LECTURE #18*

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

18.1 Introduction

In the last lecture, we have discussed about cumulative effects assessment and the
difficulties for a single project review to achieve sustainability of our environment.
Additionally, non-project changes (e.g. contextual/secular/everyday) in environment may also
overwhelm or much greater than any single project impacts. Thus, environmental losses
continue in spite of EAs being done. In order to reduce further environmental losses, we have to
move EA higher up the decision chain and make it a policy, program, and plan. As Sheppard
and Ortolando stated (EIA Review 16:4(6), 321-336), “EIA at the project level is
insufficient...because it starts too late, ends too soon, and is too site-specific.” Sustainability can
only be achieved if environment is a central consideration in all significant decisions at higher
levels. As a result, strategic environmental assessment is the key process where these high
decisions can be made.

18.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

SEA is the assessment of the environmental consequences of policies, plans, and

programs before project EA. In terms of significant decision, polices are the highest, plans are
the second highest, programs are the third, and project is the lowest. Policy is the intention of
government (what it plans to do, how it plans to respond to each case/opportunity) while project
is just the means to carry out the policy. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without
considering environment impacts of policies, plans, and programs.

SEA has non-spatial aspect in which key policy decisions (e.g. transportation, energy,
land and economical development, and immigration) affect environmental quality. It also has
spatial aspect in which plans decide on water quality, air quality, and ecosystem goals.

An Ontario example of SEA is the source water protection (SWP) law in 2005 where
project-specific Ea will be guided by SWP. The SWP plan is an assessment of entire watershed
in terms of source water protection and pollution sources. If a 5000 hog barn is proposed in the
impact zone, it cannot be built.

*This lecture was developed using materials supplied by Prof. Ron Pushchat, School of
Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University.
1
 For example, we have a hypothetical watershed. The goal is to maintain sustainable
level. In order to achieve sustainability, we need ecological assessment resulting in ecosystem-
based plans (aquatic quality, water quality, habitat, etc). The plan may demand
 5000 ha of standing wood cover (existing 6000 ha)
 40 km of riverine habitat for aquatic species
 600 ha wetland habitat
 Minimum DO for streams should be 7 mg/L (currently 3 of 4 streams at 7 mg/L and 1 at
6 mg/L)
 15 ESAs in the watershed and each should be protected by 200 m buffer
 60 km corridors (woodland, hedgerow) between ESA and habitats for range and feed
 Current aquatic quality (SO2, NOx, PM10) at ambient standard levels.
If a proposed project will change the following features, it should not be approved under the
project EA.

EA can work to deal with cumulative effects if it is guided by a regional policy of

ecological quality. SEA moves environmental decision making to higher policy level because
project EA happens too late. It is intended to assess environmental impacts of policy and is
based on institutional commitment to environment goals.

In 1995, Ontario Environment Commissioner’s Office, through the Environmental Bill of

Rights, called for statement of environmental values for each provincial ministry but not a SEA.
Currently, there is no SEA in Ontario and only EA process is available.

In 1999, the Federal Cabinet Directive on EA of policy, plan, and program proposals
requires commitment to SEA and consideration of environmental factors within all federal
government department for all policy and program initiatives submitted to cabinet. The directive
specifies when outcome of a project affects implementation of sustainable development
strategies. In Feb. 2001, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade published “Framework
for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations” which guides negotiators,
encourages early policy and program, conduct SEA to be done for new round of multi-lateral
trade negotiations. However, not many federal agencies commit to develop policies, plans, and
programs to support SEA. The challenge is to find a way to convince the Cabinet to consider
environment at the policy level. We have to convince the government to consider: (1) future
perspective; (2) objectives, criteria and indicators of sustainability; (3) proactive approach in
protecting the environment; (4) multi-applications of SEA; and (5) integrated approach to
environmental protection; and (6) policy to guide project EA.

Clearly, there is a need for SEA to: (1) consider alternatives that would be ruled out or
ignored at project level EA (e.g. approving coal-fired power plants to add supply rather than
energy conservation and clear energy production incentives); (2) consider alternatives
sites/locations for projects subsequently assessed by EA (i.e. site to be determined by policy); (3)
anticipate potential environmental problems earlier and prevent them; (4) assess cumulative
(direct, indirect, synergistic) effect via policy; (5) assess polices that would not lead to specific

2
projects but long range plans to sustainable development.

18.3 Conclusions

In order to deliver its “promise” to protect natural environment, conserve environmental

and non-environmental resources, and achieve some measures of sustainable development, we
need future EA to move towards SEA. Additionally, we need to improve access of public to EA
process and ensure a transparent and open process for everyone to participate and work out the
best decisions. EA is intended as a public process because (1) it is essentially a value-laden
decision; (2) Canadians are unwilling to rely on government to protect public interest; and (3) we
trust democratic decision making.