SEA

core problem with project by project review

• projects are reuslts of polcies, when you only review indivual projects, you fail to assess the bigger picture

• proejct reivews are reactice, not designed to ask bigger pictures

case of enbridge line 3 pipeline

project review became an arena for larger unresovled issues, like national energy policy, indgneous titile and consultation, cnadas role in fossil fuiel exports

• Debate was less about the pipeline itself

• by Assessing sympotms (witht he project)rather tha the cause- especially if were engaged with FN groups, these projects become fighting grounds for much larer issues- territories, hisotiry of setllter colonialism and atrocities of the state= diffuciutl for project level assemsment to deal with these issues

SEA

intiatives: polcies, plans and programs (PPP)

• goal

  • past = process of ecaluating at the earlieest possible stage the enviroental effects of a PPP and its alternatives

  • present

    • Goal not to just evaluate imapcts but create development context,working toards sustainiblity - actiley implenting sustainaablity, and shaping all the future optiosn that we have to guide that implentaiton, not just reacting to finished plans

project ea vs stragetic ea

• focus

  • project = project charcetrstics

  • strategic = objectives and key driers

• looks at

  • project= local baseline conditons

  • stragegic = key trends and potentials

• options

  • project= alternative design orpitons

  • strategiton = straggeic devleopment options

• solutions

  • major mpact and mitigation

  • critical polcies to be met

strategic

activies realtd to braoder instutional, societal ,ecoomic, and enviormetna objectives

• requires longterm goal fomulation and evlauation of choices and futures

tactical

• realm of ruels and reuglations and instutions - The dominant strucutres that guide operational level actions

operational

• Short term actions that support implentation- can see the parraels immideatley

• Project level EA is a form of this

reflexive

The feed back loops, forms a new round of stratgeic lthinking

• Acticies realted to monitoring,assements and evlaution of ongoing startegies oeprations and change

history of SEA- directive era

• beginning

  • Fed gov established cabinet directive on the EA of PPP proposals established

  • Key feature - A DIRECTICE, NOT A LAW, NON LEGISAGTED, INFORMAL SYSTEM , WAS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM CEAA,( not the one in 2012)

• early impolentation

  • all departments requried to prepare Sustianible development stragegies

• increasing transparcy

  • key change, for first time, fed departmetns requried to realse a PUBLIC STATMENT WHEN SEA WAS COMPLETED

  • 2010 - directive update to Formally link SEA to fed sustianible development act

history of SEA- modern era

• step back

  • CEAA 2012 contianed no refernce to SEA

  • on legeistated cabinet directive remains the only federal tool

• 2019 IAA

  • introudces provisions for stragegic assemnts

  • features = DISCRETIONARY- minsiter can order one but not automatic

  • restrictive = must be relevant to  conductign project IAs

• today

  • dual system

    • 1990 cabniet directive exists for internal gov. policy

    • 2019 IAA provides a sieprate, discretionary tool

SEA in practice- federally and provincially

• federally- the directive

  • misnisters wernt provided with info abt potential enviornmental effects for most proposals

  • small percentage of proposals even applied the directive

  • no orgs consistnetly reportd on their SEA practices or issued public statments

• federal, in 2016 = more imporvement

  • Deparmetns started doing the SEA practices

  • BUT

    • The audits were still only checking for procuderal compliacne, dont knwo abt effectivness

foundational pricnioles of SEA

• systems based - the design

  • how sea fits into the “big picture”

• process based - the how to

  • the mechanisms of the assesemnt

• results based- the so what

  • the intended otucomes and influence

SEA principle - systems based

• proactive- applied early

• integrative- weaves biphysical with social, ecoomic and poltical factors

• tiered

  • National policy logically flows down to proviincal and municpal plans, and evetually project levels

• Sustainbilty focused

  • sustianble developmetn as guiding principle

• Provicisions based

  • requires clear standards for when to do an SEA and how to implent its results

SEA principle - process based

• purpose and objectives clearly stated

• responsiblty and accounativlty, clear roles

• scoping

  • narrow focus and considers realted PPPs

• alternatives-based

  • compare evlaution of reasonable scenarios

• impact evaluation - identifies potenial impacts, otucoms and cumulative effects

• montioring program

• flexile- adatps to speicifc policy cultures

• partipatyr and transpernt = menainful consultation

SEA principle - results based

• Has to be influential- ppl must demonstrably influece the final PPP

• Authroative - authroative guidance for implentation

• Defined linkage

  • SEAs teeth, creates formal link to guid and streamline subsseqent lower-tier EAs

• Enables learning

  • No literative leanring process = policies and process can't grow and adapt overtime- for system wide improvement

spectrum of SEA less to more stragegic

impact assesment based ( less)

• compliance based EA

• project EA

Strategy based SEA ( more)

• Strategic futures

• Stragegic transitions

compliance based  - most basic form

greening a PPP

• Checklist- does this plan comply with exisitng polcies or comitmetnes?

• Making sure paln doesn’t break any rules-  serves a risk management role

project EA-like

impact assesemtn report  and reglatory approval= endgoal

• focuses on assessing potential impacts and mitigation

• rarely results in new stragtic dirctions

Strategic future

• usually used in land use planning

  • Not just assesing one proopsed plan and assesing multiple alternative future scenatios

  • Shaping or forumulatina  PPP- plottng out regional level laying plans

stragegic transtions - rare as fuck

• Assesses the entire instutional enviroment and governce

• Asks deep queisotns, what polciies and what conditons constrain success- whats wrong with our governmetn ssytme ad how do we fix and change that

• About DRIVING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN DECISONMAKING ITSELF AS A NATION

what phaes are in generic SEA framework

1. context

   1. establish SEA prupose

   2. scope stragetic context/objective

   3. establish baseline conditons

2. asessment

   1. identify stragtic options

   2. assess impacts, opprotunties, and risks

   3. idnefiy strategic direction

3. managment

   1. detmermine managment needs

   2. develop follow up program

   3. impolement, montior, evlauate

phase 1 context setting

• establish sea purose and governace

  • why SEA important, whos responsible

• scope stragetic context

  • descrive the instutional context

    • - exisitng polcies/legal obligations, agency mandates

  • idneiify cretical decison factors (CDFs)

    • broad factors that mater for decsion making

• establish baseline conditons

  • characterize conditos and trends

  • assess distance from objectives- how far is current sitch from target

  • benchmark capcity, doees the instutional cpacity exist to recach desired objectives

phase 2. assessment

• identify straggic options

  • future sencarios ( outcomes)

    • what could things look like

  • stragetic otipns ( pathways)

    • what things could we do

• assess impacts, oppers and risks

  • can be using mixed methods

• identify stragtic dirction

  • SEA must result in reccomendations or directions

  • this is not alwasy one preferd option can be multiple

  • such as

    • capacity building, transforminatisn in policies, need to fill knoweldge gaps

phase 3. managment

• determine impact mangment needs

  • focus is on instutional challenges, not just techincal fixes

  • sometimes cant implemnt desired opiton b/c regulatoru contraint, compeitng polciy objectivs, conflicitng agncy mangments

  • purpose 2 idenify legal, polica na dcpaicty gaps and set motions for fundamntal transtions

• develop follow up program

  • uncertianty at stratgic level is more than project level

  • must scan for “game changers”

    • new national polices/commitments

    • sig. change in market conditons

    • new tec and scientfic discoveries

• implent, montior and evaluate

  • more compolex the stragegy, the greater the uncertnaty , the mor an adative appraoch is rqured

  • stragy must be flexible to be repsonsive to sytem changes, external stressors and new knwodlege gained from montioring