Search

Recently, the SEA research community has started to pay attention to countries of the Global South. Yet, the international literature has rarely explored Latin American Environmental Assessment (EA) systems in contrast to EA systems in countries of the Global North. This article aims at analysing the Peruvian Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) system. Research was conducted in 2015 as part of the project ' ProAmbiente ' initiated by the German-Peruvian development co-operation (APCI and GIZ) with the objective to analyse and strengthen the SEA practice in Peru. A combination of methods was used for meta- and micro-level analyses, characterising both the intended SEA system and practical performance. Ultimately, the analysis of the SEA implementation was based on a review of state-of-the-art international literature and led to the formulation of a set of recommendations. Recommendations have been clustered in nine priority areas and were assigned an implementation horizon from mid- to long-term. • We analysed implementation challenges of SEA in Peru. • Eventually, Peru faces the challenge to transition from a 'donor-driven' towards a 'home-grown' SEA system. • We propose recommendations to strengthen in-country regulations in Peru. • We introduce the Constellation Analysis approach to analyse SEA systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) emerged from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and was developed based on the procedural steps and understanding thereof, but with the goal to fulfil a more 'strategic' function. Federal level plans and programmes constitute the highest planning levels in Germany subject to SEA, as SEA for policies is not compulsory. In this article, we analyse the quality and procedural effectiveness of federal level SEA in Germany with the underlying hypothesis that federal level SEA might be more strategic than SEA at other planning levels, as it represents the highest tier. Therefore, we analysed three federal level SEA case studies in Germany according to a set of criteria and indicators based on international research outcomes, including SEA integration into decision-making, tiering, scoping, selection and assessment of alternatives, cumulative effects assessment, public participation, and monitoring. Results demonstrate that the procedural effectiveness of SEA practice at the federal level is limited in Germany, and the making of SEAs proved not to be as 'strategic' as its important role prior to subsequent planning processes and outcomes would suggest. Reasons include an alternatives assessment restricted to macro-siting instead of assessing scenarios of demand or system alternatives, tiering limited to general advice without specific guidance for subsequent planning levels, cumulative effects assessment limited to intra-plan effects, a lack of monitoring, and public participation limited to consultation on the environmental report. These findings support results from a variety of international studies. Reasons for limitations have been identified in current SEA regulations, prior policy-making, institutional settings, the institutions' willingness to learn and limited quality management by the German Federal Environmental Agency. Thus, our recommendations aim to improve quality management and learning by initiating a federal level SEA forum to discuss federal level planning and SEA practice and related issues, expanding the federal EIA portal to SEAs, quality management by the German Federal Environmental Agency in every federal level SEA scoping process and for every federal level environmental report, and further research and development to improve SEA practice. However, the general question for SEA research might be whether SEA contributes to long-term institutional learning processes beyond individual SEA processes, and how those learning processes can be supported, for instance by quality management and capacity building. Highlights • SEA for the highest planning level in Germany shows limited SEA quality. • Federal level SEAs proved not to be as 'strategic' as its important role suggests. • Assessing alternatives is often limited to macro-siting alternatives. • Findings support results from a variety of international studies. • Recommendations aim to improve quality management and capacity building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Wind energy development is booming worldwide with Germany and the United States being forerunners in installed capacity. Based on a review of relevant laws and regulations, policy, siting, and permitting documents, academic literature, and expert interviews, the paper compares the permit and environmental impact assessment (IA) policies and regulations pertaining to wind energy projects in both countries. The focus is on the potential of IAs in supporting an environmentally conscious development of wind power generation. This includes the analysis of IA regulations on the project level, strategic level impact assessment and planning processes, opportunities for public involvement and transparency of processes, and the clarity and predictability of the IA provisions. The findings suggest certain variations between both countries'' permit and IA processes for wind energy projects and further research needs, inter alia on the actual effects of strategic assessment of wind development on subsequent permitting. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]