Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

decision-making processes. SEA may focus on environmental
impacts or its scope can be the integrated consideration
of all three dimensions of sustainability: environmental,
social, and economic. SEA may be applied to predetermined
PPPs or be integrated into PPP formulation, and may
engage a broad range of stakeholders or be limited to expert
analysts. SEA can be conducted in a short time frame or
over a long period. Some SEA may consist of a quick analysis
while others require detailed analysis. Environmental
assessment can be the starting point of an SEA but SEA can
also be fed into an existing process, such as policy analysis.
Furthermore, SEA could be a finite, output-based effort, or
a more continuous process that is integrated within institutional
processes.
SEA provide a flexible approach. From an operational
standpoint, SEA can provide a flexible approach that varies
according to the complexity of the decision-making
process. At one extreme, it focuses on impact assessment
and, at the other extreme, it centers on institutions and
governance (see chapter 5, Improving Forest Governance).
Along the continuum that lies between these two, the decision-making
process is more significantly influenced by
political bargaining and the interaction of different interest
groups and constituencies. Consequently, only a balanced
institutional framework can capture and effectively take
into account the rights and concerns of small communities,
minorities, and stakeholders affected by environmental
degradation. Therefore, as PPPs move up in the decisionmaking
hierarchy for contributing to sustainability in
development processes, SEAs focus more on building institutional
capacity and strengthening governance than on
assessing impacts.
Impact centered SEA and institution centered SEA.
When political economy factors and political bargaining are
not important in defining a PPP, the SEA is rooted in EIA
experiences and methodologies involving technical
processes. Some observers have called this the “impact-centered
approach to SEA” 2 because it focuses primarily on predicting,
preventing, and mitigating adverse environmental
and social impacts, similar to EIA of projects and activities.
Conversely, in PPPs significantly influenced by political
economy and political factors, the SEA is rooted in policy,
institutional, and governance analysis, involving multistage,
nonlinear, iterative processes. Because of this focus, it can be
called an “institutions-centered approach to SEA.”
Although both types of SEA can be used in forestry PPPs,
impact-centered SEAs are largely adequate in programs and
plans for reforestation, extraction, and processing of wood
and nonforest products, and watershed protection. Typically,
an impact-centered SEA consists of the following four
stages 3 :
■
■
■
■
First is establishing the context for the SEA, in which
potential impacts are screened, the SEA’s objective is set,
and stakeholders are identified.
Next is implementation of the SEA. It begins with establishing
the scope of the SEA and the participatory
approaches to bring in relevant stakeholders. Like EIA, in
this stage baseline data is collected, alternatives are identified,
and measures to mitigate adverse impacts and
enhance opportunities are proposed. This stage includes
an assessment of the institutional conditions needed to
effectively implement the SEA recommendations. These
results are circulated publicly during a consultation
process and a final report is prepared.
The third stage is informing and influencing decision
making. It overlaps to some extent with the second phase
because presentation of the draft and final reports are
key points to influence decision makers. In this stage,
decision makers become aware of the options open to
them, the likely effects of particular choices, and the consequences
if they fail to reach a decision.
The last stage is monitoring and evaluation of the SEA.
Institutions-centered SEA is mostly appropriate for
forestry policies, in general, and forestry reform, in particular.
Forestry reform induces changes in property rights,
institutional reform, and adjustment in the incentives
regime to manage and use forests, and thus is likely to
engender significant environmental and social effects and
opportunities (see note 5.2, Reforming Forest Institutions).
In this situation, SEA can only be successful if it influences
the reform and policy process, which requires SEA to be
fully integrated into the decision-making process. The SEA
team should work along with the forestry policy team
responsible for the reform. It should provide inputs on the
potential environmental and social effects of the proposed
policies and be responsive to the requirements of policy
makers and planners when policies are being formulated
and implemented. In box 6.18 a program SEA for the implementation
of forestry policy in Cameroon presents key
components of an institutions-centered SEA in the context
of an impact-centered SEA. In box 6.19, an institutions-centered
SEA on the Kenya Forest Act is described to illustrate
how the SEA was integrated with the decision-making
process and World Bank activities.
NOTE 6.4:ASSESSING CROSS-SECTORAL IMPACTS: USE OF CEAS AND SEAS 241