007, p. 38)
highlighted the following vulnerable sectors: coastal
and marine environments, fisheries, agriculture, biodi-
versity, water resources, health, and infrastructure and
industry. The health section is interesting for the
linkages it makes, in particular, its emphasis on the need
for climate-proofing of essential sanitation infrastruc-
ture and improved management of solid waste to reduce
disease vectors.
5.3.4. Programmes
This criterion was considered to be met when the
CEA mentioned other programmes related to addres-
sing climate change in the country. These other
programmes may have been spearheaded by the
MDB sponsoring the CEA, other development banks
or agencies, or the country itself. Many CEAs (25 out of
39, 64%) regarded it as important to explicitly recount
other relevant ongoing or completed projects, to best
identify needs, avoid overlap, and gauge comparative
advantages in relation to other MDBs and development
partners. Usually when this was done for climate
change, it was also done for other investment areas as
well, such as forest resources, coastal zone manage-
ment, water and sanitation, etc. Examples can be seen in
the Peru CEA (2007, p. 27), which described various
climate-related programmes and the support that
development partners had provided, and in the Vanuatu
CEA (2007, p. 49) which listed other agencies’
activities relating to climate change and then discussed
implications for ADB’s interventions in light of them.
5.3.5. Opportunities
This criterion was considered to be met when a CEA
mentioned opportunities presented by climate change,
such as carbon finance opportunities, incentive funds,
and climate adaptation grants. The fewest number of
CEAs addressed this criterion (16 out of 39, 41%).
However, those that did address it tended to recognise
its importance and to identify opportunities quite
specific to their circumstances. For example, CDM
opportunities were noted: in the India CEA (2007, pp.
70–71) for carbon reduction from lower-carbon emis-
sion energy alternatives; in the Tajikistan CEA (2008, p.
60) for forest carbon sequestration; and in the ADB
Uzbekistan CEA (2004, p. 23) for energy efficiency
investments. The ADB Vanuatu CEA (2007, p. 53)
considered it an immediate priority to prepare for and
take advantage of expected increasing climate change
adaptation funds for small island states.
5.3.6. Adaptation
The adaptation criterion was considered to be met
when a CEA made mention of climate change
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 139
adaptation or risk reduction measures to be taken.
Twenty-five out of 39 CEAs (64%) addressed this
criterion. The World Bank Peru CEA and the ADB
Vanuatu CEA addressed this criterion well. The Peru
CEA (2007, pp. 27, 163) mentioned actions taken and
future plans to address climate change adaptation,
sometimes in conjunction with disaster risk reduction
efforts. The Vanuatu CEA was strong in its handling of
climate change overall. On adaptation it included three
good practices seen in few other CEAs. First it profiled
in a box a successful climate change adaptation project,
illustrating to the CEA’s audience what adaptation
might look like (Box 1).
Secondly, the Vanuatu CEA (2007, pp. 11–12)
highlighted locally relevant adaptation opportunities
specific to each of six vulnerable sectors (agriculture,
human health, water resources, coastal development,
coastal marine environments, and social and cultural
concerns), stressing the need for ‘no regrets’ strategies
that make good sense regardless of impending climate
change:
a. Agriculture: (i) diversification of crops; (ii) selection
and promotion of crop varieties suited to the changed
conditions; and (iii) promotion of the indigenous
custom of selecting seed or propagation material
adapted to climate change.
Box 1. A successful climate change adaptationproject.
Under the Capacity Building for the Develop-
ment of Adaptation Measures Project the first
global climate change adaptation project in
Vanuatu was undertaken. The relocation of a
settlement, Lateau on Tegua, an island in Torba
Province was possible after vulnerability and
adaptation assessment and community educa-
tion and awareness were conducted with the full
participation of the community. The community
had faced regular inundation due to rising sea
levels, water scarcity due to limited rainwater
catchments and storage capacity, and as result
serious health issues. With technical assistance
of the NACCC, the entire settlement was relo-
cated with the provision of the following basic
amenities: 5 rainwater catchment facilities, an
aid post, 6 rainwater storage tanks and catch-
ments, a church, and capacity to access commu-
nication through microwave radio frequencies.
Source: ADB Vanuatu CEA (2007, p. 32).
b. Human health: (i) promotion of environmental
management strategies to control disease vectors;
(ii) promotion of hygienic waste disposal methods to
prevent contamination during cyclones and floods;
and (iii) catchment management to maintain a
continuous supply of good quality water.
c. Water resources: (i) integrated planning and man-
agement of catchments to maintain water quality and
maximize groundwater recharge; (ii) improved
management and maintenance of water supply
networks; (iii) promotion of water conservation;
(iv) policy to restrict extraction of freshwater from
coastal aquifers; and (v) expansion of rainwater
storage capacity.
d. Coastal development: (i) improved planning to direct
investments in housing, infrastructure, and agricul-
ture to least vulnerable zones, based on modelling of
the storm surge zone; (ii) improved engineering
standards for infrastructure to withstand cyclones,
floods, and high intensity rainfall; (iii) exclusion of
extractive activities (like sand mining, mangrove
clearing, and beach replenishment) from the coastal
zone; and (iv) preparation of emergency prepared-
ness plans, based on local coping strategies where
available.
e. Coastal marine environments: replacement of lost
fishing harvests with alternate sources of protein and
alternate livelihood opportunities.
f. Social and cultural concerns: identification of coping
strategies requires increased involvement of key
social institutions, such as chiefs, women’s organisa-
tions and churches
Thirdly, it used the commendable Pressure-State-
Response analytical framework, explaining (Vanuatu
CEA, 2007, p. 1):
For each of the key environmental issues in Vanuatu,
the CEA uses the commonly adopted Pressure-State-
Response (PSR) analytical framework (OECD
2000). For example, in relation to the issue of
climate change, the key pressures are fossil fuel use,
deforestation, and methane release from landfills.
The ‘‘state’’ includes measures of carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) concentra-
tions, average air and sea temperatures, and rates of
sea level rise. Responses include mitigation and
adaptation measures like energy efficiency or coastal
zone setbacks, government policies, and institutional
changes. The CEA examines whether any targets
have been set for the key environmental issues
identified by the Government, against which
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154140
environmental performance and progress towards
sustainable development might be measured.
This methodology (and the indicators that can be
derived from it) present an excellent way to approach
adaptation and systematically measure performance
and progress towards sustainability goals.
5.3.7. Mitigation
The mitigation criterion was considered to be met if
there was mention of arrangements for climate change
mitigation (greenhouse gas reduction). Twenty out of 39
CEAs (51%) addressed this criterion. The 2006 World
Bank Colombia CEA and 2007 ADB Vanuatu CEA are
provided as examples. By way of example, the World
Bank Colombia CEA (2006, pp. 329–330) reported on
how Colombia has and continues to make efforts on
climate change mitigation, in particular, by embracing
economic opportunities in the form of Certified Emis-
sions Reductions through the CDM. The Vanuatu CEA
(2007, pp. 10–11, 46) addressed mitigation (including
through forest sinks, avoided deforestation, and con-
sideration of an international air travel adaptation levy),
even whilst acknowledging that Vanuatu is not a
significant contributor to greenhouse gases globally.
5.3.8. Institutions
The institution criterion was considered to be met
when there was mention of national institutions and
agencies, whether in terms of relevant climate-related
responsibilities or needs for institutional strengthening
on climate change. Twenty out of 39 CEAs (51%)
addressed this criterion. Some of the national institutions
or agencies mentioned were recently created or expressly
dedicated to climate change issues within a UNFCCC
context, whilst others were existing agencies that grew in
scope to incorporate climate change issues (e.g. weather-
related, disaster-reduction or coastal zone related
agencies). Examples of this can be seen in Namibia
and Solomon Islands CEAs. The World Bank Namibia
CEA (2008, p. 6) identified ‘responsible governmental
lead agencies’ in the area of climate change as: the
Ministry of Environment and Tourism; the Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and Forestry; and the Ministry of
Fisheries and Marine Resources. Beyond identifying
agencies and institutions with responsibilities for climate
change, other parts of the document described these
agencies’ mandate and highlighted gaps and areas
needing strengthening. For example, the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism was said to lack technical
capacity in disciplines related to urbanisation, such as
waste and wastewater management, pollution control,
climate change adaptation and mitigation, economic
modelling, and environmental monitoring. The ADB
Solomon Islands CEA (2007, p. 39) explained how
climate change activities were coordinated and advo-
cated closer collaboration between the Ministry of Health
and Environment and the Conservation Division of the
Department of Forest, Environment, and Conservation
on the health implications of climate change. Both the
Namibia and Solomon Islands CEAs show the overall
good practice of identifying institutions and agencies
with responsibilities for climate change, describing their
mandates, and highlighting gaps and areas needing
increased collaboration or strengthening.
5.3.9. Recommendations
The recommendations criterion was considered to be
met if there was mention of climate change amongst the
recommendations made in the CEA. Twenty-one out of
39 CEAs (54%) addressed this criterion. Recommenda-
tions ranged widely in terms of the aspect of climate
change addressed, including: mitigation, adaptation,
institutions, and key sectors. Example recommendations
touching (in differing degrees) on these areas include the
Egypt and Pakistani CEAs. One of the main recommen-
dations of the World Bank Egypt CEA (2005, p. 129) was
to establish within the Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency that: ‘The Climate Change Unit would be
responsible for all energy environment activities. This
unit will oversee the implementation of the Energy-
Environment Review Action Plan as well as the CDM,
GEF and other mechanisms established by international
conventions. This unit could assist in building a portfolio
of projects with local and global benefits.’ As one of six
overall recommendations put forward to ensure environ-
mental sustainability of the ADB’s Country Partnership
Strategy, the ADB Pakistan CEA (2008, p. 46)
recommended strengthening ‘Pakistan’s ability to adapt
to climate change. Consider providing assistance to
reduce, in particular, the vulnerability of the poor, and to
protect key infrastructure in the water resources and
agriculture sectors in the proposed RETA on climate
change and the already initiated country level climate
change mitigation and adaptation program.’
5.3.10. Equity
This above recommendation’s mention of the
vulnerability of the poor segues into another important
finding related to the international CEAs. Whilst
initially conceived to be an aspect of climate change
adaptation, equity considerations relating to groups
most vulnerable to climate change arose in a number of
the CEAs and came to be seen to merit their own unique
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 141
place amongst the criteria. Some CEAs laid out the
reality of the situation and then explained it. For
example, the 2008 World Bank Tajikistan CEA (p. 67)
observed: ‘It is important that poor are the most
vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change because
they do not have resources for coping and adequate
adaptation.’ The 2007 World Bank Peru CEA (p. 203)
notes that in Peru, as in many other countries,
‘international assistance is more often available for
projects and programs related to global environmental
issues – such as biodiversity conservation and climate
change mitigation – rather than for local environmental
programs that benefit the most vulnerable groups.’
Amongst the good practices found related to equity, the
2006 ADB Samoa CEA (pp. 32–33) stood out for
actually attempting to address inequity and risks to the
most vulnerable, first laying out the situation and then
proposing some very practical, feasible, community-
supported solutions and ways forward. Of these, they
mention a hardship assessment done as part of another
report which asked people in the community to identify
what the government could do to reduce their
vulnerability.
Their suggestions were, in order of priority: (i) reduce
the cost of living; (ii) provide access to loan
assistance; (iii) support agricultural development;
(iv) improve access to basic services, particularly
water supply, schools, markets, and roads for
disadvantaged communities; and (v) provide access
to housing assistance. Addressing these priorities will
require institutional advancements such as devolution
of responsibilities over natural resources to the local
level, improving social services delivery, redirecting
investment to open up a greater range of environmen-
tally friendly economic opportunities and livelihood
options, as well as promoting entrepreneurial drive
and small scale enterprise development.
Table 12
Amended climate criteria for the MDB CEA context.
1. Description of existing or likely climate-related impacts/threats
2. Mention of relevant laws, agreements, and policies
3. Identification of expected climate change-related impacts on key s
4. Mention or review of other programmes related to addressing clim
5. Identification of potential opportunities presented by climate chan
adaptation grants and incentive funds
6. Mention of adaptation or risk reduction measures to be taken
7. Mention of arrangements for greenhouse gas reduction/mitigation
8. Mention of national or sub-national institutions and agencies, incl
strengthening
9. Mention of climate change related issues and concerns amongst fo
10. Consider climate-related distributional impacts, equity, and vulner
5.4. Proposed criteria for development banks
Based on the empirical review of international
CEAs, the original list of nine criteria that were used for
the review were expanded to ten. The tenth criterion
relates to climate-related distributional impacts, that is
addressing issues around ethics, poverty, and vulnerable
groups in relation to climate change. This last criterion
is being added for several reasons. A number of authors
(e.g. Brown et al., 2006; Klein et al., 2005; Posas, 2007)
stress the importance of addressing equity issues and
identifying groups particularly vulnerable to climate
change. Klein et al. (2005) recognise climate policy as
having an important role in addressing development and
equity issues, and various MDBs and development
organisations – including the United Nations Develop-
ment Program, World Bank, African Development
Bank, ADB and all organisations subscribing to the
Millennium Development Goals – strongly support
attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in society.
Lastly, the CEAs that seemed to address climate change
the most thoroughly overall highlighted this factor of
climate-related vulnerability and distributional effects
as of high importance, as discussed in the previous
section. Thus, whilst equity was initially seen by the
author as an aspect of adaptation, there is a strong basis
to decouple it from adaptation (and mitigation) and
regard it as an individual criterion in its own right.
The ten proposed criteria for the international CEA
context are listed in Table 12.
Regarding Criterion 6 on adaptation and based on the
literature and empirical reviews (e.g. ADB Vanuatu
CEA, 2007), it is recommended that several climate
change adaptation subtopics or linkages be routinely
considered in CEAs and regional and spatial plan SEAs.
These are water resources, agriculture/food security,
human health, biodiversity, infrastructure vulnerability,
coastal areas, and disaster risk reduction. Linking of
climate change with disaster risk reduction considera-
ector(s)/areas
ate change in the country
ge for inward investment, such as carbon finance or mitigation/
uding in terms of relevant responsibilities and needs for institutional
rmal CEA recommendations
able groups
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154142
tions and efforts is seen as particularly important in the
development context (Klein et al., 2005; Nicholls et al.,
2007; Prasad et al., 2009; Sperling & Szekely, 2005).
6. Synthesis and further research
6.1. Overview of key findings
This research conceives of SEA is a participatory
process for integrating the concept of sustainability
(biophysical, social, and economic) into strategic
decision-making, which includes evaluating the oppor-
tunities that the environment offers to development and
the constraints that it imposes. A definition such as this
one, adapted from CSIR/DEAT (2000), makes the two-
way nature of climate issues (potential to increase/
decrease greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability to
climate changes and hazards) more apparent and
recognised, and it is argued, more likely to be routinely
addressed.
A review of the SEA and climate change literature
confirmed the need to address climate change in SEA
and offered some ideas for how to create a set of climate
change criteria to guide and evaluate the extent of
climate change coverage in an SEA. Two sets of criteria
were developed, one for developed countries and one
for developing countries, which were applied respec-
tively to English core strategy SAs (compliant with the
EU SEA Directive) and MDB CEAs.
Baseline data on treatment of climate change
(including adaptation and mitigation) in English core
strategy SAs between 2005 and 2008 was explored in
Section 4 and is summarised in Fig. 11. Climate
change’s priority is seen in how many of the SAs
included climate change amongst objectives against
which all other policies and preferred options had to be
Fig. 11. Climate change criteria covered by Englis
assessed and mitigation measures proposed. This
occurred in 86% of the SAs reviewed. Mitigation and
adaptation received the highest attention of all the
parameters, though attention to or provisions for
monitoring in relation to climate change mitigation
and adaptation were seen in only 58% of the SAs.
Common mitigation (greenhouse gas reduction) mea-
sures related to decreasing carbon emissions in various
sectors, increasing the percentage use of renewable
energy, and increasing energy efficiency in new
developments through adopting new housing and
building standards. The most common adaptation
measures pertained to minimising flood risk. Other
adaptation areas mentioned included: coastal protection
from storms and sea level rise, biodiversity and habitat
connectivity, and human health and cultural heritage
considerations.
As has been mentioned, CEAs in some ways
approximate to and show overlap with SEAs. CEAs
and SEAs also often tend to be linked in the
development context. The results of empirical review
of World Bank and ADB CEAs show some rather
consistent features pertaining to treatment of climate
change. As of 2007/2008, over 50% of CEAs touch on
all nine of the climate change review areas identified for
CEAs. In fact, more than 70% of reviewed CEAs
covered all areas except for opportunities provided by
climate change (i.e. carbon finance, grants) and
identification of institutions with climate-related
responsibilities. CEAs from 2007/2008 (n = 14) also
showed an overall increase in attention to climate
change over nine parameters when compared to the
2003/2004 CEAs (n = 12) and 2005/2006 CEAs
(n = 12). The percentages of CEAs that covered the
nine review areas over the 2003–2008 time period are
h core strategy SAs between 2005 and 2008.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 143
Fig. 12. Climate change criteria covered by World Bank and ADB CEAs from 2003 to 2008.
shown in Fig. 12. Whilst many of the criteria were being
addressed with greater frequency in 2007/2008 as
compared to 2003/2004, there is still evidently a need
to draw further attention to opportunities presented by
climate change (especially financial incentives for
mitigation or adaptation measures) and the role of
national, state, and local institutions in implementing
climate-related interventions. When discussing institu-
tions, it makes sense to identify institutional responsi-
bilities related to the climate change agenda and any gaps
or opportunities for synergy. Since MDBs are ‘attempting
to expand their knowledge of climate risk management,
build more comprehensive screening tools, and develop
best-practice guidance to support their clients’ long-term
sustainable development goals’ (MDBs, 2007, p. 7), it
seems feasible that these criteria could be recommended
or promoted by MDBs as being typically addressed and
indicative of taking the issue of climate change seriously
in CEAs and follow-on lending.
The proposed climate change criteria for both EU-
based SEAs and international CEAs are intended to
represent not minimum criteria or best practice, but
reasonable effort. For the English SA review, eight
criteria were initially identified from the EU SEA
Directive and Environment Agency et al. (2007)
Table 13
Proposed climate change criteria for SEAs, particularly for EU SEA Direc
1. Describe current and expected future climate baseline (or scenarios
2. Identify relevant policy statements, agreements, or targets
3. Develop climate change-related objectives and indicators
4. Assess climate change-related implications of the alternatives consi
5. Include mitigation strategies and measures in the final plan
6. Include adaptation or risk reduction strategies and measures in the
7. Undertake consultation with the public and other stakeholders that
8. Include provisions for monitoring climate-related measures
9. Consider climate-related distributional impacts, equity, and the need
guidance. Based on the reviews and supported by
literature review, experiential learning, and discussion
with English and international experts (including at the
UN and World Bank), a ninth criterion was added:
‘consideration of climate-related distributional impacts,
equity, and vulnerable groups’ (see discussion in Sections
4.4 and 5.4). This criterion was first added for the
international context, because of the salience of equity
issues in the international literature and reviewed CEAs.
However, this was seen as an area in which learning from
the international context could feed back and enhance the
developed country set of climate change criteria. Indeed,
the idea of addressing justice and equity issues is
consistent with the Brundtland definition of sustainable
development (Section 3.1) at the heart of SEA as well as
current expectations of SEA in the English context (i.e.
DCLG, 2007; HM Government, 2005) and others. The
final justification for adding the criterion was witnessing
evidence of such considerations in relation to climate
change in a number of reviewed core strategy SAs (see
Section 4.3.9). The amended proposed set of nine climate
change criteria for EU member state (and potentially
other country) SEAs is shown in Table 13.
For the international CEA context, wherein the
assessment characteristics are slightly distinct from an
tive-based SEAs.
)
dered
final plan
allows for climate change to be discussed
s of vulnerable groups
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154144
Table 14
Proposed climate change criteria for multilateral development bank-assisted CEAs.
1. Description of existing or likely climate-related impacts/threats
2. Mention of relevant laws, agreements, and policies
3. Identification of expected climate change-related impacts on key sector(s)/areas
4. Mention or review of other programmes related to addressing climate change in the country
5. Identification of potential opportunities presented by climate change for inward investment, such as carbon finance or mitigation/
adaptation grants and incentive funds
6. Mention of adaptation or risk reduction measures to be taken
7. Mention of arrangements for greenhouse gas reduction/mitigation
8. Mention of national and sub-national institutions and agencies, including in terms of relevant responsibilities and needs for institutional
strengthening
9. Mention of climate change related issues and concerns amongst formal CEA recommendations
10. Consider climate-related distributional impacts, equity, and vulnerable groups
SEA, climate change criteria were initially derived from
an analysis of existing CEA practice. Nine criteria were
used to carry out the review of international CEAs (see
Section 5). However, as noted, upon further considera-
tion after the review, it was determined that a tenth
criterion should be added in light of the importance of
equity considerations, as reflected both in the interna-
tional literature and in the CEAs themselves. The
revised list of ten climate change criteria for CEAs is
shown in Table 14.
‘Due diligence’-type climate change criteria have
multiple advantages over more diffuse or unprioritised
forms of climate-related guidance. They can aid in: the
retrieval of baseline information, the measurement of
changes in climate-related activity and effort over time,
the establishment of agreed standards, and in efforts to
more systematically and effectively address climate
change within SEA. Identification of criteria such as these
(Tables 13 and 14) for different types of activities allow
for easy development of informal guidance which can be
provided to relevant parties advising that SAs, SEAs,
CEAs, etc. typically cover some specific list of criteria/
areas. This kind of information helps practitioners and
field staff develop capacity and confidence to step
forward and begin to play an important role in tackling
climate change issues within the SEA and CEA process.
For both English SAs and developing countries CEAs
it is notable that ways of addressing climate change,
whilst not yet uniform, appear to be emerging. Based on
the findings of this research, it is urged that guidance with
explicit guiding criteria (and principles) for addressing
climate change be promoted actively for both developed
and developing countries. The criteria identified and
proposed in this research pertaining to climate change
mitigation, climate change adaptation, and others, are
recommended as a starting point, to be considered,
modified, and developed, as appropriate. The criteria, in
any case, should be regarded as an adaptable and
evolving tool, whose associated implementation princi-
ples and guidance will need to be developed and adapted
to accommodate new national, regional, and interna-
tional agreements and targets, contextual factors, sectoral
particularities, emerging standards of practice, and
increasing understanding about climate change and
social responsibilities in a changing climate.
With regard to good practices, ones that stand out
from the SA review include:
� Mentioning expected future climate changes and key
implications at not just the regional level, but at the plan
or local level, for example in relation to flood risk;
� Identifying climate-relevant international agree-
ments, EU-wide policies, national policies, and local
strategies as well as their main implications and how
any requirements are followed up in the SA or plan;
� Making explicit mention of climate change amongst
sustainability objectives, along with associated
indicators and targets where relevant (e.g. reducing
carbon emissions by 10% in new dwellings);
� Taking climate change (including greenhouse gas
emissions) into account in the consideration and
recommendation of alternatives;
� Committing to quantitative greenhouse gas mitigation
targets, certain construction code ratings, and
sustainability statements and energy audits with
proposals for development, rather than just general
statements of intent about greenhouse gas emissions
reduction and renewable energy usage;
� Addressing adaptation comprehensively in a wide
variety of sectors, rather than only one or two; for
example, one SA targeted: reduction in energy and car
usage; development of renewable energy resources;
sustainable drainage; water efficiency measures; and
ensuring no net loss of flood storage capacity. Some
also commendably addressed expected climate
change impacts on human health, natural habitats,
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 145
and heritage sites and ways to mitigate them through
planning;
� Taking comments about climate change from the
public and statutory consultees into account in SA
revisions, and noting this explicitly in the SA report;
� Identifying measurable indicators as well as targets
and information sources related to climate change
objectives. Not witnessed, but mentioned in one SA,
was the further good practice of clearly setting out
who is responsible for the monitoring, its timing,
frequency, and format for presentation of results;
� Making explicit statements of value, in particular
regarding equity and the need for and measures to
address climate-related vulnerabilities of the poor,
elderly, farmers, marginalised groups, and those
whose geography puts them at particular risk (e.g.
flooding, water shortage).
Good practices seen in the CEA review include:
� Identifying expected climate change impacts specific
to country regions and use of numerical figures or other
methods to indicate their expected relative severity;
� Mentioning laws, agreements, and policies related to
climate change and any work still needed to comply
with obligations;
� Identifying key sectors vulnerable to climate change
impacts and subsequent focus on them and priorities
within them;
� Identifying past, ongoing, or planned programmes
related to climate change in the country to identify
needs, avoid overlap, and gauge comparative advan-
tages of different entities and development partners;
� Mentioning opportunities specific to the country for
carbon finance opportunities, incentive funds, and
climate adaptation grants, for example CDM opportu-
nities related to lower carbon-emission energy alter-
natives in India, forest carbon sequestration in
Tajikistan, and energy efficiency investments in
Uzbekistan;
� Identifying illustrative adaptation examples;
highlighting of locally relevant adaptation opportu-
nities in vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, health,
water resources, coastal development, and others,
along with no-regrets strategies that make sense
regardless of impending climate change; and using a
Pressure-State-Response analytical and monitoring
framework for climate change;
� Addressing mitigation through a variety of means,
including for example, avoided deforestation, energy
efficiency measures, and others;
� Identifying institutions and agencies with responsi-
bilities for climate change, including their mandates
and areas needing increased collaboration and
strengthening;
� Making feasible CEA recommendations, for example
protecting key infrastructure in particular sectors,
building on already existing programmes;
� Attempting to address inequity and risks to the most
vulnerable with practical, feasible, community-sup-
ported solutions and ways forward.
Further to the explicit findings of the research, a few
comments can be made about the state of practice and
some issues requiring further attention. First, based on
the findings of the review, more attention to climate
change monitoring and public participation elements in
SEA appears to be warranted. Second, despite a general
upward trend in many of the criteria, there are also
declines according to the most recent data, so consistent
upward progress is not something to be taken for
granted and efforts to address climate change meaning-
fully need to be sustained. Third, for a more detailed
focus on climate change in an SEA context than was
contemplated in this research, tools are increasingly
available, particularly for climate change adaptation,
such as SEA adaptation guidance by Risse and Brooks
(2008), the Climate Risk Matrix (World Bank, 2010),
ORCHID (Tanner, 2009), CRiSTAL (IUCN/IISD/SEI/
InterCooperation, 2011), and resources at UKCIP
(2011) and the Climate Symposium website (IAIA,
2011), including a guidance manual on adapting to
climate change and variability (USAID, 2007). Fur-
thermore, in the autumn of 2011, EU Commission
guidance on climate change and biodiversity in SEA is
expected to be issued, and other sources of information
have been issued on EIA that may be helpful in an SEA
context (see Bell et al., 2003; IAIA, 2011). Fourth, an
ongoing issue is that it is difficult to find public
registries or repositories of SEAs online. Practitioner,
MDB, and governmental entity support in collecting
SEA reports and data in a single location (such as the
SEA Database begun by the Scottish Government in
2009) could provide a major impetus and contribution
to furthering SEA research, both in relation to climate
change and other areas. More than the research aspect,
easier access to such reports could go a long way in
avoiding duplication of efforts in future PPPs and
projects corresponding to the same or similar locations.
6.2. Re-examining some of the original research
assumptions
This research began with a number of implicit and
explicit assumptions, some of which have been proven
erroneous or defied expectation. These assumptions
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154146
relate to: (1) climate change not being routinely
addressed in SEA; (2) the need for EU-based and
developing country SEAs to have different climate
change criteria; (3) the English case study findings
feeding into the international case study findings; (4)
complementary actions driving SEA’s potential to
influence; and (5) the adequacy of climate change
‘due diligence’ criteria to affect change. In the
following paragraphs, these assumptions will be
amended, qualified, or clarified in light of the empirical
research and findings.
6.2.1. Climate change not being routinely addressed in
SEA. In England, at least, based on the empirical
review, climate change is in fact being routinely
addressed in SAs. Three pieces of evidence for this are
as follows. First, 86% of the reviewed SAs included
climate change amongst the objectives against which all
other policies and preferred options would have to be
assessed and mitigation measures proposed. Second, out
of the 36 SAs reviewed, only three did not address climate
change at all. The three were from different regions of
England and two of these were submitted in 2006 and one
in 2007. Third, the overwhelming majority of SAs (75%)
addressed six or more of the original eight climate change
criteria. These figures indicate that, in fact, climate
change is being rather routinely addressed in recent
English SAs, unlike in the early 2000s (Allman, Fleming,
& Wallace, 2004; Wilson, 2006). Other studies have also
suggested that the very fact of undertaking SA/SEA leads
to stronger consideration of climate change, though the
evidence for this can be difficult to measure (DCLG,
2010b). Whether climate change is being routinely
addressed in international development SEAs is still
inconclusive after this research, since the international
focus turned to CEAs rather than SEAs.
World Bank and ADB CEAs (n = 39) also are
addressing climate change in over 87% of cases (four
CEAs did not address climate change in any area, and
one CEA made reference to the UNFCCC but otherwise
did not mention climate change). Particularly with
respect to CEAs from the 2007/2008 time period, all
identified climate change review categories were
covered by well over 50% of the CEAs. Impacts, laws,
key sectors, and adaptation actions were covered by
over 75% of the CEAs, and 79% included climate
change-related CEA recommendations. Thus, World
Bank and ADB CEAs also are addressing climate
change rather routinely at present. Though to be fair, in
2003/2004, most of the climate criteria were addressed
in only 45% of the CEAs, so the assumption of not
routinely addressing climate change in relation to CEAs
was correct at an earlier point in time.
6.2.2. The need for EU-based and developing country
SEAs to have different climate change criteria. An
important premise of this research was that due to
different contextual conditions and constraints, different
sets of criteria would be needed for EU and developing
country SEA contexts. Though the research was not
conclusive on this matter (since it did not compare similar
sized datasets for English and international SEA cases),
at present there does not appear to be a need for
international SEA climate change criteria to be very
different from the amended EU SEA Directive-based
climate change criteria. This is because of two main
reasons. Firstly, what was very important in the
international development context was that equity,
distributional impacts, and political economy be taken
into account. Upon reflection, this criterion was also seen
to be relevant to the EU context, and thus the EU SEA
Directive-based criteria were amended to include an
equity-related criterion. Secondly, Levett & McNally
(2003, p. 4) persuasively argued that despite the EU SEA
Directive having no legal force outside of the EU, they
used it for a tourism SEA in Fiji because:
� It provides an explicit codification of what SEA is and
how it should be done;
� It is written in a very generalised way that should be
suitable for plans and strategies for a wide range of
topics anywhere in the world;
� As the first standard adopted and given statutory force
by a large and influential group of nations, it is likely
to become a de facto world standard or benchmark. (It
has already been applied or adopted in many countries
outside the EU, and some non-EU members are using
it as the basis for their own SEA standards);
� It will be the tool familiar to and expected by
European investors and aid partners.
From the arguments that Levett and McNally present
above and their successful use of the EU SEA Directive
for a 2003 Fiji tourism SEA (including its climate-
related components), it can be argued that the EU SEA
Directive does seem to provide a suitable framework for
undertaking development-bank supported SEAs. Thus,
since the EU SEA Directive can be successfully applied
to international development SEAs, and in the absence
of another more compelling approach, it is argued that
the EU SEA Directive-based climate change criteria
developed in this research can also be applied to the
international development SEA context. Drawing from
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 147
the international CEA review, however, explicit atten-
tion to special financing opportunities associated with
mitigation and adaptation and to reviewing relevant
work of other development partners would additionally
be advised for the international development SEA
context.
6.2.3. The English case study findings feeding into the
international case study findings. It was assumed at
the outset that because England is a leader amongst
nations in addressing climate change (due to things like
the 2006 Stern Report, the UK Climate Impacts
Programme, and the pioneering Climate Change Act
2008), the English empirical data and amended criteria
would feed into and inform the international review and
criteria. However, this did not occur for two reasons.
Firstly, a suitable set of international MDB-supported
SEAs was not found, and so the international empirical
component focused instead on MDB CEAs. Whilst
SEAs and CEAs are similar in their purpose of
facilitating more environmentally sustainable develop-
ment, they are also distinct and have some divergent
purposes. Thus, the method for undertaking the SEA
and CEA reviews had to be different, and this limited
the degree to which one could truly inform the other.
Secondly, the in-depth review of the CEAs was actually
completed before the review for the English SA/SEAs
and in any case was what triggered the understanding
that an equity/distributional impacts criterion was
needed. Only after the additional criterion was added
to the international CEA criteria was it recognised that it
should also be added to the EU SEA Directive-based
criteria. This last criterion about equity and distribu-
tional impacts represents an important way to help
directly address the interplay of power and values that
inevitably occurs in the SEA process (as well as CEA
process) (Richardson, 2005).
6.2.4. Complementary actions driving SEA’s potential
to influence. Feedback from stakeholders, both statu-
tory consultees and the public at large, was taken into
account through the SEA process and helped strengthen
climate considerations in the plans of local authorities.
This resulted in not just cosmetic changes, but
sometimes substantive ones. Greater scrutiny of plans
through the SEA process also led to stronger policies
and actions for addressing climate change. But one
thing not appreciated before the review is that it is not
SEA per se that is changing established routines on
climate change, but government requirements that are
changing established routines. SEA is one of many
government requirements, and though it is a prime
vehicle for incorporating government requirements
related to sustainability into plans and programmes, it
is not the only one. Mandatory Strategic Flood Risk
Assessments, emissions targets, and requirements for
higher energy efficiency standards or percentages of
renewable energy in new developments are the main
drivers for core strategies adopting more environmen-
tally sustainable, climate-friendly behaviours. In the
English context though, due to the tiered, structured
planning system in effect under the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, SEA plays an
important role and serves as a kind of check-and-
balance mechanism to make sure that such requirements
are being taken into account.
6.2.5. The adequacy of climate change criteria to
affect change. Another assumption, which was not
closely examined until the writing stage, was the
assumption that climate change criteria would be
enough to make practice improve in both the English
and international contexts. However, particularly with
the regard to mitigation, the author now thinks that the
only way to ensure meaningful changes and improve-
ments in policy, plan or programme-related climate
change mitigation is government policy, requirements,
and incentives. This includes targets, mandatory
standards, and other related enabling environment
features (such as are mentioned in Section 3.5 and in
HM Government, 2005, p. 26). What was seen over and
over again in the English SAs was that action on climate
issues – including considering climate change, under-
taking Strategic Flood Risk Assessments, adhering to
new efficiency standards, obtaining a percentage of
energy from renewable sources – occurred only because
it was mandatory. Non-mandatory climate change
criteria will probably be of more marginal value in a
non-enabling or hostile environment. By being linked to
a policy requirement (the EU SEA Directive) and being
undertaken within country contexts that stipulate
climate change-related targets and requirements, the
EU SEA Directive-based climate change criteria thus
hold significant promise and potential for helping SEA
and planning practitioners organise their thinking,
design meaningful climate-related interventions, and
promote more environmentally sustainable PPPs over-
all.
6.3. Areas for further research
This exploration of climate change in the context of
SEA suggested a number of areas in which follow up
could be interesting and beneficial. First, that climate
change ‘due diligence’ criteria are valuable and lead to
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154148
better practice and implementation is an assumption
based on past professional experience with other issues
and anecdotal evidence from experts and colleagues,
not scientific testing. This limitation on evidence
remains because the review consisted of existing,
completed SEAs and CEAs rather than SEA and CEA
pilots employing the climate change criteria against a
control set of SEAs or CEAs. What is still needed is to
investigate whether or not criteria are in fact deemed
useful in practice and more useful that a generalised
form of guidance alone. Furthermore, more work
specifically on climate change criteria for SEAs in the
international development context is warranted.
Based on the findings of the English core strategy SA
review, several areas of practice were weak, including
identifying information sources for assessing progress
towards targets and for monitoring indicators. It would
be beneficial to focus further research on how these
weaknesses might best be tackled and overcome. Also
based on the findings of the English core strategy SA
review, it would be worth doing some more focused case
study research on the development of several of the core
strategies. (Of high interest would be the Poole Core
Strategy (2009), one of the core strategies whose SA
addressed most of the review areas, including the equity
criterion.) What was the process that enabled the
Council and/or consultants to address issues, including
climate change, in a well-rounded and meaningful way?
Who were the key players? What were obstacles and
issues they may have faced? How is the Core Strategy
being implemented, and to what extent have the
commitments and aims related to climate change
materialised in practice? What issues and ideas from
the SA did they find most valuable going forward? What
would they have done differently? What recommenda-
tions do they have from their own experience (in
addressing climate change) for other Councils that have
not yet completed core strategies and associated SAs?
Investigation of climate-responsive SAs and plans
highlighted in other sources (e.g. RSPB, 2007) from
scoping to submission stages would also make rich case
studies.
A further topic for a research project would be to
investigate which sources of guidance were used to
address climate change in core strategies, SAs, and
CEAs, why they were used or chosen, and which were
most available and/or helpful. Such information could
be solicited via survey and interviews of local authority
personnel and CEA task teams and would be useful for
determining optimal channels to employ in the future
dissemination of updated guidance and information on
climate change. It would also shed light on guidance
areas most sought or needing greater attention.
Environmental assessment work with relation to climate
change is advancing rapidly; even CEAs from 2009
show marked improvements from earlier ones (Posas,
forthcoming). Thus, surveys of more recent treatment of
climate change in SEA, including in particular sectors
and at individual national levels, will likely offer new
and valuable insights for the present and years to come.
Acknowledgments
This monograph draws upon doctoral research
undertaken in the Department of Civic Design at the
University of Liverpool, and made possible by an
Overseas Research Student Award Scheme scholarship
from Universities UK and a University of Liverpool
supplemental scholarship. Professor Thomas Fischer,
Professor David Shaw, and Mr. William Sheate are
thanked for providing comments on the original thesis.
Professor Yvonne Rydin and two anonymous referees
are thanked for helpful suggestions for improving this
manuscript. The views are the author’s, and any errors
remain her own responsibility.
References
3C. (2007). Combat Climate Change 3C: a business leaders’ initiative.
Available from http://www.combatclimatechange.org/www/
ccc_org/ccc_org/224546home/index.jsp.
Abaza, H., Bisset, R., & Sadler, B. (2004). Environmental impact
assessment and strategic environmental assessment: Towards an
integrated approach. Geneva: United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme. Available from http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/
EnvImpAss/textONUBr.pdf.
Abbott, C. (2008). An uncertain future: Law enforcement, national
security and climate change. London: Oxford Research Group.
Available from http://oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/
files/uncertainfuture.pdf.
ADB. (2009a). Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) Reports.
Asian Development Bank website. Available from http://www.
adb.org/environment/cea.asp.
ADB. (2009b). Mainstreaming Climate Change in ADB Operations:
Climate Change Implementation Plan for the Pacific (2009–2015).
Manila: Asian Development Bank. Available from http://www.ad-
b.org/Documents/Books/Climate-Change-Implementation-Plan/
default.asp.
Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful
adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental
Change Part A, 15(2), 77–86.
Ahmed, K., & Sanchez-Triana, E. (2008). Strategic environmental
assessment for policies: An instrument for good governance.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Allman, L., Fleming, P., & Wallace, A. (2004). The progress of
English and Welsh local authorities in addressing climate change.
Local Environment, 9(3), 271–283.
Alzina, V., & Teixeira, I. (2005). SEA experience in Latin America: a
general view. International experience and perspectives in SEA.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 149
Andre, P., Delisle, C. E., & Reveret, J. P. (2004). Environmental
Assessment for Sustainable Development: Processes, Actors, and
Practice. Montreal: Presses Internationales Polytechnique.
Archer, M., Bhaskar, B., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.).
(1998). Critical Realism: Essential Readings. New York: Routle-
dge.
Arndt, D. S., Baringer, M. O., & Johnson, M. R. (Eds.). (2010). State
of the Climate in 2009. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 91(7), S1–S224 Available from: http://www.noaanews.
noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html.
Aschemann, R. (2008). Environmental assessment as a participatory
decision-making support tool – rationale and methods of partici-
pation in EA. In T. B. Fischer (Ed.), Environmental Assessment
Lecturers’ Handbook and Curriculum for EA-related Master
Programmes (pp. 151–156). Bratislava: ROAD Bratislava.
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). (2007). Tackling
wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Barton: Common-
wealth of Australia. Available from http://www.apsc.gov.au/
publications07/wickedproblems.pdf.
Banai, R. (1995). Critical realism, and urban and regional studies.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 22(5), 563–
580.
Bao, C., Lu, Y., & Shang, J. (2004). Framework and operational
procedure for implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment
in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(1), 27–46.
Barnett, J. (2003). Security and climate change. Global Environmental
Change, 13(1), 7–17.
Barrow, E. M., & Lee, R. J. (2000). Part 2: Climate Change Guidance
for Environmental Assessments. CEAA’s Research and Develop-
ment Monograph Series 2002. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency. Available from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/
default.asp?lang=En&n=7F3C6AF0-1#cc.
Bartlett, R. V., & Kurian, P. A. (1999). The theory of environmental
impact assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy and
Politics, 27(4), 415–533.
Bedford Borough Council. (2006, June). Bedford Development
Framework Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy and
Rural Issues Plan. Revised Sustainability Report. Bedford Bor-
ough Council.
Beierle, T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk
Analysis, 22(4), 739–749.
Bell, A., Collins, N., & Young, R. (2003). Practitioners Guide to
Incorporating Climate Change into the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process. ClimAdapt: Nova Scotia’s Climate Change
Adaptation Initiative. Available from http://www.iaia.org/IAIA-
Climate-Symposium-DC/documents/Canada_ClimateChange-
Guide.pdf.
Bell, A., Collins, N., Ells, C., de Romily, G., Rossiter, A., & Young, R.
(2002). Evaluation of the ClimAdapt Guide to Incorporating
Climate Change into the Environmental Impact Assessment Pro-
cess. CEAA’s Research and Development Monograph Series 2002.
Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Available
from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7F3C6AF0-
1#cc.
Bevanger, L. (2006, Oct 13). Changing scope of Nobel Peace Prize,
Oslo. BBC News. Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
europe/6048322.stm.
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds, UK: Leeds
Books.
Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical
critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton, UK:
Harvester Press.
Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, interdisciplinarity
and disability research: A critical realist perspective. Scandina-
vian Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), 278–297.
Bina, O. C. (2003). Re-conceptualising strategic environmental as-
sessment: Theoretical overview and case study from Chile, Doc-
toral Thesis, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
Bina, O. C. (2007). A critical review of the dominant lines of
argumentation on the need for Strategic Environmental Assess-
ment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(7), 585–606.
Blanco, H. (2006). Sustainability impact assessment of trade policy
and its application in the context of Latin America. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(4), 285–297.
Bond, A., Langstaff, L., & Ruelle, C. (2002). Monitoring and post-
evaluation of the cultural heritage component of environmental
assessments. SUIT Position Paper 4. Available from http://
www.lema.ulg.ac.be/research/suit/download/SUIT5.2d_PPaper.
pdf.
Briffett, C., Obbard, J. P., & Mackee, J. (2003). Towards SEA for the
developing nations of Asia. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 23(2), 171–196.
Brown, D., Tuana, N., Averill, M., Baer, P., Born, R., Brandao, C.,
et al. (2006). White paper on the ethical dimensions of climate
change. University Park, Pennsylvania, USA: The Collaborative
Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock
Ethics Institute. Available online at: http://rockethics.psu.edu/
climate/whitepaper/whitepaper-intro.shtml.
Business Dictionary. (2008). Due diligence. Available from http://
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/due-diligence.html.
Byer, P. H., Yeomans, J. S., & Lalani, M. (2001). Addressing Climate
Change Uncertainties in Project Environmental Assessments.
CEAA’s Research and Development Monograph Series 2001.
Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Available
from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7F3C6AF0-
1#cc.
Caldwell, L. K. (1998). The National Environmental Policy Act: An
agenda for the future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Callander, B. (1995). Scientific aspects of the framework convention
on climate change and national greenhouse gas inventories. Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment, 38(2–3), 129–140.
Campbell, H. (2006). Is the issue of climate change too big for spatial
planning? Planning Theory & Practice, 7(2), 201–203.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). (2003). In-
corporating climate change considerations in environmental as-
sessment: General guidance for practitioners. Available from
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=A41F45C5-
1&offset=1&toc=show.
Carter, J. G., White, I., & Richards, J. (2009). Sustainability appraisal
and flood risk management. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 29(1), 7–14.
Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact
assessment: Process and procedure in the development of theory.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 403–426.
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Cobb, D. (2007). The contribution of
environmental assessment to sustainable development: Toward a
richer empirical understanding. Environmental Management,
40(3), 516–530.
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Cobb, D. (2008). The role and functioning
of environmental assessment: Theoretical reflections upon an
empirical investigation of causation. Journal of Environmental
Management, 88(4), 1233–1248.
Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research, Department of Environ-
mental Affairs and Tourism (CSIR/DEAT). (2000). Strategic
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154150
Environmental Assessment in South Africa, Guideline Document.
Pretoria: CSIR/DEAT.
Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L., & Hatjian, B. (2006). A review of
strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. En-
vironmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), 15–56.
Chelmsford Borough Council. (2005, Nov). Chelmsford Borough
Council Integrated Strategic Environmental and Sustainability
Appraisal: Sustainability Appraisal Report of the Core Strategy
and Development Control Policy DPDs. Entec UK Ltd.
China CEA. (2007). Country Environmental Analysis for the People’s
Republic of China. Asian Development Bank. Available from
http://www.adb.org/environment/cea.asp.
CNA. (2007). National security and the threat of climate change.
Alexandria, Virginia, USA: The CNA Corporation. Available
from http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/SecurityandClimate_
Final. pdf.
Colombia CEA. (2006). Republic of Colombia: Mitigating Environ-
mental Degradation to Foster Growth and Reduce Inequality.
World Bank Report No. 36345-CO. Available from http://
go.worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0.
Connelly, S., & Richardson, T. (2005). Value-driven SEA: Time for an
environmental justice perspective? Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 25(4), 391–409.
Dalal-Clayton, B., & Sadler, B. (2005). Strategic environmental
assessment: A sourcebook and reference guide to international
experience. London: Earthscan.
Dalfelt, A., & Næss, L. O. (1997). Climate change and environmental
assessments: Issues in an African perspective. Center for Interna-
tional Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO),
Working Paper 1977:2. Oslo, Norway: CICERO. Available from
http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/162.pdf.
DCLG. (2007). Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate
Change – Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government. Available
from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningand-
building/ppsclimatechange.
DCLG. (2010a, July 6). Chief Planning Officer Letter: Revocation of
Regional Strategies. Available from http://www.communities.
gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1631904.pdf.
DCLG. (2010b). Towards a more efficient and effective use of Strategic
Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal in spatial
planning. London: DCLG. Available from http://www.communi-
ties.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1513010.pdf.
DEAT. (2007). Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline, Inte-
grated Environmental Guideline Series 4. Pretoria, South Africa:
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Available
from http://www.environment.gov.za/Services/booklets/Environ-
mental/Strategic%20Environmental%20Assessment%204.pdf.
Desmond, M. (2007). Decision criteria for the identification of alter-
natives in strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 25(4), 259–269.
Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (Eds.). (2008). Public Participation in
Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Panel on Public
Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making,
National Research Council. Committee on the Human Dimensions
of Global Change. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1993). Contradictions in sustain-
ability. Environmental Conservation, 20(3), 217–222.
Eccleston, C. H., & Smythe, R. B. (2002). Integrating environmental
impact assessment with environmental management systems.
Environmental Quality Management, 11(4), 1–13.
Egypt CEA. (2005). Arab Republic of Egypt: Country Environmental
Analysis (1992–2002). World Bank Report No. 31993- EG. Avail-
able from http://go.worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0.
Elling, B. (2008). Rationality and the Environment. London: Earth-
scan.
Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature,
UKCIP, Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, CAG Consul-
tants, & the Environmental Change Institute. (2004). Strategic
environmental assessment and climate change: Guidance for
practitioners. Available from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_-
manual/links/climate_change.html.
Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature,
UKCIP, Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, CAG Consul-
tants, & the Environmental Change Institute. (2007). Strategic
environmental assessment and climate change: Guidance for
practitioners. Available from http://www.environment-agency.go-
v.uk/static/documents/Research/seaccjune07_1797458.pdf.
EU. (2007, January 10). Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees
celsius, MEMO/07/16, Brussels. Available from http://europa.eu/
rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/16.
EU SEA Directive. (2001). Directive, 2001/42/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.
Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcon-
text.htm.
Fischer, T. B., & Gazzola, P. (2006). SEA effectiveness criteria –
Equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 396–409.
Fischer, T. B. (2001). Towards a better consideration of climate change
and greenhouse gas emission targets in transport and spatial/land
use policies, plans and programmes. Report prepared for presen-
tation at the Open Meeting of the Global Environmental Change
Research Community, 6–8 October 2001, Rio de Janeiro.
Fischer, T. B. (2002). Strategic environmental assessment perfor-
mance criteria-the same requirements for every assessment? Jour-
nal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, 4(1), 83–
99.
Fischer, T. B. (2007). Theory and practice of strategic environmental
assessment – Towards a more systematic approach. London:
Earthscan.
Fischer, T. B., & Seaton, K. (2002). Strategic environmental assess-
ment: Effective planning instrument or lost concept? Planning
Practice and Research, 17(1), 31–44.
Gauthier, M., Lepage, L., Simard, L., Saint-Amant, V., & Lachappelle,
U. (2002). Environmental Assessment of Road Infrastructure:
Toward the Development of a Regional Framework for Integrating
Climate Change Factors. CEAA’s Research and Development
Monograph Series 2002. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental As-
sessment Agency. Available from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/defaul-
t.asp?lang=En&n=7F3C6AF0-1#cc.
George, C. (1999). Testing for sustainable development through
environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Re-
view, 19(2), 175–200.
GGWC. (2009). Global warming. Global Greenhouse Warming.com.
Available from http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/ef-
fect-green-house.html.
Gibson, R. B. (2006). Sustainability assessment: Basic components of
a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
24(3), 170–182.
Gigli, S., & Agrawala, S. (2007). Stocktaking of progress on integrat-
ing adaptation to climate change into development co-operation
activities. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 151
Development. Available from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/62/
39216288.pdf.
Gupta, S., Tirpak, D. A., Burger, N., Gupta, J., Hohne, N., Boncheva,
A. I., et al. (2007). Policies instruments and co-operative arrange-
ments. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A.
Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 745–807). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the
meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability
Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2–3),
73–89.
Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Introduction deliberative policy
analysis. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Understanding
governance in the network society (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Hanusch, M., & Glasson, J. (2008). Much ado about SEA/SA moni-
toring: The performance of English Regional Spatial Strategies,
and some German comparisons. Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 28(8), 601–617.
Hilden, M., Furman, E., & Kaljonen, M. (2004). Views on planning
and expectations of SEA: The case of transport planning. Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(5), 519–536.
Hilding-Rydevik, T., & Bjarnadottir, H. (2007). Context awareness
and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 27(7), 666–684.
HM Government. (2005). Securing the future: The UK Government
Sustainable Development Strategy. London: The Stationery
Office. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/
government/publications/uk-strategy/.
Hutchinson, N. (1998). Biophysical environment, Teacher’s Guide.
Chicago: CLEARVUE/eav. Available from http://www.powerme-
diaplus.com/furtherLearning/pdfs/cl1057-cvtg.pdf.
IAIA. (2002). Strategic Environmental Assessment Performance
Criteria. IAIA Special Publication Series No. 1. Fargo, North
Dakota: International Association for Impact Assessment. Available
from http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/
sp1.pdf.
IAIA. (2010). How countries are adjusting their procedures. Climate
Change and Impact Assessment: IAIA Special Symposium,
Washington, DC, 15–16 November 2010. Available from
http://www.iaia.org/IAIA-Climate-Symposium-DC/countries-
procedures.aspx.
IAIA. (2011). Presentations, videos, and abstracts. Climate Change
and Impact Assessment: IAIA Special Symposium, Washington,
DC, 15–16 November 2010. Available from http://www.iaia.org/
iaia-climate-symposium-dc/proceedings.aspx.
India CEA. (2007). India Strengthening Institutions for Sustainable
Growth: Country Environmental Analysis. World Bank Report
No. 38292-IN. Available from http://go.worldbank.org/
Y4U07YP2R0.
Inspector’s Schedule of Matters and Issues for Examination. (2007,
October 18). North Norfolk Core Strategy incorporating develop-
ment control policies. Available from http://www.northnorfolk.
org/ldf/documents/Inspectors_Schedule_of_Matters_and_Issues_
for_Examination_-_Final_Version.pdf.
IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In: M. L. Parry, et al.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnera-
bility. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 7–
22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available from
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.
pdf.
IUCN/IISD/SEI/InterCooperation. (2011). Summary of CRiSTAL:
Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation & Liveli-
hoods. Winnipeg, Manitoba: IUCN/IISD/SEI/InterCooperation.
Available from http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/brochure_cristal_
en.pdf.
Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: a reflexive
governance approach. In J.-P. Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp
(Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Chel-
tenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Kirwan, F. (2005). A critical review, investigating awareness, use and
users’ opinions, of the ‘‘Strategic environmental assessment and
climate change: Guidance for practitioners’’ guidance note (MSc
Thesis, University of East Anglia, UK, 2005). Available from
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/all/teaching/eiaams/pdf_dissertations/
2005/Kirwan_Frances.pdf.
Kjorven, O., & Lindhjem, H. (2002). Strategic environmental assess-
ment in World Bank operations: Experience to date – Future
potential. Strategy Series No. 4. Washington, DC: World Bank
Environmental Department.
Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. F., & Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating
mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy:
Three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6),
579–588.
Klepper, G. (2005). The ultimate objective of UNFCCC: An ethical
argument. Special event during the 22nd session of SB UNFCCC,
21 May 2005.
Kørnøv, L., & Thissen, W. A. H. (2000). Rationality in decision- and
policy-making: Implications for strategic environmental assess-
ment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 191–200.
Lee, N., & George, C. (Eds.). (2000). Environmental assessment in
developing countries and transitional countries: Principles, meth-
ods and practice. New York: Wiley.
Lee, R. J. (2000). Part 1: Review of Climate Change Considerations in
Selected Past Environmental Assessments. CEAA’s Research and
Development Monograph Series 2000. Ottawa: Canadian Envi-
ronmental Assessment Agency. Available from http://
www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7F3C6AF0-1#cc.
Levett, R., & McNally, R. (2003). A strategic environmental assess-
ment of Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan. World Wide Fund.
Available from http://www.adb.org/Projects/PRES/pres_case_05.
pdf.
Lipscomb, M. (2008). Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist
critique. Nursing Philosophy, 9(1), 32–45.
Mani, M. (2007). International trade and climate change: Economic,
legal, and institutional perspectives. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Mani, M., Markandya, A., & Ipe, V. (2008). Climate change: Adapta-
tion and mitigation in development programs - Practical guide.
Washington, DC: World Bank. Available from http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/EXTEEI/Resources/DCCToolkitCRAlores.pdf.
Marsden, S. (1998). Effectiveness studies: Importance of context in
measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assess-
ment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 16(4), 255–
266.
McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for
using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(1), 66–78.
MDBs. (2007). The Multilateral Development Banks and the Climate
Change Agenda. A joint report of the African Development Bank,
Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154152
Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Devel-
opment Bank, and World Bank.
MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and
human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Available from http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx.
Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Martens, J. W., Rooijen, S. N. M., &
McGory, L. V. W. (Eds.). (2000). Methodological and Technolog-
ical Issues in Technology Transfer. A Special Report of IPCC
Working Group III. Cambridge University Press. Available from
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/tectran/003.htm.
Metz, B., & Kok, M. (2008). Development policy as a way to manage
climate change risks. Climate Policy, 8(2), 99–102.
Mingers, J. (2004). Real-izing information systems: Critical realism as
an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information
and Organization, 14(2), 87–103.
Morrison-Saunders, A., & Arts, J. (Eds.). (2004). Assessing impact:
Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London: Earthscan.
Næss, P., & Jensen, O. B. (2002). Urban land use mobility and theory
of science: Exploring the potential for critical realism in empirical
research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 4(4), 295–
311.
Namibia CEA. (2008). Republic of Namibia: Implementing the Agen-
da of the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism – A rapid
country environmental analysis with a public expenditure review
for aligning policy, institutional and financing priorities. World
Bank Report No. 42472-NA. Available from http://go.worldbank.
org/Y4U07YP2R0.
NEPA. (1969). National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq.). Available from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/
nepa.html.
Nepal CEA. (2007). Nepal Country Environmental Analysis:
Strengthening Institutions and Management Systems for Enhanced
Environmental Governance. World Bank Report No. 38984-NP.
Available from http://go.worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0.
Nicholls, R. J., Wong, P. P., Burkett, V. R., Codignotto, J. O., Hay, J. E.,
McLean, R. F., et al. (2007). Coastal systems and low-lying areas.
In M. L. Parry (Ed.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (pp. 315–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/
wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter6.pdf.
Noble, B. F., & Christmas, L. M. (2008). Strategic environmental
assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation options in the Canadian
agricultural sector. Environmental Management, 41(1), 64–78.
OECD. (2006). Applying strategic environmental assessment: Good
practice guidance for development cooperation. Paris: Organisa-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available from
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/21/37353858.pdf.
OPCS. (2004). From adjustment lending to development policy
lending: Update of World Bank policy. Washington, DC: World
Bank, Operations Policy and Country Services.
Ott, K., Klepper, G., Ligner, S., Schafer, A., Scheffran, J., Sprinz, D.,
et al. (2004). Reasoning goals of climate protection. Specification
of Article 2 UNFCCC. Federal Ministry of the Environment,
Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Research Report 202
41 252. Federal Environment Agency, Berlin.
Pakistan CEA. (2008). Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Country Envi-
ronmental Analysis. Asian Development Bank. Available from
http://www.adb.org/environment/cea.asp.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421, 37–42.
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent
climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Sys-
tematics, 37(1), 637–669.
Partidario, M. R. (1996). Strategic environmental assessment: Key
issues emerging from recent practice. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 16(1), 31–55.
Partidario, M. R. (2000). Elements of an SEA framework – Improving
the added-value of SEA. Environmental Impact Assessment Re-
view, 20(6), 647–663.
Partidario, M. R. (2004). Session 1.3: History, Trend, and Drivers of
SEA. World Bank Institute Distance Learning Strategic Environ-
mental Assessment Course for China, March 22–24, 2004. IAIA-
World Bank Partnership. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Patz, J., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Gibbs, H., & Woodruff, R. (2008).
Health impact assessment of global climate change: Expanding on
comparative risk assessment approaches for policy making. An-
nual Review of Public Health, 29, 27–39.
Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., & Foley, J. A.
(2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health.
Nature, 438(7066), 310–317.
Peru CEA. (2007). Republic of Peru Environmental Sustainability: A
Key to Poverty Reduction in Peru – Country Environmental
Analysis. World Bank Report No. 40190-PE. Available from
http://go.worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0.
Pizarro, R. E. (2009). The mitigation/adaptation conundrum in plan-
ning for climate change and human settlements: Introduction.
Habitat International, 33(3), 227–229.
Planning Inspectorate. (2009). Submitted DPD’s (at 1 July 2009). On
website, no longer available.
Poole. (2008). Poole Core Strategy: Sustainability Appraisal of Sub-
mission Document. Poole Borough Council. Available from http://
www.boroughofpoole.com/downloads/assets/08-05-21_Low_Res_
SA.pdf.
Poole Core Strategy. (2009). Borough of Poole, UK. Available from
http://www.poole.gov.uk/downloads/assets/Core_Strategy_with_
links.pdf.
Posas, P. J. (2007). Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate
change. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 7, 31–49
Available from http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2007/E80.pdf.
Posas, P. J. (2011). Climate change in SEA: Learning from English
spatial planning experience. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal 29(4).
Posas, P. J. Climate change in development bank country environ-
mental analyses. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, forthcoming.
Poulsen, T. G., & Hansen, J. A. (2003). Strategic environmental
assessment of alternative sewage sludge management scenarios.
Waste Management & Research, 21(1), 19–28.
Pounds, J. A., Bustamente, M. R., Coloma, L. A., Consuegra, J. A.,
Fogden, M. P. L., Foster, P. N., et al. (2006). Widespread
amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global
warming. Nature, 439, 161–167.
Prasad, N., Ranghieri, F., Shah, F., Trohanis, Z., Kessler, E., & Sinha,
R. (2009). Climate resilient cities: A primer on reducing vulner-
abilities to disaster. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Pratschke, J. (2003). Realistic models? Critical realism and statistical
models in the social sciences. Philosophica, 71, 13–38.
Quintero, J. D. (2008). Strategic environmental assessment and hy-
droelectric planning in developing countries: A conceptual frame-
work for linked EIA-SEA systems in the sector. Paper presented at
the International Association for Impact Assessment Conference,
4–10 May 2008, Perth, South Africa.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154 153
Quintero, J. D., Roca, R., Morgan, A. J., & Mathur, A. (2010). Smart
green infrastructure in Tiger Range Countries: A multi-level
approach. Washington, DC: Global Tiger Initiative.
Quintero, J. D., Shi, X. X., & Posas, P. J. (2011). Protecting natural
habitats in road development: A multi-level approach. Mexico
City: Proceedings of the World Roads Congress.
Reading Borough Council. (2008, Oct). Reading Borough Local
Development Framework: Revised Sustainability Appraisal.
Reading Borough Council.
Redbridge (London Borough of Redbridge Council). (2006, Nov).
Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Report (Incorporating
Requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment). Submission
Development Plan Document. London Borough of Redbridge.
Retief, F. (2007). A performance evaluation of strategic environ-
mental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African
context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(1), 84–
100.
Richardson, T. (2005). Environmental assessment and planning
theory: Four short stories about power, multiple rationality,
and ethics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4),
341–365.
Risse, N., & Brooks, N. (2008). Strategic environmental assessment
and adaptation to climate change. Paris: Organisation for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development. Available from http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/43/42025733.pdf.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social
scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
RSPB. (2007). Strategic environmental assessment – Learning from
practice. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Available from http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/planning/
sea.asp.
Runhaar, H. (2009). Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective
on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 200–209.
Runhaar, H., & Driessen, P. J. (2007). What makes strategic environ-
mental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role
of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(1), 2–14.
Sadler, B. (1996). International study of the effectiveness of environ-
mental assessment: Environmental assessment in a changing
world – Evaluating practice to improve performance. Ottawa,
Canada: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and IAIA.
Available from http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/EAE/
EAE_10E.PDF.
Sadler, B. (2001). A framework approach to strategic environmental
assessment: Aims, principles and elements of good practice. In J.
Dusik (Ed.), In Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Public Participation and Health Aspects in Strategic Environmental
Assessment (pp. 11–24). Szentendre, Hungary: Regional Environ-
mental Center for Central and Eastern Europe.Available from http://
pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00002417/01/SEAproceedings.pdf#page=13.
Sadler, B., & McCabe, M. (2002). EIA training resource manual (2nd
ed.). Geneva: United Nations Environment Program. Available
from http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/EIAMan2editionToc.
php.
Sayer, A. (2004). Foreword: Why critical realism. In S. Fleetwood &
S. Ackroyd (Eds.), Critical realist applications in organisation
and management studies (pp. 6–20). London: Routledge.
Schwandes, S. E. (2011). Illustration prepared for author by Shaytu
Schwandes. http://www.shaytu.com.
Scottish Executive. (2006). Scottish Executive SEAToolkit. Version 1,
September 2006.
Scottish Government. (2009). Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) Database. Available from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
Topics/Environment/SustainableDevelopment/14587/SEAG.
Shaw, R., Colley, M., & Connell, R. (2007). Climate change adapta-
tion by design: A guide for sustainable communities. London:
Town and Country Planning Association. Available from http://
www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/climate-change-adaptation-by-design.
html.
Sheate, W. R., Byron, H. J., & Smith, S. P. (2004). Implementing the
SEA Directive: Sectoral challenges and opportunities for the UK
and EU. European Environment, 14(2), 73–93.
Sheate, W. R., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J., &
Steen, U. (2003). Integrating the environment into strategic deci-
sion-making: Conceptualising policy SEA. European Environ-
ment, 13(1), 1–18.
Shillington, T., Russell, D., & Sadler, B. (1997). Addressing climate
change through environmental assessment: A preliminary guide.
Ottawa: Canadian Global Change Program.
Singh, B., Gagnon, S., & Davey, N. (2002). Incorporating Climate
Change Considerations in the Environmental Assessment of Hy-
droelectric Projects in Eastern and Northern Canada. CEAA’s
Research and Development Monograph Series 2002. Ottawa:
CEAA. Available from http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang
=En&n=7F3C6AF0-1#cc.
Slough Borough Council. (2007, Nov). Final Sustainability Appraisal
Report. Slough Borough Council Local Development Framework
Core Strategy (Submission Document) Sustainability Appraisal.
Atkins.
Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the
context of sustainable development and equity. In J. J. McCarthy,
O. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. White (Eds.),
Climate Change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (pp.
877–912). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Avail-
able from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TAR
chap18.pdf.
Solomon Islands CEA. (2007). Solomon Islands: Country Environ-
mental Analysis. Asian Development Bank. Available from http://
www.adb.org/environment/cea.asp.
South Hams District Council. (2006, Jan). Sustainability Appraisal/
Strategic Environmental Assessment of South Hams Core Strategy.
Sustainability Appraisal Report. Enfusion.
Southend-On-Sea Borough Council. (2006, Aug). Sustainability
Appraisal for Southend on Sea Local Development Framework
Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Submission Version).
Baker Associates.
Sperling, F., & Szekely, F. (2005). Disaster risk management in a
changing climate. Discussion paper prepared for the World Con-
ference on Disaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and
Adaptation Resource Group (VARG). Reprint with Addendum on
Conference outcomes. Washington, DC
Spooner, B. (1998). Review of the quality of EIA guidelines, their use
and circumnavigation. In A. Donnelly, B. Dalal-Clayton, & R.
Hughes (Eds.), A directory of impact assessment guidelines (2nd
ed.). Nottingham, UK: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED). Russell Press.
Stern, N. (2006). The Stern review: The economics of climate change.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strydom, P. (2002). Risk, environment and society. Buckingham and
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Tajikistan CEA. (2008). Tajikistan: Country Environmental Analysis.
World Bank Report No. 43465-TJ. Available from http://go.
worldbank.org/Y4U07YP2R0.
P.J. Posas / Progress in Planning 75 (2011) 109–154154
Tanner, T. (2009). Screening climate risks to development cooperation.
In Focus 2.5. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Available from http://www.ids.ac.uk/climatechange/orchid.
Thompson, A. (2007, September 6). Climate change redraws world
map. LiveScience. Available from http://www.livescience.com/
environment/070906_gw_atlas.html.
Tin, T. (2008). Climate change: Faster, stronger, sooner – A European
update of climate science. Brussels, Belgium: World Wildlife
Fund. Available from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/
wwf_science_paper_october_2008.pdf.
UKCIP. (2011). Tools. UKCIP website. Available from http://
www.ukcip.org.uk/tools/.
UNEP. (2002). Topic 14: Strategic environmental assessment. Environ-
mental impact assessment training resource manual (2nd ed.).
Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme. Available
from http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_
top14_body.PDF.
UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. New York: United Nations. Available from http://
unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2008). The United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, essential background. Available from http://
unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php.
UNNS. (2007a, June 8). Climate change ‘defining issue of our era,’
says Ban Ki-moon, hailing G8 action. Heiligendamm, Germany.
United Nations News Service. Available from http://www.un.org/
apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22836&Cr=climate&Cr1=change.
UNNS. (2007b, November 17). Ban Ki-moon urges climate change
breakthrough in Bali after dire report released. United Nations
News Service. Available from http://www.un.org/apps/news/
story.asp?NewsID=24704&Cr=Climate&Cr1.
US Congress. (1969). The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality.
US Council on Environmental Quality (USCEQ). (1989). Draft of
Guidance to Federal Agencies Regarding Consideration of Global
Climate Change in Preparation of Environmental Documents.
Washington, DC
USAID. (2007). Adapting to climate variability and change: A
guidance manual for development planning. Washington, DC:
United States Agency for International Development. Available
from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADJ990.pdf.
Uzbekistan CEA. (2004). Country Environmental Analysis for Uzbe-
kistan. Asian Development Bank. Available from http://www.adb.
org/environment/cea.asp.
Vanuatu CEA. (2007). Country Environmental Analysis: Vanuatu.
Asian Development Bank. Available from http://www.adb.org/
environment/cea.asp.
Vicente, G., & Partidario, M. R. (2006). SEA – Enhancing communi-
cation for better environmental decisions. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 26(8), 696–706.
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. (2008, Jan). A New Vision
for Developing Wakefield District: Core Strategy DPD & Devel-
opment Policies DPD – Sustainability Appraisal. City of Wake-
field Metropolitan District Council.
WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Prepared by the World Com-
mission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Wilkins, H. (2003). The need for subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a
tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 23(4), 401–414.
Wilson, E. (2006). Developing UK spatial planning policy to respond
to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
8(1), 9–25.
Wilson, E., & Piper, J. (2008). Spatial planning for biodiversity in
Europe’s changing climate. European Environment, 18(3), 135–
151.
World Bank. (2007, December 12). Press Release: World Bank
Group President says climate action can work for development,
Bali, Indonesia. Available from http://go.worldbank.org/
OJCY76LJH0.
World Bank. (2008). Development and climate change: A strategic
framework for the World Bank Group. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
World Bank. (2009a). Quick Facts about Country Environmental
Analysis (CEA). World Bank website. Available from http://
go.worldbank.org/4XDWNHNUI0.
World Bank. (2009b). World Development Report 2010: Development
and Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2010). Climate risk matrix. Available from http://
vle.worldbank.org/moodle/course/info.php?id=428.
World Bank, University of Gothenburg, Swedish University of Agri-
cultural Sciences, and Netherlands Commission for Environmen-
tal Assessment. (2011). Strategic environmental assessment in
policy and sector reform: Conceptual model and operational
guidance. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available from http://
go.worldbank.org/H711VPS9D0.
Yeung, W. C. H. (1997). Critical realism and realist research in human
geography: A method or a philosophy in search of a method?
Progress in Human Geography, 21(1), 51–74.
Zakkour, P. D., Gaterell, M. R., Griffin, P., Gochin, R. J., & Lester, J.
N. (2002). Developing a sustainable energy strategy for a water
utility. Part II: A review of potential technologies and approaches.
Journal of Environmental Management, 66(2), 115–125.
Paula J. Posas, PhD, is an environmental consultant at the World Bank in Washington, DC and a co-chair of the
Climate Change Section of the International Association for Impact Assessment. She has worked for several non-
governmental and international development organisations in the past and has published on SEA, climate change,
biodiversity conservation, inclusive design, and other topics. She holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental sciences
and policy from Duke University, a master’s degree in interdisciplinary ecology from the University of Florida, and
recently completed a doctoral degree in planning at the University of Liverpool.
