strategic environmental analysis

8/11/2019 Strategic environmental analysis

1/14

This article was downloaded by: [120.60.159.204]On: 19 October 2012, At: 09:52Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact Assessment and Project AppraisalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Strategic environmental analysis (SEAN): aframework to support analysis and planning ofsustainable developmentJan Joost Kessler

a

aAIDEnvironment, Donker Curtiusstraat 7-523, 1051, JL Amsterdam, The Netherlands E-

mail: www.aidenvironment.org

Version of record first published: 20 Feb 2012.

To cite this article:Jan Joost Kessler (2000): Strategic environmental analysis (SEAN): a framework to support analysisand planning of sustainable development, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18:4, 295-307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767303http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767303http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20


2/14

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,volume 18, number 4, December 2000, pages 295307, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK.

Sustainable development

Strategic environmental analysis (SEAN): a

framework to support analysis and planning of

sustainable development

Jan Joost Kessler

Strategic Environmental Analysis (SEAN) is astructured, participatory process to analyseenvironmental problems and opportunities fordevelopment, to identify main actors, and todefine strategic goals at early stages. Diverse ap-

plications in developing countries have refinedits framework, guidelines, tools and checklists.It has an integrative focus on linkages ofenvironmental and socio-economic issues ofsustainability. Its analytical framework hasfour clusters: environmental context analysis,problem analysis, opportunity analysis andstrategic planning. It has succeeded in puttingconcrete sustainability goals and environmen-tal issues on policy-makers agendas and initiat-ing participatory and interactive planning.

Keywords: sustainable development; strategic environmentalassessment; policy making

Jan Joost Kessler is with AIDEnvironment, Donker Curtiusstraat7-523, 1051 JL Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Email: [email protected]; Web-site: www.aidenvironment. org.

The author wishes to thank friends and colleagues who havecontributed to develop the SEAN framework, including FrankeToornstra and Jeroen van Wetten (AIDEnvironment), Albert

Heringa (Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV)). Healso acknowledges the anonymous reviewer who helped to im-prove earlier versions. All field practitioners in the countrieswhere SEAN was applied are gratefully acknowledged.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is now aconcept which is accepted world-wide. Govern-mental and non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) at different levels are working this conceptintooperationaltermsinvariousways.Tosupportand

implement sustainable development requires majoradjustments in terms of decision-making processes,the project cycle and the organisation of developmentinstitutions.

In 1995, the Netherlands Development Organisa-tion (SNV) requested AIDEnvironment to develop amethodology that would allow integration of environ-mental concerns into development policies andstrategies in order to put into practice sustainabilityobjectives. Particularly in regions with limitedeconomic potential and a high dependency of day-to-day living on the proper management of the envi-ronmental resources in the immediate surroundings,there is need for systematic environmental analysis toanswer such questions as:

What are existing insights and interests of differentstakeholders regarding proper environmentalmanagement?

What social norms and environmental thresholdsare involved in defining environmental problems?Whatistheproblemperceptionbydifferentactors?Whose problem is it?

What are structural root causes of environmentalproblems and how can these be tackled?

What are promising opportunities and initiatives toimprove both the economic and environmentalsituation? What innovators and partners are

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2000 2951461-5517/00/040295-13 US$08.00 IAIA 2000


3/14

involved? How can coalitions be formed to tacklecomplex problems and expand promisinginitiatives?

How can environmental priorities be integratedwith economic, social and gender priorities? Whatare priority long-term development goals that meetsustainability criteria?

These questionscanbe addressedduringenvironmen-tal assessments of projects and programmes. How-ever, to achieve fundamental change of policies andstrategic plans,a more proactive approach is required.At early stages, root causes and key actors of environ-mental problems (within institutional, political andsocio-economic spheres), and existing opportunitiesand promising initiatives must be identified, tohighlight winwin options, strategic partners and setrealistic sustainable development goals.

The analysis must focus on the interrelations be-tween environmental concerns and socio-economic

development concerns (such as poverty alleviation).In developing countries, these interrelations are oftenmore direct, as the use of natural resources is the ma-jor activity to meet socio-economic developmentgoals for most stakeholders (for instance, Morvaridi,1997).

In many places the absence of a clear vision of thefuture has led to confusion, lack of co-ordination andthe setting of incorrect development priorities. Thereis a widespread need for an integrated (holistic,multi-sectoral) strategic analysis and planning meth-odology, which allows selective and focused imple-mentation where opportunities occur, to makedevelopment efforts more effective (Sterkenburg andvan der Wiel, 1999; Farringtonet al, 1999).

Strategic environmental analysis (SEAN) bringstogether elements from different conceptual andmethodological planning and environmental assess-ment backgrounds, including in particular strategicenvironmental assessment (SEA),1 environmentalprofiles and processes of designing environmentalstrategies.2 It is new by linking existing tools within asystematic and participatory process.

SEAN was developed to address the challenges fora more proactive and integrated planning process, in

particular the need to be:

Integrative and holistic by demonstrating the areasof overlap between environmental and socio-economic development issues and resultingsustainable development goals;

Systematic to avoid critical environmental issuesbeing overlooked and allow opportunities for inte-gration to be explored;

Proactive by being applied during early stages ofdecision making, instead of being reactive anddefensive (and proposing compensating or miti-

gating measures, thereby affirming the apparentcontradiction between environmental and socio-economic goals);

Supportive to strategic planning by being linked to

planning processes and leading to insights beingreflected in concrete goals and plans, the environ-mental analysis being as intrinsic an element ofstrategic planning as is economic and socialanalysis;

Practical, light and flexible and aimed at definingstrategic priorities, to avoid policy makers gettingconfused by the complexities and uncertainties in-

volved, while at the same time maintaining a sys-tematic rigour to ensure that critical issues are notoverlooked;

Participatory, involving relevant stakeholders andother actors, to negotiate trade-off, build up sharedinsights and generate commitment to work outagreed priorities.

This article reports on the main characteristics, expe-riences and potentials for application of SEAN. Onecase study from Atacora Province (Benin) is used todemonstrate the main characteristics and to illustrate

some of the results.To support application of SEAN, a toolbox hasbeen developed to provide practical guidance to po-tential users. This includes guidelines for each anal-ytical task and each process phase; it has a number ofchecklists and provides theoretical background toimportant concepts. A web-site has been establishedgiving updated information on publications, experi-ences, trainers and local manuals and guidelines(http:\\www.seanplatform.org).

Objectives and main characteristics of SEAN

Objectives

SEAN basically deals with the interactions betweenecosystems and human society, and aims to developinsight in these complex interrelations andagree uponstrategic goals. The approach is anthropocentric be-cause priorities are set, impacts are assessed andnorms are defined on the basis of human values, whilethese are matched with ecological thresholds in envi-ronmental stability and resilience.

SEAN can be defined as a participatory process be-

ing structured by an analytical framework, to analysethe environmental problems and opportunities forhuman development, to identify the main actors in-volved, and to define strategic goals at early stages ofdecision making or planning. Based on experiences, apractical methodology has been worked out, withguidelines, tools and checklists.

SEAN has the long-term objective to mainstreamenvironmental issues into development planning pro-cesses by raising the level of knowledge on the envi-ronmental context and its interrelations with the otherdimensions of sustainable development. Short-term

objectives are: to analyse the environmental context of human de-

velopment, the opportunities and constraints;

296 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2000

Strategic environmental analysis


4/14

to gain insight into the relations between envi-ronmental key issues and other dimensions ofsustainable development (social, economic,

institutional issues); to define a vision and strategic goals with relevant

actors, as inputs for planning of sustainable devel-opment strategies at early stages of decisionmaking;

to stimulate and provide guidance to an interactiveprocess with actors involved.

SEAN has been applied as a framework for regionalplanning by decentralised government agencies, tobring together relevant actors, develop a common vi-sion andstrategic goals for regional development,andby environmental NGOs to develop their ownstrategy. This forms the basis for detailed planning orpolicy formulation, at a sectoral or administrativelevel.

Process and analytical framework

SEAN consists of a participatory process of creatinginsights, mutual learning and making strategicchoices. This process is roughly structured by fivephases which can be briefly summarised as: prepara-tion; scoping; detailed studies; synthesis and plan-ning; follow-up and monitoring (Figure 1).

To structure analysis and planning during thefive-phase process, an analytical framework has beendeveloped, consisting of four clusters which hold ten

analytical tasks (Figure 2). The analytical frameworkprovides a logical structure which is necessary to en-sure that relevant environmental issues are not over-looked and cross-sectoral insights are generated.

Flexibility in terms of the emphasis on certainprocess phases and analytical tasks is an importantcharacteristic of SEAN. Its application will dependonthe objectives, previous work that has been done,identified gaps, available expertise and time, andtherequired level of detail of theresult. Short-cuts canbe made.

Conceptual and methodological basis

SEAN basically consists of existing concepts andmethodologies brought together within a logicalstructure to guide a participatory process of analysisand planning. The following concepts are the basis ofthe SEAN process and analytical framework.

1. Multiple users and multi-functionality of environ-mental systems.Environmental functions can beclassified as production, carrier, regulation andcultural (information). Ecosystems have differentfunctions with variable value for stakeholdersnow and for future generations.

2. Objective and subjective value judgements.Matching the knowledge of insiders and outsid-ers, formal and informal information sources,

quantitative and qualitative data, is essential tobuild up a common understanding of the dynam-ics and complexity involved.

3. Limits of acceptable environmental change.Al-though difficult to quantify, different norms andthresholds for acceptable environmental changemust be recognised to form the basis for definingbottom-lines and desirable states for differentstakeholders.

4. Environmental problems as a normative percep-tion. Environmental problems are defined as anegative discrepancy between norms and stan-dards of desirable qualities for human society andthe current situation (de Groot, 1992). Thus,problem perceptions will vary between differentstakeholders and actors involved.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2000 297


Figure 1. The five phases of the SEAN process, and theanalytical tasks to be performed in each(in italics)

An analytical framework, consisting of

four clusters which hold ten analytical

tasks, provides a logical structure

necessary to ensure that relevant

environmental issues are not

overlooked and cross-sectoral insightsare generated

Figure 2. Analytical framework of strategic environmentalanalysis, with detailed tasks within each cluster


5/14

5. Social causality of problems and opportunities.Proximate and root causes of environmentalproblems, and factors favouring or disfavouringthe realisation and spread of opportunities, arefound in human society. Understanding motiva-tions and (alternative) options (the psychology)of the actors associated with these factors allowsthe design of more effective and specific solution

strategies and partnerships.6. Interrelationships between sustainable develop-

ment components.SEAN focuses on the areas ofoverlap and the trade-off between environmentaland socio-economic development goals, to setstrategic priorities, identify winwin options andareas of (potential) conflict.

7. Opportunities and initiatives as strategicbuilding blocks. Apart from tackling perceivedproblems by developing solutions, a moreeffective approach is that of focusing on existingopportunities for change and promising initia-

tives at various levels.8. Strategic partnerships. An effective strategyshould start out by collaborating with innovatorsready to adopt more sustainable developmentconcepts and technologies.

9. Micromeso-macro linkages. Toovercomecon-straints (root causes) and benefit from opportuni-ties (triggers), regional (meso) or local (micro)level sustainable development requires insightinto the macro-level context (policies,macro-economics and institutions).

Methodologically, SEAN combines a systems ap-proach and an actors approach.

The systems approach is required to gain insightinto the interaction and dynamics between social,economic and institutional factors in relation to en-vironmental problems or opportunities. The aim isto identify proximate and root causes, and possiblelinkages with opportunities for change.

The actors approach is required to identify the keyactors influencing the system dynamics, both in anegative and positive sense (opponents and propo-nents). Schematic representations show the link-

ages of actors within different sectors and atdifferent levels, possibly with indication of powerrelations and mutual interests or conflicts. It is im-portant to address or involve both proponents andopponents of desirable change in any strategicplan.

The SEAN process aims to be participatory and trans-parent. In terms of participation, there is need for hori-zontal and vertical integration of participants, byinvolvement of insiders and outsiders and actors fromdifferent institutional levels, the use of both local (tra-

ditional/indigenous) and scientific knowledge, and ofboth formal and informal information sources. Partic-ular attention is given to so-called absentstakeholder groups, including future generations,

outside communities and critical nature values. Theseabsent stakeholders need to be represented byenvironmentally or socially oriented organisations.

The SEAN process and analytical framework typi-cally represent a rational structure of generatinginsights and defining strategic priorities. However,

making strategic choices is a process that is onlypartly based on rational considerations and logicalinsight, particularly when complex and sensitivetrade-off relations exist (for instance, between envi-ronmental and economic goals) and fundamentalchanges (for instance, within policies or institutions)are required. It is therefore essential that the SEANprocess is adjusted to local conditions, a diversity ofactorsisactivelyinvolved,outputsarewellcommuni-cated, and the process is responsive to societal viewsand unexpected opportunities (Figure 3). This under-lines the importance of the SEAN process, as com-pared to the analytical tasks to be performed.

The SEAN process strives for a balance betweenrequirements to develop a good product (that is, tosynthesise available information, views and percep-tions) and requirements to assure a participatory andinteractive process based on equal footing (that is, togenerate commitment among different parties in-volved). Reaching this balance seems an essentialcharacteristic of alternative mechanisms to improveintegration of environmental issues into policy mak-ing (Bailey and Renton, 1997).

Positioning SEAN

SEAN brings together elements from differentconceptual and methodological planning and en-vironmental assessment backgrounds, and is thereforedifficult to position. It is ideally applied at early stagesof the planning cycle. However, in most cases, exist-ing plans and programmes have a strong influence,and SEAN is being applied to make necessaryadjustments to integrate relevant environmentalissues.

SEAN can easily be confused with strategic envi-ronmental assessment (SEA). The similarity of the

name is partly coincidence, but is also useful to illus-trate the close relations. SEAN can basically be con-sidered as an integrated and open-ended planningtool, but shows similarity with SEA, aimed at



Figure 3. SEAN as a process of rational analysis andopenness to socio-political events andopportunities


6/14

informingand influencing policy making processes atearly stages. This can be observed when looking at therecently proposed performance criteria forSEA, mostof which are similar to requirements for integratedplanning.

While SEAN aims at early integration of environ-mental issues in planning processes, to define sustain-

able strategies, plans and interventions, SEA wouldassessin greaterdetail the impacts ofa plan orstrategybefore a decision is being taken. Thus, these two toolsare complementary (Figure 4).

Integrative, in what sense?

Reviews of SEA experiences (Sadler and Verheem,1996; Thrivel and Partidrio, 1996) found relativelyfew examples of integrated assessments, that is, iden-tification of environmental, social and economic con-siderations, trade-offs and policy options. What isreally needed is a more holistic approach which maybe called sustainability analysis (Dalal-Clayton,1993).3 WhereasSEANisfirstofallanenvironmentalanalysis, it is integrative and holistic by establishinglinkages between environmental, social, cultural andeconomic issues, and by focusing at the interrelationsand the areas of overlap (winwin options, ifexistent).

To work out interrelations between sustainable de-velopment dimensions, the following final goals havebeen defined:

ecological: stability and diversity;

socio-institutional: autonomy, health, security andequity; economic: production and efficiency.

Based on these final goals, criteria and indicators forsustainability are defined for each specific situation.These criteria are used during the SEAN process tomake choices and set priorities. The interrelations be-tween environmental and socio-economic criteria canbe of different types, for instance, management prac-tices, natural resource endowments and entitlements,cultural values, problem perceptions, and impactsand

causes of environmental changes.During the SEAN process, the aim is to achievestrong integration between the different componentsof an integrated analysis process (Figure 5).

SEAN also aims to integrate attention for environ-mental issues into formal planning procedures (forinstance, decentralised, spatial, sectoral planning).Thisisnecessarytoensurethatrelevantprioritiesaris-ing from the SEAN process are being reflected inconcrete plans (Eggenberger and Partidrio, 1999).Difficulties in integrating analysis and planning pro-cesses are partly a result of the distinctive nature of theprofessionals involved in both fields (Lichfield,1999). This might be because an integrated analysismust be holistic, while action planning unravels com-plexity into distinctive parts to allow concrete deci-sion making. Planning is a complex task with itsmultiple objectives and elaborated procedural andinstitutional articulation. Current globalisation pro-cesses and changes to the regulatory and institutionalframeworks in many countries further complicate thistask. SEAN aims to support integrated analysis andplanning, by:

being initiated early in the decision making pro-cess, similar to (spatial) planning;

actively involving planners and decision makers inthe process;

generating outputs that are useful for planners:

guidelines; criteria and norms for environmentalmanagement, strategic goals and priorities, key ac-tors to involve, opportunitiesand winwin options,tasks and functions for institutions to fulfil, and soon.

Experiences and potential application

Experiences

SEAN was developed through experiences in a num-

ber of developing countries: Zimbabwe, Ghana,Benin and Nicaragua, and has by now been appliedunder different conditions, by different organisations,including the SNV, Netherlands Directorate General



Figure 4. Position of SEAN in relation to otherenvironmental assessment methods

Figure 5. SEAN as part of an integrated sustainabilityanalysis, with strong linkages between thedifferent dimensions


7/14

for Development Aid (DGIS), Dutch co-fundingorganisations, the International Union for the Conser-vationofNature(IUCN)andtheWorldWildlifeFund(WWF). The objectives in implementing SEAN werein each case different, which can be illustrated by thefollowing case studies:

Formulation of sustainable development plans at

municipality and regional level in Nicaragua andHonduras (for instance, SNV, 1998);

Formulation of a strategy on sustainable develop-ment by Botswana NGOs (www.envngo.co.bw);

Formulation of strategic plans at provincial anddistrictlevelinBenin(forinstance,CBDD,1997);

Formulation of Partners for Wetlands projects forWWF (van Wetten, 2000).

The main outputs of these applications have been:

Concrete results: analysis of environmental prob-

lems and opportunities, identification of key issuesand key actors to address: strategic goals andpriorities, outlines of a vision, sectoral prioritiesand inter-sectoral programmes and action fields.

Process results: awareness among variousstakeholders, networking, adjustments of policyframework, improved co-ordination, creation ofstrategic partnerships and coalitions betweenprivate sector, civil society and governmentinstitutions (Box 1).

Potential applications and users

Based on the experiences obtained so far, it appearsthat the SEAN process and analytical framework hasmost potential to support and provide inputs in earlyphases of policy making or planning processes thatare relatively open-ended and have a broad, holisticsustainable development perspective. Insights are

generated into key issues relevant to developing envi-ronmental or sustainable development strategies. TheSEAN process and analytical framework is useful tostructure the participatory and interactive process ofdefining strategic sustainable development goals andoptions. The level of integration can vary.

SEAN has so far been applied both as an informal

and as a formal planning process. In the first case, theprocess was initiated by (environmental) NGOs or do-nor agencies, with the aim of stimulating publicawareness, and/or setting strategic goals and develop-ment options as an alternative to formal goals (for in-stance, the case of NGOs in Botswana using SEAN todevelop their own strategy). SEAN can be used byNGOs and countervailing powers to identify andmake known political and institutional root causes ofenvironmental problems, which might be too sensi-tive to identify in formal processes.

As a formal process, SEAN has been used to sup-port decentralised development planning. The infor-mal application appears to have much potential insituations in which governmental structures havelimited legitimacy or commitment to implementsustainability objectives, the formal application haspotential when a legitimate owner exists and wantsto put into practice a sustainability vision.

SEAN can be applied to different (administrativeor planning) areas, to sectors or to single steps in theplanning process. The focus might be a bioregion (forinstance, for management planning of protected ar-eas). SEAN has been applied to defining priorities fora forest management plan (Honduras) and a strategy

for wetland management (Benin). In cases of a sec-toral application, the analysis should work out link-ages with other sectors. The SEAN analyticalframework has been adjusted to carry out an analysisof the environmental impacts of structural adjustmentprogrammes (Kessler and van Dorp, 1998).

SEAN particularly addresses micro-meso-macrodynamics, and brings together actors from various in-stitutional levels (vertical integration) during a partic-ipatory process (Bass et al , 1995). In manydeveloping countries, good opportunities and de-mands for such support occur at sub-national (meso)levels where linkages can be made with ongoing de-centralisation processes. The meso-scale is suitablefor application because it meets the requirement ofstakeholders being able to perceive concrete issues in



Box 1. SEAN results from various countries

Some results of various SEAN applications are:

Insight into the risks of environmental degradation in theregion concerned, consequences for socio-economic

development goals, development trends that pose risksfor the environment, thinking in transversal (inter-sec-toral) ways;

Insight among policy makers into the importance ofbiodiversity and natural resourcesfor economic develop-ment intheirregion, thinkingin termsof opportunities andbenefiting from innovators instead of acting in a defen-sive way;

Strategic partnerships and forums of exchange, bringingtogether stakeholders on the basis of common interestsand concerns;

Local and regional authorities and communities makingclaims to the national level about the need to provide re-sources and legal support to implement local level sus-tainable development;

Enhanced collaboration and co-ordination between de-velopment actors such as universities, regional authori-ties, projects, NGOs and donors;

Training of various participants in use of environmentalassessment tools.

The SEAN process and analytical

framework has most potential to

support and provide inputs in early

phases of policy making or planning

processes that are relatively

open-ended and have a broad, holisticsustainable development perspective


8/14

their environment and express themselves, and therequirement of policy makers being sufficientlyinformed and able to negotiate with stakeholders(Hoefsloot and van den Berg, 1998). Representativesfrom the community level, public sector and privatesector must be involved.

Similar potential occurs in developed countries,where municipalities are making their own green

development plans. The resulting strategic goals andsustainable development options can be used to workout concrete projects and action plans, and to defineinstitutional requirements (for instance, for reformand capacity building) based on institutional func-tions to be performed. The resulting key issues forsustainable development within an area or sector pro-vide relevant inputs for more specific analyses orstudies, possibly including project environmental im-pact assessment (EIA) or sector-wise SEA.

Conducting the SEAN process and using theanalytical framework varies for each application,

dependingon concrete objectives, budget andtime re-quirements and earlier work that has been done.For instance, in several cases the use of the SEANframework was limited to one scoping workshop(phase 2, see Figure 1), as a guideline to define key is-sues based mainly on existing information. Anotherelement of flexibility is the level of integration be-tween SEAN and social, economic or institutionalanalyses.

In line with its flexibility, the time required for ap-plication of SEAN may vary from a few weeks (incases of application such as a scoping workshop only)to several months (in cases of application of allphases).4 Theoutputscaneasilybebiasediftheanaly-sis is carried out too quickly; this is a common weak-ness of less rigorous assessment tools (for instance,English, 1999).Time andbudgetrequirementsmainlydepend on:

the required level of detail and the existence andavailability of relevant data and information (forinstance, environmental action plans, rapid ruralassessments, land-use surveys);

experience and expertise of the core SEAN teamresponsible for execution of the tasks;

levelofapplication,complexityofthesituationandoccurrence of sensitive issues; effectiveness of local co-ordination and clarity of

ownership.

Basedontheexperiences,thepotentialusersofSEANcan be defined as planners and decision makers with arelatively high level of expertise and responsibilitieswithin their organisations, both within government orNGOs, projects or donor agencies. It has an educa-tional and awareness-raising value, because of itstransparent, practical and participatory character. The

applications were executed with limited external sup-port, but a good moderator is essential to co-ordinatethe process and communicate information to relevantactors.

Case-study of Atacora

Objectives and participants

TheobjectivesofapplyingSEANinAtacoraprovince(Benin) were:

1. to analyse the existing problems and opportuni-

ties within the region;2. to define a common vision and strategic goals for

sustainable development that integrates environ-mental with economic and socio-institutionalissues;

3. to create synergy and co-ordination betweenongoing development projects and activities byinvolving local decision makers and other rele-vant actors;

4. to define regional institutional capacity dev-elopment to support the decentralisationprocess;

5. to address thepoverty andenvironmental fragilityof the province.

Participants and parties involved were:

Funding agencies: The Centre Bninois pour leDveloppement Durable in Benin and SNV whichruns several projects in the province.

Steering committee: including representativesfrom the Ministry of Planning, local government,NGOs and funding agencies.

Owner of the SEAN process and outputs: theelected prfet of the province.

Participants: during workshops and field work,representatives of local communities, projects,NGOs, local government, private sector, donorsand central government were involved. Special at-tention was given to gender equity.

SEAN executive team: a local moderator(GERAM Bureau dtude), two staff from localprojects and two from provincial services, oneSEAN expert (AIDEnvironment).

Technical advisors: on an ad hocbasis advice hasbeen obtained from university experts.

In total, about 25 different organisations participated,and several actors joined voluntarily. Participantswere involved in workshops (debates), joint analysesand feedback. These were used to discuss outcomesand set priorities.

SEAN analysis and planning process

In Atacora Province, the SEAN process phases (Fig-ure 1) were applied in the following way:

1. Preparation: this critical phase included defining

objectives, lobbying at national level, selectingparticipants, discussion on ownership, reviewingrelevant experiences, and training selected parti-cipants on SEAN.




9/14

2. Scoping: during this phase, two workshops wereheld, one at village level and one at provinciallevel, to capture existing knowledge by goingthrough the SEAN analytical tasks with selectedparticipants. Results of the village workshop wereinputs to the provincial level workshop.

3. Detailed studies: detailed studies were under-taken on a number of identified key issues. Thisinvolved interviews and surveys to captureviews and perceptions of certain social groups(women, pastoralists, children, and urban set-tlers), detailed studies on certain themes (forinstance, soil fertility, migration patterns,trans-boundary pastoralist movements, agricul-tural extension and local traditions) and oncertain sectors (for instance, gold mining, cottonproduction).

4. Synthesis and planning: this phase broughttogether the insights and views generated in pre-vious phases, during a workshop, to define a com-mon vision and strategic goals on sustainabledevelopment in the province.

5. Follow-up and monitoring: this ongoing phasefocuses on supporting and strengthening imple-mentation of the strategy, working out actionplans, ensuring feedback of results to stake-holders, setting-up a monitoring system, andlegalising the resulting strategy.

As illustrated earlier (Figures 1 and 2), the ten analyti-cal tasks, classified in four clusters, provide a logicalstructure for the analysis and planning activities un-dertakenduringtheSEANprocess,toensurethatrele-vant issues are not overlooked and cross-sectoral

insights are generated. Final results of each analyticaltask are achieved in phase 4, by synthesising resultsfrom the previous two phases (scoping and detailedanalysis).

Concrete results

The following concrete results were obtained for eachanalytical task during the SEAN process in AtacoraProvince. They are summarised as being acquiredduring phases 2 (scoping), 3 (detailed studies) and 4(synthesis and planning).

Results from cluster I of analytical frameworkEcological system human society context analysis

Task 1: The main stakeholders were identified, in-cluding gender distinctions, and the main environ-mental functions on which they depend, directly orindirectly.Environmental functions wereclassifiedasproduction (10), carrier (6), regulation (8) and cultural(3). Priorities among environmental functions wereset by the perceived socio-economic value forstakeholders, based on studies and questionnaires.Descriptions weremadeof stakeholders, resource-usesystems and environmental functions.

Task 2: An assessment was made of past and presenttrends of each of the environmental functions, interms of changes in quantity and/or quality, flowsand/or stocks. Use was made of various types of indi-cator: state, pressure and response indicators, directand indirect indicators, those based on scientific andlocal knowledge. Indicators were discussed duringworkshops. Causeeffect chains were elaborated toshow the interrelations between trendsof differenten-vironmental functions. Changes were determined ofrelevant economic, social, institutional and politicalissues, and how these changes influence the environ-

mental trends (in terms of threats and opportunities).Task 3: Impacts of current environmental trendswereassessed, looking at consequences for present



Final goals, key issuesor indicators Environmental trends

Present stakeholders Absent stakeholders

Incomes Efficiency Health Conflicts Equity Outsidecommunities

Future gen-erations

Nature bio-diversity

Production of cerealcrops Production of cotton

/+ ? ! ! ! !

Soil fertility Soil protection

$ ! ! !$ ?

Space for forest Forest products Wildlife products Timber exploitation

/+ 0 ?

Urban settlements Pollution of soil andwater

+ ? !$ ! 0 0 ! ?

Figure 6. Summary of task 3: impacts of priority environmental trends on key issues for stakeholders (each sign based ondocumented evidence)

Legend: = direction of trends of environmental changes0 = no impact = negative impact+ = positive impact! = high risks$ = serious economic consequences? = unknown impact


10/14

stakeholders, for outside communities (off-siteimpacts), for future generations (by extrapolatingcurrent trends) and for natural values (biodiversity).Results were synthesised by means of a trend-impact matrix (see Figure 6). The impacts onstakeholders were assessed for priority concerns:incomes; efficiency of income generating activities;health; resource conflicts; and equity. Risks or eco-

nomic consequences were assessed in a qualitativeway.

Task 4: Norms, standards and thresholds involvedwere assessed in two respects:

Bottom-line: when will current trends lead tocollapse of environmental functions, or to unac-ceptable change as regards social or economiccriteria for certain stakeholders;

Ideal situation: what is the desirable situation fordifferent actors, in terms of environmental quali-

ties in their surroundings and socio-economicvalues of livelihood systems.

As norms are difficult to assess, standards are gener-ally absent and thresholds not known, a qualitativeassessment was made using insights and views fromdifferent actors involved.

Results from cluster II of analytical frameworkEnvironmental problem analysis

Task 5: Using a checklist and relevant informationfrom tasks 14, environmental problems were definedin a transparent manner. In total four priority environ-mental problems were defined: decline of soil fertil-ity; decline of cereal grain production; deforestationand decline of the availability of forest products; anddecline of urban living conditions. Each environmen-tal problem was described in detail to make sure thereis a common understanding about the why, where, forwhom and since when of each problem. A good un-derstanding of each problem definition is essentialbefore analysing its causes.

Task 6: Based on the actor-in-context approach, for

each environmental problem were defined: the maincausing activities; primary actors involved; their

motivations and alternative options; underlying fac-tors or root causes; secondary actors involved; and soon. An actors field illustrates the interrelations be-tween different actors involved (Figure 7). The mainunderlying factors and the associated actors are sum-marised in Box 2.

Results from cluster III of analytical frameworkEnvironmental opportunity analysis

Task 7: The main environmental opportunities weredefined, classified as ecological (for instance, poten-tials for certain cash crops), economic (for instance,emerging markets for certain products or services)and institutional (for instance, decentralisationprocess), and local initiatives and associated actors(for instance, initiatives of forest co-management).



Norms, standards and thresholds were

assessed: when will current trends

lead to collapse of environmental

functions; what is desirable for

different actors environmental

qualities in their surroundings and

socio-economic values of livelihoodsystems

Figure 7. Result of task 6: simplified actors network,with some examples, showing linkagesbetween actors, obtained through insight intounderlying factors that influence options andmotivations of actors

Box 2. Result of task 6: main underlying factors forenvironmental problems in Atacora province(not indicated are the actors and institutionallevels involved)

Increasing incidence of drought even in sub-humidzones

High-level of seasonal rural emigration and lack of in-vestment of revenue in area of origin

Low-level of education among rural farmers Poverty and poor access to credit Lack of organisation and power in civil society Predominance of traditional regulations of access and

control of land resources Levelling, a strong social phenomenon discouraging pri-

vate initiative (jealousy) Prevailing negative elements of local traditions Poororganisationof production sectors otherthan cotton Limited income opportunities outside agricultural sector Non-application of organic fertilisers to improve soil

fertility Absence of a good pastoral legislation and planning in

which relevant actors have been involved

Poor quality of urban development plans, poor manage-ment of urban wastes Poor agricultural extension services


11/14

Priorities were set and packages of interrelatedopportunities were formed, that is, opportunities thatcan reinforce each other.

Task 8: The opportunities were elaboratedin terms oftheir potential to tackle underlying factors of environ-mental problems (winwin options) and to enhancesustainable development. Actions required to supportfurther realisation of opportunities, including build-ing strategic partnerships. Use was made of anopportunity-impact matrix. Priorities were set on thebasis of the potentials and constraints to realise op-portunities in a sustainable way.

Results from cluster IV of analytical frameworkStrategic planning and follow-up activities

Task 9: Information from previous tasks was syn-thesised by defining a vision and strategic goals fordevelopment of the region, definition of sectoral pri-orities and inter-sectoral themes as strategic optionsbased on the main opportunities (the inter-sectoralthemes create synergy between sectoral priorities),and establishment of coalitions with strategic part-ners (see example in Box 3). Action plans wereworked out for strategic choices. Required changewithin institutions involved was obtained by match-ing, in a participatory way, strategic choices result-

ing from the SEAN analysis, with results of aninstitutional analysis (existing capacities, strengthsand weaknesses of the institutions involved), asillustrated in Figure 8.

Task 10: A follow-up strategy was elaborated, in-cluding issues internal to the implementinginstitution(institutionalising the SEAN process, definition of astructure responsible for co-ordination), establish-

ment of an environmental monitoring system with in-dicators and procedures to adjust strategies orpolicies, and priorities for external communicationand capacity building.

Conclusions and challenges

Added values

It appears that SEAN meets a demand by develop-ment organisations to support:

taking into consideration environmental issuesearly in decision-making processes;

looking at the environment in a proactive and posi-tive way, for development purposes;

integrating environmental issues with results fromsocial and economic analyses, with a holistic sus-tainable development perspective;

defining key actors that must be addressed and in-volved to move forward.

SEAN has been successful in putting environmentalissues on the agenda of policy makers, of raising

awarenesson the need to address environmental goalsfor socio-economic development purposes, of defin-ing concrete sustainability goals and potential part-nerships, and in initiating participatory andinteractive analysis and planning processes. The levelof integration (in terms of development dimensionsand of the planning process) has been variable. SEANcan be applied as a whole (all tentasks) or, ideally, se-lected tasks can be used to upgrade existing planningprocesses.

Comparison with other tools and frameworks

Based on SEAN practice,some comparative strengthsof SEAN emerge, as compared to other planning andassessment tools as shown in Table 1.



Box 3. Results of task 9: strategic goals andinter-sectoral themes

The ecological orientations were: Maintenance and management of biodiversity, plants

and animals in forests Maintenance of soil fertility Improving the integration of trees in land-use systems Better control and management of grazing and livestock

densities

Improvement of urban living conditions

Intervention criteria were defined for eachorientation. Thesecan be applied to assure that relevant environmental issuesare integrated in plans and interventions. For instance, theintervention criteria associated with the strategic goal main-tenance of soil fertility were defined as:

Applicationof best availablesoil conservationand fertilitymanagement techniques

Strengthening of extension of soil fertility maintenance Analysis of long-term impacts on soil fertility Use of organic fertilisers where possible.

Several inter-sectoral themes (or strategic development op-tions) were elaborated (indicating: main objectives, sub-ob-jectives, expected results and activities, and linkages withecological orientations). Some examples are:

Cattle livestock intensification and development of mar-kets for cattle meat and dairy products

Development of gold and quartzite exploitation Improvement of urban living conditions and preventive

health care.

Figure 8. Linking SEAN outputs with results of an institu-tional analysis to define desirable institutionalreform


12/14

Requirements for successful application of SEAN

Some preconditions and constraints during SEAN ap-plications are structured by SEAN process phase.

Phase 1: Preparation

1. Political power and a strong demand from a localowner (government organisation (GO) or NGO)are two major conditions to apply SEAN success-fully. Ideally, the owner or initiating organisationhas a vision on sustainable development. This isoften associated with the perception of high de-pendency of human livelihoods on proper man-agement of environmental resources, the need toco-ordinate development efforts, and the need for

an embracing strategic vision. In addition, theowner should have sufficient power and availableresources to implement the resulting strategy. Asense of ownership by the leading organisationmust be guaranteed before, or generated during,the process among the participating actors.

2. There is need for sufficient time, informationsupply and a diversity of motivated participantsto generate new insights, agree on key issues andstimulatecreativity.Participatoryprocessestaketime to avoid biased outputs and to generatecommitment. Although the SEAN process

should be driven by the stakeholders involvedand according to their time perspectives, tangi-ble results must be acquired within certain timelimits.

Phases 2-4: Scoping, analysis and synthesis andplanning

1. The presence of a good moderator is critical toensure fruitful communication and interaction.Participants often need to learn to think in termsof tackling root causesbenefiting from opportuni-ties and strategic partnerships, instead of solving

problems. A balance should be struck between therational analytical process, to ensure that criticalissues are not overlooked, and stimulating cre-ativity and innovative views.

2. Participants from the private sector must be ac-tively involved to identify economic opportuni-ties and to forge partnerships between publicservices, civil society and the private sector.Coalitions between these different actors are aprerequisite to achieving major change in linewith set strategic goals.

3. In case of conflicting relations between certain

participating actors, separate workshops can beorganised with different actors. Different out-comes of the analytical process would then beconfronted at a later stage. Integration would fo-cus on the overlap of conflicting views.

Phase 5: Follow-up and monitoring

1. The SEAN process must be continuous, new de-velopments and initiatives might require adjust-ments of the strategic goals. Therefore, before orduring the process, commitment must be createdto establish responsibilities for regular updatingon the basis of monitoring, and for communica-tion of results to communities and adjustments onthe basis of feedback.

2. Whereas the strategic goals are generally pre-sented in terms of brief headlines and objectives,the richness of the data generated during theSEAN process (local initiatives, innovating ac-tors, opportunities) must be the basis to formulateconcrete action plans.

Challenges

Challenges to develop andimprove SEAN further pri-marily focus on the process, and not on the analyticaltasks. Participation and interaction during the processhave become the norm. However, further refinementis required to integrate relevant findings in a formalplanning process. During the process, choices willneedtobemadeinaparticipatoryway,butoneshouldalso ensure that within a certain time perspective tan-gible results are obtained.

ThisrequiresmakingflexibleuseoftheSEANana-lytical framework, to stimulate a process that guaran-teescommitment,andthatcapturessocietalchange.A

balance should be struck between analytical rigour (toensure that critical environmental and social issuesare not overlooked) and ensuring motivatedparticipation.



Table 2. Comparison of SEAN with other planning andassessment tools and frameworks

Comparison with Comparative strengths of SEAN

Strategicenvironmentalassessment(SEA)eg Sadler and

Verheem, 1996;Thrivel andPartidrio, 1996

Is more open-ended and flexible, takesan inter-sectoral focus;

Supports decisionmaking and planningprocesses at early stages by defining

strategic sustainable developmentgoals and options;

Is initiated by a legitimate governmentorganisation or NGO, has so far beenapplied in both an informal or formalway;

Does not require a large data set anduses qualitative information mainly.

Integratedenvironmentalassessment(IEA)5EEA, 1995;Nooteboom andWieringa, 1999

Is integrative in terms of focusing on theinterrelations between sustainable de-velopment dimensions;

Particularly looks at opportunities,promising initiatives and innovators;

Identifies root causes of environmentalproblems and the actors associated;

Aims at building up strategic partner-

ships and coalitions.Integrated regionalland-use planning(IRLP)Warner, 1996

Analyses environmental problems andaddresses root causes and alternativeopportunities;

Is more open-ended, proactive andinter-sectoral;

Setsstrategicdevelopment goals, doesnot aim to develop concrete spatialplans, but support planningprocesses.


13/14

Remaining analytical gaps can be addressed at alater stage, during subsequent cycles of the SEANprocess. In line with experiences with sustainable re-gional planning in Australia (Dore and Woodhill,1999), SEAN needs to be developed further as aprocess with a primary goal of supporting adaptivelearning to enhance sustainable development, and notas a one-time exercise.

Experiences with SEAN and other sustainable de-velopment processes at local and regional levels mustbe brought together to propose practical tools anddefine critical requirements for the process to lead todesirable results. We found a strong demand forpractical tools to support decentralised planning ofsustainable development in developing countries.

Specific challenges identified through feedbackfrom SEAN experiences are:

Strengthening integration between developmentdimensions

During the SEAN process, stronger integration mustbe achieved between tools that focus on the differentsustainable development dimensions (Lee andKirkpatrick, 1997), for instance, between SEAN, pov-erty, economic and institutional analyses. Stronginte-gration is required to achieve institutional andpolitical changes in order to support and implementsustainable development strategies (Gouldson andMurphy, 1996). Strong integration requires time andclose co-ordination efforts, which should be compen-sated for by more efficient and non-conflictingpolicies and plans.

The case studies have revealed that strong integra-tion leads to some proposals of fundamental changes.When integration is weak, changes being proposedtackle symptoms at best, and the process can be final-ised more rapidly.6 To meet the full potentials ofSEAN, strong integration with analytical toolsaddressing other development dimensions must bedeveloped (Figure 5). Instead of expanding the SEANframework, modules and tools from other analyticalmethodologies must be identified to strengthen inte-gration. This requires a limited number of well-defined meeting points along the process, startingwith agreement on common principles and goals (see

Post etal,1998),andtheconceptsatthebasisofSEAN.

Integration of procedures into formal planningprocessesWhereSEANhasbeenmostcommonlyapplied(Beninand Honduras), initiatives are being taken to integrate(elements of) the SEAN process into formal planningprocedures. This would include formalising momentsof publichearings andfeedback, legalisingthestatusofthe results, and designation of an independent body toguarantee the quality of SEAN processes. In addition,morepracticaltoolsareneededtotranslatetheanalyt -

ical results into a concrete strategic plan.Emphasising the analysis of extra-regional factorsSEAN takes as the starting point of analysis the

local/regional perspective, and then moves outwardstoidentifyfactorsandactorsathigherlevels.Comple-mentary to this approach, the system can be analysedby starting out from the extra-regional context (that is,national and international factors and actors, threatsand opportunities). This would focus on political eco-nomics in a broad context. Recent experiences usingSEAN to develop strategies for WWF have shown

that extra-regional factors are determinant with re-spect to sustainable development options in a regionalsetting (van Wetten, 2000).

Establishing effective monitoring systems for adap-tive managementDefining a common vision and strategic goals is im-portant as livelihood and environmental managementsystems are becoming more complex andmore uncer-tainties are involved.7 It raises the question of how toconceive the plan, which contents are necessary andhow to manage the plan, in order to be functional in

an unpredictable and dynamic context.As a result, the need for more adaptive manage-ment systems based on strategic goals has beenemphasised. An effective monitoring system is a criti-cal component of such systems. A manual was pro-duced on how to design a monitoring system thatfocuses on the key issues identified during the SEANprocess (Kessler, 1998). Different types of strategicplans and associated monitoring systems, resultingfrom SEAN and other integrated analyses, can betested to meet requirements for adaptive managementin situations of complex change.

Notes

1. Strategicenvironmental assessment (SEA) maybe defined asa systematic process for evaluating the environmental conse-quences of proposed policy, plan or programme initiatives toensure they are properly included and appropriately ad-dressed at the earliest possible stage of decision making, on apar with economic and social considerations (Thrivel et al,1994; Sadler and Verheem, 1996). SEA was developed to ad-dress environmental issues at the strategic level of (sectoral)policies and programmes that set the basic framework forproject identification.

However, in practice a certain dichotomy exists as regards

its application (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 1998). Most formalSEAexperiencesaim to assessenvironmentalimpacts of sec-toral plans and programmes and of existing regional develop-ment plans, mainly in the areas of energy, transport and wastemanagement. Thus, SEAhas basicallybeen applied as an ex-tension of environmental impact assessment procedures andapproaches, to facilitate strategic decisions. For such cases,SEA aims to mitigate negative environmental impacts mainlyby proposing alternative policies, mitigating and/or compen-satingmeasures. There have been few specific applicationsofinforming and influencing policy making processes at earlystages.

2. Some relevant experiencesare thosewith environmental strat-egies and green plans, mainlyat national level (Carew-Reid etal, 1994). From these experiences lessons were drawn,on thebasis of which three elements of a successful strategy wereidentified (Margulis and Bernstein, 1995): identifying priorityproblems; defining priority actions; and ensuring effective im-plementation.

3. Sustainability analysis is a generic term which embraces theaim of assessing the extent to whichprojects, programmesand




14/14

policies areableto satisfy thegoals andimperatives of sustain-able development, particularly the integration of environmentaland development in decision making (Dalal-Clayton, 1993).

4. For comparison purposes,processes of participatory land-useplanning (Hoefsloot and van den Berg, 1998) or integrated re-gional land-use planning (Warner, 1996) generally take up tothree years.

5. Integrated environmental assessment can be defined as: theinterdisciplinary process of identification, analysis and ap-praisal of all relevant natural and human processes and theirinteractions which determine both the current and future state

of environmental quality and resources on appropriate spatialand temporal scales thus facilitating the framing and imple-mentation of policies and strategies (EEA, 1995).

6. One could distinguish a spectrum of sustainability that variesfrom surface appearances on very visible phenomena (forinstance, tree planting and land reclamation), to less tangibleand visible problems (for instance, water quality and wastedisposal), to a system approach within sectoral or physicalboundaries, and finally towards a holistic approach thatclarifies inter-sectoral linkages, off-site effects and long-termperspectives for future generations (adapted from Ravetz,1996).

7. This is partly the result of globalisation, partly because of thecomplex dynamics in the interrelations between populationgrowth and pressure on scarce natural resources, and the de-clining stability of ecosystems under pressure.

References

J Bailey and S Renton (1997), Redesigning EIA to fit the future:SEAand the policyprocess, Impact Assessment, 15(3), pages319334.

S Bass, B Dalal-Clayton and J Pretty (1995), Participation in Strat-egies for Sustainable Development, Environmental PlanningIssues 7 (IIED, London).

J Carew-Reid, R Prescott-Allen, S Bass and B Dalal-Clayton(1994), Strategies for National Sustainable Development. AHandbook for their Planning and Implementation (Earthscan,IUCN and IIED, London).

CBDD (1997), Plan Stratgique du Centre Bninois pour leDveloppement Durable (CBDD), finalreport, Cotonou, Benin.

D B Dalal-Clayton, (1993), Modified EIA and Indicators of

Sustainability: First Steps Towards Sustainability Analysis, En-vironmental Planning Issues 1 (IIED, London).

D B Dalal-Clayton and B Sadler (1998), Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment and Developing Countries(IIED, London).

WTdeGroot(1992), EnvironmentalScience Theory. Concepts andMethods in a One-World, Problem-Oriented Paradigm (ElsevierScience Publishers, Dordrecht).

J Dore and J Woodhill (1999),Sustainable Regional Development.Final Report(Greening Australia Limited, Canberra).

EEA, European Environment Agency (1995), A strategy for inte-grated environmental assessment at the European Environ-ment Agency, discussion paper for the seminar on 22 June,EEA/064/95 (European Environment Agency. Copenhagen).

M Eggenberger and M R Partidrio (1999), Development of aframework to assist the integration of environmental, social andeconomic issues in spatial planning, IAIA Abstracts.

M R English (1999), Environmental decision making by organiza-tions:choosingthe right tools, in K Sexton etal(editors), Better

Environmental Decisions (Island Press, Washington) pages5777.

J Farrington,D Carney, C Ashleyand C Turton (1999), Sustainablelivelihoods in practice: early applications of concepts in ruralareas,ODI Natural Resource Perspectives, 42.

A Gouldson and J Murphy (1996), Ecological modernisation andthe European Union, Geoforum, 27, pages 1121.

A M Hoefsloot and L M van den Berg (1998), Successful examplesof participatory regional planning at the meso-level, Report164, SC-DLO, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

J J Kessler (1998), Monitoring Environmental Change in Relation to

Development Objectives (AIDEnvironment, Amsterdam andNetherlands Development Organisation SNV, the Hague, TheNetherlands).

J J Kessler and M van Dorp (1998), Structural adjustment and theenvironment: the need for an analytical methodology,Ecologi-cal Economics, 27, pages 267281.

N Lee and C Kirkpatrick (1997), Integrating environmental assess-ment with other forms of appraisalin thedevelopmentprocess,in C Kirkpatrick and N Lee (editors),Sustainable Developmentin a Developing World(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK).

N Lichfield (1999), Better environmental integration of environ-mental assessment and planning, IAIA Abstracts.

S Margulis and J Bernstein (1995), National Environmental Strat-egies: Learning from Experience (World Bank, WashingtonDC).

B Morvaridi (1997), The environmental impact of irrigation: the so-

cialdimension. A casestudy of Sultanpur, India, in C Kirkpatrickand N Lee (editors),Sustainable Development in a DevelopingWorld(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK).

S Nooteboom and K Wieringa (1999), Strategic environmental as-sessment and integrated environmental assessment, paperpresented at IAIA, Glasgow.

R Post, A J Kolhoff and J A M Velthuyse (1998), Towardsintegration of assessments, with reference to integrated watermanagement projects in third world countries,Impact Assess-ment and Project Appraisal, 16(1), pages 4953.

J Ravetz (1996), Towards a sustainable city region, Town andCountry Planning, 65(5), pages 152154.

B Sadler and R Verheem (1996),Strategic Environmental Assess-ment. Status, Challenges and Future Directions (Ministry ofHousing, spatial planning and the Environment, the Hague,publication no 54).

SNV (1998), Yamaranguila 2020 (SNV, Yamaraguila, Initbuca,

Honduras).J Sterkenburg and A van der Wiel (editors) (1999), Integrated Area

Development. Experiences with Netherlands Aid in Africa (Min-istry of Foreign Affairs, NEDA, the Hague, the Netherlands).

R Thriveland M R Partidrio (1996), ThePracticesof StrategicEn-vironmental Assessment(Earthscan, London).

R Thrivel, E Wilson, S Thompson, D Heany and D Pritchard(1994), Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan,London).

J C J vanWetten (2000), Partners in wetland conservationand de-velopment: strategic environmental analysis for the UkrainianDanube Delta, in A J M Smits, P H Nienhuis and R S E WLeuven (editors), New Approaches to River Management(Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands).

M Warner (1996), Integrationof regional land useplanningwith en-vironmental impact assessment: practical land suitability

assessment approach, Impact Assessment, 14(2), pages155190.



strategic environmental analysis

Documents