Review
Policy trends of strategic environmental assessment in Asia
Dennis Victor *, P. Agamuthu
InstituteofBiologicalSciences,FacultyofScience,UniversityofMalaya,50603KualaLumpur,Malaysia
article info
Articlehistory:
Received18July2013 Receivedinrevisedform 22March2014
Accepted23March2014 Availableonlinexxx
Keywords:
Policy,Trends Overview
Strategicenvironmentalassessment Asia
abstract
Thispaperprovidesanoverviewonthepolicytrendsofstrategicenvironmentalassessment (SEA)inAsia.SEAispromotedasasystemofincorporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsinto policies,plansandprogrammes(PPP).SEAhasevolvedfromanalternativeofenvironmental impactassessments(EIA)toapotentialenvironmentalpolicyintegration(EPI)toolinnational policyplanning.Nevertheless,SEAtrendsinAsiarequireare-examinationonitsroleand effectivenesstoavoidSEAimplementationinAsiamimickingSEAdevelopmentsinEurope withoutcustomizingitsapplicationtolocalconditionsinAsia.PolicytrendsofSEAinAsia indicatethatitiscurrentlyanimportantenvironmentalpolicyconsiderationforcountriesin theregionwiththeformulationofSEAlegislationsinHongKong,China,SouthKorea,Taiwan, VietnamandIndonesia.Nevertheless,SEAimplementationalsohasbeenimpededbychal- lengesinrealizingpracticalSEApublicparticipationespeciallyincountrieswithtraditionally highculturalpowerdistancedynamicssuchasChina,IndonesiaandVietnam.Meanwhile, countriessuchasJapanandPakistanhavevoluntarilyimplementedSEAelementssuchas public participation without legislative provisions while countries such as Thailand, Philippines,BangladeshandSriLankaareresistingtheadoptionofSEA.Theprimaryproblem ofSEAimplementationinAsiahasbeenitslimitedintegrationinstrategicdecisionmaking duetothehighlypoliticalnatureofpolicyplanningframedwithintheculturalcontextofAsian countries.NotableprogressofSEAimplementationinAsiahasbeentheemergingawareness ontheneedforSEA.Interestingly,SEAprospectsinAsiaseemtobeinthedevelopmentof internationalregionalcooperationonSEAcapacitybuilding.Meanwhile,SEAimplementation rangefromtheuseofstructuredpolicyinstrumentssuchaslegislativeframeworkstonon- structuredpolicy instrumentssuch as stakeholder engagement.Consequently, the SEA paradigmanalysissuggeststhatSEAintegrationinAsiarequiresaparadigmshifttoaddress theprimarystrategicgapofover-relianceonstructuredpolicyinstrumentssuchaslegislation.
Thisfundamentallymeansanadaptationtowardsahybridofstructuredandnon-structured policyinstrumentstosuper-streamthebenefitsofSEA.Inconclusion,SEAtrendsinAsia indicateasagaciousrealizationthatSEAintheorymaybeastrategicandrationaleapproachto integratingenvironmentalconsiderations.However,SEAinpracticeisacomplex,dynamic andchallengingprocessthatrequirespoliticalwill,legislativeframeworkandatransparent stakeholderengagementprocessframedwithintheculturalcontextofAsiancountries.
#2014ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+60379676756;fax:+60379674178.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](D.Victor).
Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.005 1462-9011/#2014ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a system of incorporating environmental considerations into policies, plansandprogrammes(PPP)(Fig.1).SEAisdescribedasthe evaluation of the likely environmental effects of PPP and includesthepreparationofanenvironmentalreportandthe carryingoutofpublicparticipationandconsultations(United Nations,2012).SEAwasinitiallypromotedtoaddressthegaps inprojectbasedenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA).This wasduetotheinabilityofEIAtoaddressenvironmentalpolicy integration(EPI)atstrategiclevelsespeciallyduringthepolicy andplan-makingprocess.EIAislimitedinitsabilitytoaccount forthestrategicimpactsofcumulativeeffectsofmultipleand successive projects in a particular area (Dennis and Aga- muthu, 2012a) (United Nations, 2003). Consequently, SEA addedvaluebyanalyzingPPPatanearlystageandsettingthe frameworkforEIAsattheProjectlevel(OECD,2006).
SEA has evolved from an alternative to shortcomings perceived in the project based EIAs in the 1970s to an environmentalpolicyplanning toolinthe 1990s.Currently, itishailedasapotentialstrategicenvironmentalgovernance instrumentinnationalpolicyplanning.Thecurrentprolifera- tionofSEAlegislationaroundtheworldemphasizestheroleof SEA asan essential environmental policy planning tool to integrateenvironmentalconsiderationsaswellastocomple- mentEIA inenvironmentalprotection. SEApotentially can satisfytheemergingneedforenvironmentalpolicyintegra- tion(EPI)atamorestrategiclevelthantheprojectlevel(Dusik andXie,2009;RachidandElFadel,2013;The´rivel,1997).This enablesgovernmentstointegrateenvironmentalandsectoral policy objectives in national policy planning (Lafferty and Hovden,2003).
Nevertheless,internationaltrendsinSEAisincreasinglyre- examiningandquestioningtheroleandeffectivenessofSEA inenvironmentalpolicyplanning.Thisisduetopotentialgaps inSEAintegrationandtowardsfulfillingitsfullpotentialasa strategicenvironmentalgovernanceinstrument(Sadleretal.,
2011; Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). This is to avoid SEA implementation in Asia mimicking SEA development in Europewithoutcustomizingitsapplicationtolocalconditions (Agamuthu and Dennis, 2013). This also ensures that SEA fulfilsits potentialasastrategicenvironmentalgovernance instrumentinAsia.Consequently,thispaperaimstoprovide anoverview ofSEApolicytrendsinAsiaby conductingan extensiveliteraturereviewofSEApolicytrendsof15countries inAsia.Subsequently,theauthorsanalyzedtheSEAapplica- tioninthesecountriesonitsproblems,progressandprospects withasummaryonthepresenceorabsenceofSEAlegislation and public participation provisions in contrast with the practical applicationof SEA in policy planning and public participation.Furthermore,eachcountryoverviewwas also discussedintheframeworkofHofstede’sculturaldimensions of power distance index (PDI) to provide a comparative cultural context on similarities and divergences on SEA implementationacrossAsia.Thisisbecausenationalcultures differatthelevelofunconsciousvaluesheldbysocietyandis generally stable over generations. Hofstede defines power distanceastheextenttowhichthelesspowerfulmembersof societyacceptandexpectthatpowerisdistributedunequally (Hofstede, 2010). Typically, PDI ranges from 0 to 100 with higher scores for Asian countries than their European counterparts where the average PDI inAsia is 71.Thusin theory, countriesthat have a lowerPDI expectand accept powerrelationsthataremoreconsultativeandopentopublic participationwhichisoneofthekeydriversofSEA.Finally,the findingsweresynthesizedwithinaSEAparadigmframework consistingofstructuredvs.non-structuredpolicyinstruments andtheireffectivenessinAsia.Thepurposeofthispaperisto expandtheSEAsubjectknowledgebyprovidinginsightson SEApolicydriversinAsia.
2. Overview of sea in Asia
InAsia,SEAhasbeentranslatedintonationallegislationina number of countries including Hong Kong, China, South
Fig.1–SEAandEIAinPPP.
(AdaptedfromOECD,2006).
Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and Indonesia. Meanwhile, SEA developmentinotherAsiancountriesisstillintheexploratory stage with various degrees of success. An overview of 15 countriesindicatethattheSEAimplementationlevelinAsia rangesfrom amixoflegislative, institutional and capacity buildingframeworks.
2.1. HongKong
Hong Kong has transposed its SEA requirements into its nationalplanningframeworkviaagovernmentdirectivethat mandatedEIAsformajorpolicies,strategiesandplansaswell aswithitsEIAordinance.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEA implementation for Hong Kong has been the lack of an overarching macro environmental planning policy while a secondary problem hasbeen the pseudo inter-government cooperationandunityduetodiverseagendasandconflicting agency pursuits. The trends in SEA implementation may indicatethatHongKongisatacrossroadsofSEAdevelopment fromitsEIAroots.ThismayresultsineitherSEAdevolving intoastrategictoolforeconomicdevelopmentfacilitationor SEA evolving into a strategic planning framework for sustainabledevelopment(Au,1998;Auetal.,2004;Ng,1993;
Ross et al., 2006). Meanwhile, notable progress of SEA implementationin Hong Kong hasbeen its early adoption ofSEAimplementationwithintheAsianregionaswellasits potentintegrationofpublicparticipation.
Thishasresultedinahighdegreeofinfluencefromthe public and non-governmental organization (NGO) in their ability to sanction projects with significant environmental impacts.OtherprogressincludestheestablishmentofaSEA web based knowledge centre and a SEA manual for the dissemination of SEA information and best practices. SEA prospectsseem to bein the development ofsustainability centricSEAapplicationandtheconceptofcontinuouspublic participation resulting in a heightened transparent multi- stakeholderengagementprocess.Thisshifttowardsincreased public participation is viewed as the foundation for a transparentandmulti-tieredinclusiveenvironmentalgover- nancesysteminlinewithasustainabilityfocusedsociety(Ng andObbard,2005).Intermsofculturaldimensions,HongKong hasamoderatelyhighPDIwithascoreof68whichindicates thatitisasocietythatbelievesthatinequalitiesareacceptable and where individuals are influenced by formal authority (Hofstede,2014). Finally, SEA developments in Hong Kong indicatethepresenceofSEAlegislationandprovisionsforSEA publicparticipationincludingthepresenceofSEAapplication in policy planning and public participation. Consequently, HongKong’smoderatelyhighPDImayexplainitsheightened publicparticipationduetogeneralpublicexigency.
2.2. China
ChinahastransposeditsSEArequirementsintoitsnational planning frameworkvia its regionalenvironmental impact assessment(R-EIA)practices.Thisisrequiredforthedevelop- mentofriverbasins,economiczonesandurbanareasaswell aswithitsEIALawwhichrequiresSEAforstrategicplanning at national,provincial and sectorlevels (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler,2004).AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplemen-
tationforChinahasbeentherestrictivepublicparticipation andsometimessecretivenatureofitspoliciesandstrategies.A secondaryproblemhasbeenthebureaucraticpoliticsbetween inter-sectoralagenciesinvolvedinthepolicyplanningprocess inChina(Baoetal.,2004a;Cheetal.,2002;Zhuetal.,2005).The trendsinSEAimplementationmayindicatethatChinaisstill battling itssocio-political dynamicsofengaginginapolicy planningtoolsuchasSEAthatrequiresaccesstoinformation, public participation in decision making and access to autonomous environmental justiceand mediation avenues (Zhu and Ru, 2008). Meanwhile, notable progress of SEA implementation inChina hasbeen the distribution ofSEA principles, procedures, technical guidelines, environmental indicatorsandreportingformatsforvariousplanningsectors.
Other progress includes the establishment of an online databaseofSEAprofessionalstoassistintheimplementation ofSEAwithinsectoralagencies.SEAprospectsseemtobein the developmentofproposed amendmentstotheEIALaw.
Thisappliestodecisionmakingwithpotentialimpactsonthe environment, development of additional sector specific technicalguidelines,capacitybuildingforSEAprofessionals and government agencies, setting up ofSEA research and developmentcentresinChinaaswellasintegratingclimate changesissuesinSEA(Bina,2008;ChangandWu,2013;Tao etal.,2007).Intermsofculturaldimensions,Chinahasahigh PDIwithascoreof80whichindicatesthatitisasocietythat believesthatinequalitiesareacceptableandwhereindividu- alsareinfluencedbyformalauthorityandsanctionedagainst aspirations beyondtheir rank(Hofstede,2014).Finally,SEA developmentsinChinaindicatethepresenceofSEAlegisla- tionandprovisionsforSEApublicparticipationincludingthe presenceofSEAapplicationinpolicyplanningthoughpublic participation practiceisabsent. Consequently,China’shigh PDI mayexplain itsrestrictive publicparticipation and the apparentconflictbetweenprovisionsforSEApublicpartici- pationanditsactualimplementation.
2.3. SouthKorea
SouthKoreahastransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislationincluding thepriorenvironmental reviewsystem which is designed toidentify and minimizeenvironmental impacts of PPPs and realize environmentally sustainable growth.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplementation forSouthKoreahasbeenthelimitedscopeofSEAapplication forthefinalplanorprogrammewhenitisdeemedasnational security, prohibited bylegislationora hindrancetogeneral administration.Asecondaryproblemisthelackofcohesive horizontalintegrationofthelegislativeenvironmentalsystem inSouthKorea(Hayashi,2007;Hayashietal.,2011;Songand Glasson,2010).ThetrendsinSEAimplementationmayindicate thatSouthKoreaisresolutelythough practicallyproceeding forwardinitsSEAimplementation(Ahnetal.,2008).Mean- while,notableprogressofSEAimplementationinSouthKorea has been the major improvements to the SEA process by expanding itsscopeofapplication,stakeholder engagement andarevampedSEAreportingformat(SongandKim,2007).
Furthermore,therevisedSEAprocessinterlinksSEAandEIA throughaconsistentandsystematicenvironmentalcriterionby down-streamingtheSEAbaselineresultsandSEAfindingsfor
the EIA. SEA prospects seem to be in the development of sustainable development indicators and capacity building especiallyfromthelocalgovernments(Volkery,2004).Interms ofculturaldimensions,SouthKoreahasaborderlinePDIwitha scoreof60 whichindicates thatit isa slightlyhierarchical societywherecentralizationispopular(Hofstede,2014).Finally, SEAdevelopmentsinSouthKoreaindicatethepresenceofSEA legislationandprovisionsforSEApublicparticipationincluding thepresenceofSEAapplicationinpolicyplanningandpublic participation.Consequently,SouthKorea’srelativelyborder- line PDI may explain the paradox between its hierarchical vertical down-streaming of SEA findings to EIA and its problematichorizontallegislativecohesiveness.
2.4. Japan
JapanhasnottransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislationthoughitiscurrentlyestablishingthegroundwork foraSEAsystemthroughresearchprojectscommissionedby theMinistryofEnvironment(MOE)includingSEAguidelines formulated for waste management plans and SEA for programme of projects subject to EIA. A primary problem identifiedinSEAimplementationforJapanhasbeenalackof legislativeframeworkforSEA.ThetrendsinSEAimplemen- tationmayindicatethatJapandoesnotperceivetheneedfor SEA as part of its national policy planning process where existingenvironmentalsystemsmaybedeemedadequatefor addressingenvironmentalissuesatastrategiclevel(Barrett and Therivel, 1989; Harashina, 1998). Meanwhile, notable progress of SEA implementation in Japan has been the introductionofSEAinlocalplanninginareassuchasSaitama prefecture,TokyoMetropolitanArea,HiroshimaandKyoto.
Othernotableprogresshasbeentheinitiationofthepublic involvement (PI) system which considers environmental, socialandenvironmentalaspectsincludingalternatives for sectoral planning of infrastructure projectssuch as roads, airports,harboursandriverbasins.Oneperceptionisthatthe PIsysteminJapanmaymimictheformandfunctionofSEA.
SEA prospects seem to be in the development of a SEA legislativeframeworkinthecontextofupdatingtheexisting EIA legislation (Imuraand Schreurs, 2005; Sachihiko, 2001;
Uesakaetal.,2000).
Intermsofculturaldimensions,JapanhasaborderlinePDI withascoreof54andthelowestscoreamongthe15Asian countries reviewed which indicates that it is a borderline hierarchicalsocietywherehierarchymaybelessimportant thanmeritocracy(Hofstede,2014).Finally,SEAdevelopments inJapanindicatetheabsenceofSEAlegislationandapplica- tioninpolicyplanningbutthepresenceofpublicparticipation provisionsanditsapplication.Consequently,Japan’sborder- line PDI may explain the paradox in the lack of a SEA legislationbutnonethelessthepracticalandvigorousimple- mentationofpublicparticipationinotherformssuchasthe publicinvolvementsystem.
2.5. Taiwan
Taiwan hastransposed its SEA requirements into national legislationincludingtheEIAAct,SEAmanualandSEAPPPlist.
A primary problem identified in SEA implementation for
Taiwanhasbeen thelackofacomprehensiveSEAscoping process and prioritization of environmental aspects. A secondary problem isthe limited competency capacityfor SEAimplementationduetorestrictedtrainingandknowledge for environmental and planning agencies. Furthermore, a tertiaryproblemhasbeenthenegligiblepublicparticipationin SEA implementation which is characteristically limited to governmentagenciesandapprovingbodies.ThetrendsinSEA implementationmayindicatethatTaiwanisstilllimitedinits politicalwillforstakeholderengagementwithabureaucratic top-downpolicyplanningsystem.Meanwhile,notableprog- ress of SEAimplementation inTaiwan has been the early adoptionofaSEAlegislativeframeworkrelativetootherAsian countries.Otherprogressincludesexperimentationofvarious SEAmechanismsuchasDelphi-indicatorsandhealthimpact assessment(HIA)aswellasSEAoftheNationalSchemeforthe location ofindustrial parks,construction andmanagement guidelinesforgolfcourses,NationalWaterResourcesDevel- opment Plan and the protected watersheds reduction plan (Chenetal.,2011;KuoandChiu,2006;Kuoetal.,2005).SEA prospectsseemtobeinthedevelopmentofcapacitybuilding forpolicyadministratorsandSEAreviewsystemtoidentify best practices in the international community. Other pro- spects include the introduction of sustainability concepts within the SEA framework via the Taiwan sustainable developmentindicators(Liouetal., 2006,2003;Wangetal., 2012). In terms of cultural dimensions, Taiwan has a borderlinePDIwithascoreof58whichindicatesthatitisa hierarchicalsocietywhereeverybodyhastheirplacewithout the need for justification (Hofstede, 2014). Finally, SEA developments in Taiwan indicate the presence of SEA legislationandprovisionsforSEApublicparticipationinclud- ingthepresenceofSEAapplicationinpolicyplanningthough publicparticipationpracticeisabsent.Inthisrespect,Taiwan issimilarwithChinathoughwithsignificantdifferencesin PDIs.Consequently,Taiwan’sborderlinePDIdoesnotexplain itslackofpublicparticipationthoughthismaybeimpededby Taiwan’spoliticalhistoryandopacitywithChina.
2.6. Vietnam
Vietnam hastransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislation including the Law on environmental protection which includes mandatory SEA requirements for national, provincialandlocalPPPs.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEA implementation for Vietnam has been the lack of SEA knowledgeand experienceatthe ministeriallevels whilea secondary problem has been the lack of a systematic coordinatedinter-agencyplanning.ThetrendsinSEAimple- mentationmayindicatethatVietnamisimplementationSEA at a rapid rate in relation to its SEA capacity building development(Clausenetal.,2011;Doberstein,2004).Thisis becausethedriveforSEAinVietnamhasbeenemergingfor morethanadecadewithkeynationalpolicyinitiativesurging the strategic integration ofenvironmentalconsideration in PPPtoensure sustainabledevelopment. Thisevolutionhas finallyledtotheculminationoftheintroduction ofSEAin Vietnam especially in the context of the comprehensive poverty reduction and growth strategy (2002), National Strategy for Environmental Protection to 2010 and Vision
2020.Meanwhile,notableprogressofSEAimplementationin Vietnamhasbeenthelegislativeandadministrativedevelop- ment ofits SEAframework as wellas legal provisions for public participation. Other notable progress includes the requirementstosynchronizeintegrationwithnationaldevel- opmentstrategiesand thedevelopmentoftechnicalguide- linesonmethodologicalaspects.Interestingly,theguidelines adoptapragmaticandbasicapproachforSEAwhichincludes simpletechniquessuchasmatrices,expertjudgementsand trendanalysis.SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelopment ofinter-sectoralcoordination includingthe streamliningof SEA requirements for various policy planning processes (Obbardetal.,2002;Partida´rioetal., 2008;Sekhar,2005).In termsofculturaldimensions,Vietnamhasamoderatelyhigh PDIwithascoreof70whichindicatesthatitisahierarchical society where centralization is popular and challenges to leadership are discouraged (Hofstede, 2014). Finally, SEA developments in Vietnam indicate the presence of SEA legislationandprovisionsforSEApublicparticipationinclud- ingthepresenceofSEAapplicationinpolicyplanningthough public participation practice is absent. Consequently, Viet- nam’s moderately high PDI may explain its limited public participation in contrast to its legal provisions for public participation.
2.7. Indonesia
IndonesiahastransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislationincludingtheenvironmentalprotectionandman- agementlawwhichrequiresmandatorySEAforspatialand developmentplansatthenational,provincialandlocallevels aswellasoptional SEA forPPPwithpotentially significant environmentalimpacts.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEA implementation for Indonesiais the efficacy of the newly formulatedSEAlegislationinthepolicyplanningprocess.A secondaryproblemistheperceptionbytheplanningagencies andstakeholdersthatSEAmaypotentiallyburdenanddelay theauthorizationprocessofPPPinIndonesia.Furthermore,a tertiary problem isthe potential foreconomic concerns to supersedeSEAimplementationandadoptionofSEAfindings (DusikandXie,2009).ThetrendsinSEAimplementationmay indicatethatIndonesiahasevolvedfromitsEIAapproachtoa SEAframeworkandisnowembarkingonitsSEAapplication in practice (Purnama, 2003; Spaling and Vroom, 2007).
Meanwhile, notable progress of SEA implementation in Indonesiahasbeenthe establishmentofits SEAlegislative frameworkwhichincludesprovisionsforpublicparticipation andtheconsiderationofcarryingcapacityoftheenvironment.
This is a relatively novel SEA initiate in the region.
Furthermore,SEArequirementsarecurrentlybeingstream- lined through regulations and guidance documents. Other notableprogressincludesthesuccessfulapplicationofitsSEA consultationfordisastermanagement(Prasetioetal.,2012).
SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelopmentofSEAsector specific guidelines for national development and sectoral plans as well SEA multi-plan assessments within a single assessmentprocess(DusikandKappiantari,2010;Dusiketal., 2010;MinistryofEnvironment,Indonesia,2007).Intermsof culturaldimensions,IndonesiahasahighPDIwithascoreof 78 which indicates imbalanced power dynamics between
leadersandthepeoplewherecommunicationmaybeindirect withhiddennegativefeedback(Hofstede,2014).Finally,SEA developments in Indonesia indicate the presence of SEA legislationthoughitsapplicationinpolicyplanningisabsent.
Nevertheless, provisions for SEA public participation is present though publicparticipation practiceisalso absent.
Consequently,Indonesia’shighPDIsuggestsitsSEAinitiatives maybedriveninatop-downmannerwhereintheorythelegal provisionsareinplacebutinpracticetheremaybelimited consensus in its application to the extent SEA may be consideredaburdenbyplanningagencies.
2.8. Philippines
Philippines has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasimplementeditinanad-hoc mannerforinfrastructureprogrammessuchastransportation andenergy.Italsohasincludedpara-SEAelementswithinits LocalGovernmentCode,CleanWaterAct,CleanAirAct,Solid WasteManagementAct,NationalIntegratedProtectedAreas System and Indigenous People’s Rights Act. A primary problem identified in SEA implementation for Philippines has been the reactive approach to SEAwhile a secondary problem is it’sunrealized utilization ofpara-SEA elements within itsexistinglegislativeframework.ThetrendsinSEA implementationmayindicatethatPhilippinesisstillhesitant on evolving fromEIAtoSEA especiallywithin alegislative framework (Abracosa and Ortolano,1987;Lim,1985; Smith andVanderWansem,1995).Meanwhile,notableprogressof SEAimplementationinPhilippineshasbeentheinclusionof SEAelementswithintheformulationofthePalawanSustain- able Development Act, Bohol Environment Code and the NationalIntegratedProtectedAreaManagementSystemsAct.
OthernotableprogressincludestheapplicationofSEAwithin variousregionalenvironmentalassessmentsforriverbasins, coastalzonesandurbanplanningincludingtheManilaThird SewerageProject.SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelop- mentofaSEAframeworkwithintheEnvironmentalAssess- ment Actthatwould require SEAforPPPs involving multi- component,multi-sectorprojectsandactivities(GilbuenaJr.
etal.,2013;Mercado,2007).Intermsofculturaldimensions, PhilippineshasahighPDIwithascoreof94whichindicatesa hierarchical society wherecentralization isprevalent (Hof- stede, 2014). Finally, SEA developments in the Philippines indicatetheabsenceofSEAlegislation,SEAapplication,public participationprovisionaswellaspublicparticipationappli- cation.Consequently,PhilippineshighPDIsuggestsitslackof SEAinitiativesmaybeconsistentwithits reactiveandtop- downdependentapproachtowardsSEA.
2.9. Thailand
Thailand has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasdevelopedaSEAguideline thatconsiderssocial,economicandenvironmentalalterna- tives.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplementationfor ThailandhasbeenthelackofaSEAlegislativeframeworkto support SEA implementation notwithstanding it has been implicitlymentionedinnationalenvironmentalpoliciessuch astheNationalEnvironmentalQualityManagementPlan.This
has resulted in a lack of prioritization for SEA since its implementationisonavoluntarybasis.Asecondaryproblem is the minimalistic public participation in environmental planning.Thisisbecausepublicengagementsareconducted in a cursory manner to conform to minimum legislative requirements typically towards the tail-endof the process whenithastheleastinfluence.Thus,whileintheorythereisa legitimateprovisionforpublicparticipationbutinpracticeit hasbeendifficulttooperationalizeduetostakeholdernon- articulation(Bureekul,2000).ThetrendsinSEAimplementa- tionmayindicatethatThailandisresilientlypredisposedtoa top-downplanningframeworkwithinherentrestrictionsto publicparticipationinpolicyplanninganddecisionmaking (Euamonlachat,2010;Nishiuraaetal.,2008;Wirutskulshaiand Coowanitwong, 2008). Meanwhile, notable progress of SEA implementationin Thailand has been the diverse capacity building initiatives including a series ofSEA trainingsand workshopsorganizedbyacademicinstitutionsinThailandas wellasthevariousongoingSEApilotstudies(Lindberg,2001).
SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelopmentofauniversal SEA procedural approach that is robustly adaptable for different PPP assessments (Wirutskulshai et al., 2011). In termsofculturaldimensions,Thailandhasamoderatelyhigh PDIwithascoreof64whichindicatesasocietyofstatusand privilegeswheremanagementispaternalisticand informa- tion flow restrained (Hofstede,2014). Finally,SEA develop- mentsinThailandindicatetheabsenceofSEAlegislation,SEA applicationandpublicparticipationapplicationthoughpublic participation provisions are present. Consequently, Thai- land’s moderately high PDI may explain its reluctance in formulatingSEAlegislationincludingitscursoryimplemen- tationofpublicparticipationinitiatives.
2.10. Laos
LaoshasnottransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislation thoughit has conducted WorldBank and Asian DevelopmentBank(ADB)supportedSEApilotprojects(Good- land,2005).AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplementa- tionforLaoshasbeenthelackofobviousdirectionforSEA implementationinitspolicyandlegislativeframework.The trendsinSEAimplementationmayindicatethatLaosisstill ambivalentonSEAsincetraditionallyit hasbeendrivenby donorfundedSEAprojectsrequiredaspartoftheinvestment duediligence process.Meanwhile, notable progressof SEA implementationinLaoshasbeentheSEAimplementationfor theNamTheunIIHydropowerProject.Otherprogressinclude the SEA for the Nam Ngum River Basin which adopted a cumulative impactassessment (CIA) to studythe environ- mentalandsocialimpactsofmultiplehydropowerdevelop- mentonagriculture,naturalresourcesandlocalcommunities (Jusi, 2011; Keskinen et al., 2012; Vientiane, 2011). Other notableprogressincludestherealizationofpublicparticipa- tioninitiativeswithinthecontextofthesedonorfundedSEA thoughthisviewiscontroversial(Lawrence,2009;Singh,2009).
SEA prospectsseem tobe in the development of capacity buildingandawarenesstrainingforkeygovernmentagencies (DusikandXie,2009).
Intermsofculturaldimensions,thePDIforLaoswasnot available within Hofstede’s cultural dimensions research
thoughestimatesonLaosPDIhasbeenconductedbasedon theaveragePDIofThailandandVietnambothkeyneighbours ofLaosandhencesharesimilarculturalbackgrounds(Dorner andGorman,2011).TheestimatedPDIforLaoswasmoder- atelyhighat 67whichindicatesahierarchicalsocietywith top-downmanagementwheresocietyisgenerallypatientand accepting of its members and leadership. Finally, SEA developmentsinLaosindicatetheabsenceofSEAlegislation, SEA applicationand public participation provisionsthough public participation application is present. Consequently, Laos’ moderately high PDI may explain its ambivalence towardsSEAimplementationconsistentwithalaissez-faire attitudetowardschange.
2.11. Bangladesh
Bangladesh has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasintroducedEIAthroughits National EnvironmentalPolicyand theEnvironmentalCon- servation Act as wellas the environmental assessment of regionalwaterqualityprojects(KhanandBelal,1999;Rahman etal.,2000).AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplemen- tationforBangladeshhasbeenthelackofacomprehensive environmentalassessmentsystemthatisnon-dependenton internationaldonoragencyrequirements.Asecondaryprob- lemisthelackoftransparencyinthedecisionmakingsystem.
Furthermore, a tertiary problem is the lack of public participation in environmental decisions since it is non- mandatoryinBangladesh.ThetrendsinSEAimplementation mayindicatethatBangladeshisstrugglingwiththechallenges of good governance due to antagonistic politics, invasive corruption and bureaucratic procrastination. Meanwhile, notableprogressofSEAimplementationinBangladeshhas beenanemphasisonincorporatingenvironmentalconsider- ationwithinsectoralpoliciesaswellasthedevelopmentof ministerialsustainabledevelopmentpolicies.SEAprospects seemtobeinthedevelopmentofamorerobustenvironmen- tal legislative and institutional framework which includes compulsory public participation and the inception of an environmentalindependentbodyconsistingofNGOs,inter- nationalaidagenciesandresearchthinktanks(Ahammedand Harvey, 2004; Alshuwaikhatet al., 2007; Momtaz, 2002). In termsofculturaldimensions,BangladeshhasahighPDIwith a score of80 which indicates a hierarchical societywhere autocraticleadershipisacceptedasanorm(Hofstede,2014).
Finally,SEAdevelopmentsinBangladeshindicatetheabsence of SEA legislation, SEA application, public participation provisionaswellaspublicparticipationapplication.Conse- quently, Bangladesh high PDI may explain its limited transparencyindecisionmakingconsistentwithapaternal- isticsociety.
2.12. Pakistan
Pakistan has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasintroducedEIAthroughits EnvironmentalProtectionActandEnvironmentalRegulations as well the implementation of SEA for thermal power generation and drainage PPPs (Naureen, 2009; Slootweg et al., 2007; Wood, 2003). A primary problem identifiedin
SEAimplementationforPakistanhasbeenthelowprioritiza- tionofSEAwithintheenvironmentalmanagementsystem.A secondaryproblemistheundueinfluenceofenvironmental aidorganizationsandthegovernmentintheenvironmental decisionmakingprocess.
The trends in SEA implementation may indicate that Pakistanisstrugglingwiththechallengesofgoodgovernance duetopoliticalpressures wheretheenvironmentalassess- mentprocessisusedmoreasaprojectrationalizationtoolas opposed toan environmental sustainable decisionsupport system.Meanwhile,notableprogressofSEAimplementation inPakistanhasbeenthemandatoryinclusionofthepublic participationrequirementsforallpublicsectorprojects.SEA prospectsseemtobeinthedevelopmentofenvironmental tribunalstoensuretheenvironmentalrightsofstakeholders (NadeemandFischer,2011;NadeemandHameed,2008;Saeed etal.,2012).Intermsofculturaldimensions,Pakistanhasa borderlinePDIwithascoreof55whichindicatesaconsulta- tive society open to public participation (Hofstede, 2014).
Finally,SEAdevelopmentsinPakistanindicatetheabsenceof SEAlegislationandSEAapplicationbutthepresenceofpublic participationprovisionand publicparticipation application.
Consequently,Pakistan’sborderlinePDIisconsistentwithits mandatoryrequirementforpublicparticipationinallpublic sectorprojectsandtheformulationofenvironmentaltribu- nalswhichisatypicalofAsiantop-downcountries.
2.13. India
IndiahasnottransposeditsSEArequirementsintonational legislationthoughithasintroducedEIAthroughitsEnviron- mental Protection Act. India has also conducted SEA for irrigation projectsinCentralIndia, theIndianeco-develop- mentproject,theGujaratStateHighwayProgrammeandthe GujaratNationalDairySupportProject(Garciaetal.,2011;Hirji andDavis,2009;SinghandSingh,2011).Aprimaryproblem identifiedinSEAimplementationforIndiahasbeenthelow prioritizationofSEAcomparedtoEIA.Asecondaryproblemis theweakenvironmentalassessmentmethodology,unreliable baselinedataandincoherentapplicationofassessmenttools.
Furthermore,atertiaryproblemisthenon-accountabilityof environmental agencies and professionals in disclosing environmentalfindings. ThetrendsinSEAimplementation mayindicatethatIndiaisrestrictedbyexcessivebureaucratic andpotentiallycorruptadministrativebarrierstosustainable environmentalgovernance(BanhamandBrew,1996;Paliwal, 2006;Valappiletal.,1994;VyasandReddy,1998).Meanwhile, notableprogressofSEAimplementationinIndiahasbeenthe internalizationofenvironmentalconsiderationsinthePalar BasinaswellastheuseofSEAasadiagnosticframeworkfor biodiversity.SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelopmentof SEAinupdatingenvironmentalpolicyguidelinesandincreas- ing the accountability ofenvironmental professionals (Raj- vanshi,2005, 2003, 2001). In terms ofcultural dimensions, India hasa high PDIwith a scoreof 71 which indicates a hierarchical society with a top-down structure and highly dependentonleadershipfordirection(Hofstede,2014).Finally, SEA developments in India indicate the absence of SEA legislation, SEA application and public participation provi- sions though public participation application is present.
Consequently,India’shighPDIsuggestsSEAinitiativesmay beimpededduetobureaucraticrestrictionswherecommuni- cation is top-down with minimal bottoms-up constructive feedbacktofacilitateimprovements.
2.14. SriLanka
Sri Lanka has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasintroducedEIAthroughits NationalEnvironmentalActaswellastheSEAforitsTourism MasterPlan.AprimaryproblemidentifiedinSEAimplemen- tationforSriLankahasbeenthelackoftechnicalcapacityfor environmental assessments. A secondary problem is the perceptionthatSEAisameanstobypasstheEIAprocessas opposedtocomplementingit.ThetrendsinSEAimplementa- tion may indicatethat SriLanka is at atransitionstateof unstable political atmosphere where its main priority is focusedoneconomic andsocialdevelopmentssuperseding environmental concerns (Samarakoon and Rowan, 2008;
Sathananthan,1992;Zubair,2001).Meanwhile,notableprog- ressofSEAimplementationinSriLankahasbeenthegrowing awarenessontheimportanceofSEA.SEAprospectsseemto beintheimplementationofSEAwithingovernmentagencies inthetourism,energy,forestryandurbanplanningsectors (Mackeeet al.,2001;Samarakoonand Rowan,2008;Vidyar- atne,2006).Intermsofculturaldimensions,SriLankahasa high PDI witha score of80 which indicates ahierarchical societywhichisperceivedasreflectinginherentinequalities (Hofstede, 2014). Finally, SEA developments in Sri Lanka indicatetheabsenceofSEAlegislation,SEAapplication,public participationprovisionaswellaspublicparticipationappli- cation. Consequently,Sri Lanka’shigh PDI mayexplain its entitled perception that SEA is a means of bypassing customaryenvironmentalrequirements.
2.15. Malaysia
Malaysia has not transposed its SEA requirements into nationallegislationthoughithasintroducedEIAthroughits EnvironmentalQualityAct.SEAhasalsobeenconductedfor the Paya Indah Wetlands, Selangor Structure Plan, Perak StructurePlan,BeaufortandKualaPenyuLandusePlanand the National Water Resources Management Study. The current applicationofSEAinMalaysiaismainlyfocusedin land use development plans via the Town and Country Planning Department(Briffett etal., 2004;Memon,2000).A primary problem identified of SEA implementation in Malaysiahasbeenitslimitedadoptionasapolicyplanning tooleventhoughithasbeenexplicitlystatedintheNational Policy on theEnvironmentand the NinthMalaysiaPlan.A secondaryproblemisthelackofmethodologicalguidelinesin conductingSEAinaconsistentandsystematicmanner.Many oftheSEAimplementationsarevariedintheirdefinitionand integration of environmental considerations ranging from simple utilization of rapid EIA screening approaches to descriptive sustainability assessment evaluations. Further- more,atertiaryproblemistheexistinglowlevelofawareness onSEAanditspotentialforsuper-streamingenvironmental considerationsinpolicyplanning. ThetrendsinSEAimple- mentationmayindicatethatMalaysiaisstillexperimenting
withtheuseofSEAasapolicyplanningmechanismandis hesitantinembracingSEA.Thismaybeduetoitstraditional top-downpolicyplanningwithminimalpublicparticipation and its conventional reliance on EIA. Meanwhile, notable progress ofSEA implementation in Malaysiahas been the recentrecommendationbytheMinistryofNaturalResources andEnvironmentforSEAtobeimplementedinmainstream- ingbiodiversity.SEAprospectsseemtobeinthedevelopment ofpublicparticipationinitiatives innationallegislationand policies. This includes the recent Malaysian government circularontheonlinepublicengagementofnewlegislation aswellastheutilizationofsustainabilityassessmentsinland useplanning(GovernmentofMalaysia,2012;Halimaton,2007;
Marzuki,2009;Moi,2007).
Intermsofculturaldimensions,Malaysiahasthehighest PDI in the world with a score of 100 which indicates an extremelyhierarchicalsocietywherethepublicisexpectedto accept leadership’s authority without question (Hofstede, 2014). Finally, SEA developments in Malaysia indicate the absenceofSEAlegislationandpublicparticipation practice thoughSEAapplicationandpublicparticipationprovisionsare present.Consequently,Malaysia’shigh PDImayexplainits top-down policy planning where SEA initiatives is highly dependentonleadership’spoliticalwillasopposedtopublic pressure.
3. Sea problems, progress & prospects
AsummaryofSEAtrendsinAsiaindicateaproliferationofSEA legislationpossiblyamimickingoftrendsinEuropeduetothe EU SEA Directive (Briffett et al., 2003; Dusik and Xie, 2009;
Hayashi et al., 2011). Meanwhile, SEA implementation also range fromtheuse ofstructuredand non-structuredpolicy instrumentssuchaslegislationandstakeholderengagement.
TheprimaryproblemofSEAimplementationinAsiahasbeen its limited integration in strategic decision making due to existingmeta-policystructures.Thesedeeplyrootedsystems arehighlypoliticalandsensitivetochangeevenincountries withaSEAlegislativeframework(Hezri,2004).Thesecondary problemhasbeentheassimilationofpublicparticipationand stakeholderengagementinatrulytransparentandinclusive mannerwithoftenmixedresults.Thetertiaryproblemhasbeen theutilizationofaconsistentmethodologicalframeworkfor SEAduetoitshighlyabstractnatureatthepolicylevel(Table1).
ThesetrendsindicatethatSEAinAsiaisstillinanevolutionary pathway and may bedependenton each country’scultural dimensionsofPDI.ThissuggestthatborderlinePDIcountry’s suchasJapan,Pakistan,TaiwanandSouthKoreaaremorelikely toimplementSEApublicparticipationrequirementsirrespec- tiveoflegislativeprovisionsasopposedtohighPDIcountries
Table1–SummaryofSEAproblems,progressandprospectsinAsia.
Country SEAproblems SEAprogress SEAprospects Power
distance index HongKong Lackofmacroenvironmental
policy
HeightenedSEApublic participation.
SustainabilitycentricSEA. 68 China Restrictivepublicparticipation. SEAtechnicalguidelinesand
indicators.
ExpansionofSEAscope. 80 South
Korea
Lackoflegislativecohesion. Down-streamingSEAfindingsto EIA.
SEAsustainabledevelopment indicators.
60
Japan LackofSEAlegislation. Publicinvolvementsystem. SEAlegislation. 54
Taiwan Limitedpoliticalforstakeholder engagement.
SEAsystemssuchasDelphi indicatorsandhealthimpact assessment.
SEAcapacitybuilding. 58
Vietnam Limitedinfluenceonstrategic decisionmaking.
SynchronizedSEAimplementation withpolicies.
Inter-sectoralcoordination. 70 Indonesia PerceptionofSEAasaburdenby
planningagencies.
SEAlegislativeprovisionsfor publicparticipation.
SEAmulti-planassessments. 78 Philippines ReactiveapproachtoSEA
implementation.
SEAapplicationinregional planning.
SEAinclusioninenvironmental legislation.
94 Thailand LackofSEAlegislationwithlimited
publicparticipation.
SEAtrainingandworkshops. UniversalSEAprocedurefor differenthierarchicallevels.
64 Laos AmbivalentSEAimplementation. Publicparticipationinitiatives. SEAcapacitybuildingandtraining. 67* Bangladesh Limitedtransparencyindecision
making.
Integratingenvironmental considerationinsectoralpolicies.
Publicparticipationinitiatives. 80 Pakistan ChallengesinSEAgovernancedue
topoliticalpressure.
Mandatorypublicparticipation. Environmentaltribunals. 55 India Bureaucraticrestrictions. Systematicparticipatoryprocess. Augmentingaccountabilityof
environmentalprofessionals.
77 SriLanka Unstablepoliticalclimate
transition.
GrowingawarenessonSEA. SEAimplementationinagencies. 80 Malaysia Top-downpolicyplanningwith
conventionalrelianceonEIA.
PromotionofSEAin mainstreamingbiodiversity.
Publicparticipationinitiativeson newlegislation.
100
* EstimatedLaosPDI.
suchasMalaysia,Philippines,China,BangladeshandSriLanka whichare morelikely tostruggle with practical SEApublic participationinitiativeseventhoughitismandatedbylegisla- tion.Furthermore,thetrendsalsoindicatethatSEAapplication can vary within planning levels and sectors (Tetlow and Hanusch,2012).MeanwhilenotableprogressinSEAimplemen- tationinAsiahasbeentheglobalawarenessontheneedforSEA tointegrateenvironmentalconsiderationsinamorestrategic setting. Finally, SEA prospects in Asia seem to be in the developmentofacommoninternationalregionalcooperation on SEA capacity building as well as the integration of sustainabilityassessmentswithintheSEAframework(White andNoble,2013).
4. Sea paradigm analysis
TheSEAparadigmanalysisisametaphoricalcategorizationof countriesbasedontheirSEAimplementationinto‘Whiteor GreenElephants’or‘WhiteorGreenTigers’.‘Elephants’refer tohighlyvisibleandstructuredpolicyinstruments suchas legislationwhile‘Tigers’refertolatentnon-structuredpolicy instruments such as public participation and stakeholder engagement. ‘Green’ refers to effective policy instruments while‘White’referstoineffectivepolicyinstruments(Fig.2).
Typically‘WhiteElephants’referstosomethingthatishighly visiblebutisfunctionallyineffectiveandbecomesaburdento sustainwhere‘GreenElephants’aretheanti-thesisof‘White Elephants’. Similarly, ‘White Tigers’ aresomething that is latentandlookspotentbutisinherentlyweakwhere‘Green Tigers’aretheanti-thesisof‘WhiteTigers’.
‘WhiteElephants’arecountriesthatlackSEAlegislation and/orSEAapplicationinpolicyplanning.‘WhiteElephants’
arealsocountriesthathaveSEAlegislationbutareunableto implement it duetoambitious and burdensomelegislative requirementsand/orweakpolicyimplementationaswellas countries that attempt to apply SEA practice without a structured SEA legislative framework. Characteristics of
‘WhiteElephants’arecountriesthathavefailedtoimplement and enforce their mammoth legislative EPI initiatives or attempt to implement SEA application through ad-hoc
measures. This oftenresults inSEA legislation that in the short-term appear robust but inthe long-term is resource intensiveandnon-pragmatic.
‘GreenElephants’arecountrieswhichhaveformulatedSEA legislation and implemented SEA application in policy planning. ‘Green Elephants’ have SEA legislation and an effective SEA policy implementation due to their highly structured and technical SEA framework. This is achieved bystructuringpolicyinstrumentsinastandardized,definite and publicized approach to provide an established and consistentlegislativeoradministrativetechnicalframework forallstakeholders.Characteristicsof‘GreenElephants’are countries that have developed and implementedextensive andeffectiveSEArelevantlegislationtoenforceEPIinitiatives.
‘WhiteTigers’arecountries thatlackpublicparticipation provisionsand/orpublicparticipationinitiatives.‘WhiteTigers’
havestakeholderengagementprovisionsbutareineffectivein its implementation dueto non-adaptive targeting of stake- holdersandweakpolicyimplementation.‘WhiteTigers’also refer tocountriesthatconductpublicparticipationpractices merelyasaquasi-policyendorsementfacade.Characteristicsof
‘WhiteTigers’arecountriesthatdonotconsultstakeholdersin their policy planning or implement public participation exercisesinaninaccessiblemanner.ThisoftenresultsinSEA implementationthatexternallyappearstrongbutinternallyis weakandlackstakeholderandpublicsupport.
‘Green Tigers’ arecountrieswhich have includedpublic engagementprovisionsintheiradministrativerequirements and implemented public participation practice in policy planning. ‘Green Tigers’ integrate stakeholder engagement inalatentadaptiveapproachtoachievepolicyobjectives.This isachievedbymodulatingpolicyimplementationandtarget- ingkeystakeholdersbasedontheirspecificdriversandneed.
Characteristicsof‘GreenTigers’arecountriesthatwidelyand effectivelyutilizestakeholderengagementandpublicpartici- pationtoolstodriveEPIinitiatives.
The SEA paradigm analysis was conducted using the DEFINITE model (Decisions on a Finite Set of Alternatives DecisionSupportSystemforEnvironmentalEvaluation)(Jans- sen,2001). Themodel utilizesthe directsummation weight method wheretheweightagefor allpolicyinstrumentsand policy effectivenesswas set as equal. The DEFINITE model codeseach country’spolicyinstrumentsandpolicypractice with a0or1tag.The0tagreferstoanabsenceofapolicy instrumentsor policyeffectiveness whilethe1tagrefersto presenceofapolicyinstrumentsorpolicyeffectiveness.The DEFINITEmodelcodingtagsutilizedfourmaineffectsforits evaluationwhicharethepresence/absenceofSEALegislation, presence/absence of SEA Application, presence/absence of publicparticipationprovisionsandpresence/absenceofpublic participationapplication.Thecodingtagswerederivedfrom theextensiveliteraturereviewandanalysisconductedforthe 15countriesinAsiaintermsoftheirSEApolicytrends(Fig.3).
CountriesinAsiawithaTier1rankingforSEAintegration areHongKongandSouthKoreawhichhaveSEAconstructsof
‘GreenElephants’and‘GreenTigers’.Thesecountrieshavethe presenceof all four SEAconstructs ofSEA legislation,SEA application,SEApublicparticipationprovisionandSEApublic participationapplication.Thesecountriesdominantlyutilize both structured and non-structured policy instruments to Fig.2–SEAparadigmframework.
driveSEApolicyandpractice.CountriesinAsiawithaTier2 ranking for SEA integration are China, Pakistan, Taiwan, VietnamandIndonesiawhichhaveSEAconstructsof‘Green Elephants’, ‘White Elephants’ and ‘Green Tigers’. These countrieshavethepresenceofthreeSEAconstructsofSEA legislation, SEA application and SEA public participation provisionbutlackSEApublicparticipationapplication.These countriesdominantlyutilizestructuredpolicyinstrumentsto driveSEApolicyandpracticebutareweakinnon-structured policyinstrumentssuchasstakeholderengagement.
Meanwhile,countriesinAsiawithaTier3rankingforSEA integrationareMalaysia, Laos,JapanandIndiawhichhave SEAconstructsof‘WhiteElephants’,‘GreenTigers’and‘White Tigers’. These countries have the presence of two SEA constructsofeitherSEAapplication,SEApublicparticipation provisionorSEApublicparticipationapplicationbutlackSEA legislation. They dominantly utilize non-structured policy instrumentstodriveSEApolicyandpracticebutareweakin structuredpolicyinstrumentssuchaslegislation andappli- cation. Countries in Asia with a Tier 4 ranking for SEA integration are Thailand, Philippines, Bangladesh and Sri Lankawhich haveSEAconstructsof‘WhiteElephants’and
‘WhiteTigers’.Thesecountrieshaveonlythepresenceofone SEAconstructofeitherSEAApplication,SEApublicparticipa- tionprovisionorSEApublicparticipationapplication.Tier4 rankingalsoincludescountrieswithnoSEAconstructs.These countries typically fail to prioritize SEA or are unable to implementbothstructuredandnon-structuredpolicyinstru- mentstodriveSEApolicyandpractice.
5. Sea policy implications
SEApolicytrendsinAsiaindicatethatitisatacrossroads between ‘Green Elephants-Green Tigers’ and ‘White Ele- phants-WhiteTigers’countries.TheseSEATier1countries such as Hong Kong and SouthKorea havedeveloped and integrated legislativeframeworksincontrasttoSEATier4 countriessuchasBangladeshandSriLankathathaveignored SEAintegrationandimplementation.Therearealsoagroup ofemergingSEATier2andSEATier3countriessuchasChina, Taiwan,IndonesiaandMalaysiathatareexperimentingand considering SEA. Nevertheless these countries face chal- lenges in integrating stakeholder engagement and public participationinpolicyplanning.Thefundamentalchallenge ofSEAintegrationinAsiamaybeduetoalargersystemic policyformulationandgovernanceframework(Dennisand Agamuthu,2012b).Thisstemsfromtheexistingemphasison theprojectbasedEIAprocessasthemaindrivingforcefor environmental integration as well as existing top-down policyplanningsystems(Partida´rio,1996;Wallingtonetal., 2007). This policy formulation process has often been perceivedashighlybureaucratic,lackingpublicparticipation withminimalcross-sectoralhorizontalEPI(HezriandNordin Hasan,2006).Consequently,SEApolicytrends inAsiaalso indicatepotentiallinkagesbetweenSEApublicparticipation initiativesandcountryspecificPDIwhereSEAinitiativesin moderately highand highPDI countriesmay require top- downpoliticalwillforpragmaticSEAimplementationthough Result
1.00 1.00
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25
0.00 0.00
SEA Legislation
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SEA Practice
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
Public Participation Provision
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Hong Kong South Korea China Pakistan Taiwan Vietnam Indonesia Malaysia Lao Japan India Thailand Philippines Bangladesh Sri Lanka
Public Participation Practice
1.00 1.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fig.3–SEAparadigmanalysis.
SEAitselfmayprovidethecatalysttostimulateabottoms-up consultativesociety.
Furthermore,ithasbeenadvocatedthatSEAshouldevolve beyond the EIAparadigm and its associated technicaland procedural approach (Bina, 2008; Wallington et al., 2007).
However, the authors suggest thatSEA integration inAsia requiresaparadigmshifttoaddresstheprimestrategicgapof SEAintegration.Thisreferstothecurrentbiasedover-reliance onthelegislativeaspectsofSEAandadisconnectedemphasis onstructuredpolicyinstruments.Thisiscompoundedwith limited development on the non-structured policy instru- mentsofSEAincludingthedevelopmentofstrategicbeha- viouralmodelsofstakeholderandpublicintegrationofSEAin policy planning.Recent, SEAresearch highlight theimpor- tanceofnovelandinnovativeapproachesinintegratingnon- structured policy instruments through the use ofstrategic behaviourmodelsthatareabletopredictstakeholderpolicy supportofSEA(DennisandAgamuthu,2013).Thisalsorelates with the fact that environmental policymaking is highly politicized and policy makers are reluctant to initiate environmentalintegrationwhich mayberejectedbystake- holdersandthepublic(GrootandSchuitema,2012;Junttietal., 2009). Thecommon prevailing mind-setisthat SEAimple- mentationwouldtakecareofitselfonceaSEAlegislationor SEAplanisconducted.Nevertheless,SEAexperiencesindicate otherwisewhere SEAimplementationcan beseverely hin- dered due to the socio-economic complexity and political nature of policy planning. This includes each countries’
culturalpowerdistancedynamicsofconsultationandpublic participationofSEAinitiatives.Thisfindingshighlightingthe emphasisonlegislationinAsiaisconsistentwithSEAtrends observedintheliterature(DusikandXie,2009;Hayashietal., 2011;Sadleretal.,2011).Policymakersandstakeholdershave acomplexdecisionmakingandintegrationdriverswhichmay significantly affect their choices and potential to either facilitate or hinder SEA implementation which transcend simplisticSEAawarenessprogrammes(Axelssonetal.,2012;
Bina,2007).ThisisaptlydemonstratedbySEAexperiencesin China,TaiwanandIndonesiathatsignalSEAimplementation can be highly multi-dimensional. This is due to differing environmental and local cultural context across countries withvaryinglevelsofenvironmentaldevelopmentandpower distanceindex(Baoetal.,2004b;LiouandYu,2004;Ministryof Environment,Indonesia,2007).
ThismaysimplyimplythatSEAlegislationisnota‘silver bullet’thatcanbemimickedfromothercountriesbuthastobe customizedandcomplementedwith alocallyvalidated SEA analyticaland behaviouralframeworktaking intoconsider- ation national environmental data availability and cultural systems(AgamuthuandDennis,2013).Furthermore,thereare differingviewsonthepotentialdevelopmentpathwayforSEA inAsia.OnepointofviewisthatSEAshouldbelinkedwiththe sustainabledevelopmentagendawhileotherscontendthatSEA should be focused on its core function of environmental protectiontoensureitsviability(Gaoetal.,2013;Laffertyand Hovden,2003;Sadleretal.,2011).Incontrast,theauthorsassert thattheoverarchingSEAprimedirectiveisonsecuringtheSEA valuepropositioninpolicyplanningtodecisionmakersbefore debating its expansion from environmental protection to sustainable development as these aspects are systemically
inter-related.Consequently,thiscanonly beachievedwhen SEAre-instantiatesitsstrategic valuebyintegratingitselfin policyplanning.Thepolicyimplicationofthesetrendsisthat countriesconsideringSEAintegrationinpolicyplanningwill requireaparadigmshifttowardsanexusofSEAstructuredand non-structuredpolicyinstruments.Thisistoensuretheyavoid the pitfallsofineffectualand profligateSEAadoptionwhile super-streamingthebenefitsofSEAintheirpolicyplanning.
6. Conclusions
Policy trends ofSEAinAsiaindicate thatit iscurrentlyan importantenvironmentalpolicyconsiderationforcountriesin the region with the formulation of SEA legislations in Hong Kong, China,SouthKorea,Taiwan,VietnamandIndonesia.Neverthe- less,SEAimplementationalsohasbeenimpededbychallenges in realizing practical SEA public participation especially in countries with traditionally high cultural power distance dynamicssuchasChina,IndonesiaandVietnam.Meanwhile, countriessuchasJapanandPakistanhavevoluntarilyimple- mented SEA elements such as publicparticipation without legislative provisions while countries such as Thailand, Philippines,BangladeshandSriLankaareresistingtheadoption of SEA. Consequently, akey SEA policy recommendation for Asia include the establishment of a regional Asian virtual SEA GovernanceCentre(SGC)supportedbynationalSGCsforthe purposeofmainstreamingSEAintocountryspecificnational policyplanningaswellasSEAcapacitybuilding.Thefunctionof theregionalandnationalSGCswouldbetoprovideresources, technicalassistanceandstandardsforSEAimplementationin Asia including establishing a web based database on SEA practices,problemsandprogresses.Thepotentialbenefitsof theregionalSGCisinitsroleastheSEAknowledgehubinAsiato establishlinkageswithgovernmentagencies,privateorganiza- tions,academicresearchers,NGOsandthepublic.TheSGCmay also function as a training and licensing centre for SEA professionalsintheregion.Ultimately,theSGCmaybecritical in providing a platform for SEA involving regional multi- stakeholdercooperationtocoordinateSEAinitiativesinAsia.
In conclusion, SEA trendsin Asia indicates a sagacious realizationthatSEAintheorymaybeastrategicandrationale approach to integrating environmental considerations and preventingenvironmentalproblems.However,SEAinpractice isacomplex,dynamicandchallengingprocessthatrequires politicalwill,legislativeframeworkandatransparentstake- holder engagement process framed within the cultural contextofAsiancountries.Thisessentially istheparadigm shiftthatlinksstructuredandnon-structuredpolicyinstru- ments,resultingintheevolutionof‘WhiteElephants-White Tigers’to‘GreenElephants-GreenTigers’ofAsia.
Acknowledgements
The authorsacknowledge theUniversity ofMalaya forthe financialsupportforthisstudyundertheInstituteofResearch Management&Monitoring(PV054/2011A)researchfund.We arealsogratefulforouranonymousreviewer’sconstructive feedback.
references
Abracosa,R.,Ortolano,L.,1987.Environmentalimpact assessmentinthePhilippines:1977–1985.Environ.Impact Assess.Rev.7,293–310.
Agamuthu,P.,Dennis,V.,2013.Policytrendsofe-waste managementinAsia.J.Mater.CyclesWasteManage.15, 411–419,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0136-7.
Ahammed,A.K.M.,Harvey,N.,2004.Evaluationof
environmentalimpactassessmentproceduresandpractice inBangladesh.ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.22,63–78.
Ahn,K.,Han,S.-W.,Han,Y.-H.,Jung,J.,Jung,J.-G.,Kim,I.-S.,Lee, J.,Lee,S.,Ryu,G.-C.,Ryu,J.-G.,2008.Methoddevelopment fortheintegratedimpactassessmentinKorea-acasestudy fortheconstructionofGreatKoreanWaterway.In:IAIA ConferenceProceedings’,TheArtandScienceofImpact Assessment28thAnnualConferenceoftheInternational AssociationforImpactAssessment.
Alshuwaikhat,H.,Rahman,S.M.,Aina,Y.A.,2007.Therationale forSEAtoovercometheinadequacyofenvironmental assessmentinBangladesh.J.Environ.Dev.16,227–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1070496507300917.
Au,E.,1998.Statusandprogressofenvironmentalassessment inHongKong:facingthechallengesinthe21stcentury.
ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.16,162–166.
Au,E.,Hui,S.,Morrison-Saunders,A.,Arts,J.,2004.Learningby doing:EIAfollow-upinHongKong.In:AssessingImpact:
HandbookofEIAandSEAFollow-up..
Axelsson,A.,Annandale,D.,Cashmore,M.,Slunge,D.,Ekbom, A.,Loayza,F.,Verheem,R.,2012.PolicySEA:lessonsfrom developmentco-operation.ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.30, 124–129.
Banham,W.,Brew,D.,1996.Areviewofthedevelopmentof environmentalimpactassessmentinIndia.Proj.Apprais.11, 195–202.
Bao,C.,Lu,Y.,Shang,J.-C.,2004a.Frameworkandoperational procedureforimplementingstrategicenvironmental assessmentinChina.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.24,27–46.
Bao,C.,Lu,Y.,Shang,J.-C.,2004b.Frameworkandoperational procedureforimplementingstrategicenvironmental assessmentinChina.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.24,27–46, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00137-9.
Barrett,B.,Therivel,R.,1989.EIAinJapan:environmental protectionveconomicgrowth.LandUsePolicy6,217–231.
Bina,O.,2007.Acriticalreviewofthedominantlinesof argumentationontheneedforstrategicenvironmental assessment.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.27,585–606,http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.003.
Bina,O.,2008.Contextandsystems:thinkingmorebroadly abouteffectivenessinstrategicenvironmentalassessment inChina.Environ.Manage.42,717–733.
Briffett,C.,Obbard,J.,Mackee,J.,2004.Environmental assessmentinMalaysia:ameanstoanendoranew beginning? ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.22,221–233,http://
dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765923.
Briffett,C.,Obbard,J.P.,Mackee,J.,2003.TowardsSEAforthe developingnationsofAsia.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.23, 171–196,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00100-2.
Bureekul,T.,2000.PublicParticipationinEnvironmental ManagementinThailand.KingPrajadhipok’sInstitute.
Chang,I.-S.,Wu,J.,2013.Integrationofclimatechange considerationsintoenvironmentalimpactassessment—
implementation,problemsandrecommendationsforChina.
Front.Environ.Sci.Eng.1–10,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11783-013-0496-1.
Che,X.,Shang,J.,Wang,J.,2002.Strategicenvironmental assessmentanditsdevelopmentinChina.Environ.Impact Assess.Rev.22,101–109.
Chen,C.-H.,Liu,W.-L.,Liaw,S.-L.,2011.Integrateddynamic policymanagementmethodologyandsystemforstrategic environmentalassessmentofgolfcourseinstallationpolicy inTaiwan.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.31,66–76.
Clausen,A.,Vu,H.H.,Pedrono,M.,2011.Anevaluationofthe environmentalimpactassessmentsysteminVietnam:the gapbetweentheoryandpractice.Environ.ImpactAssess.
Rev.31,136–143.
Dalal-Clayton,B.,Sadler,B.,2004.StrategicEnvironmental Assessment:AnInternationalReview.International InstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopment,London.
Dennis,V.,Agamuthu,P.,2012a.Strategicenvironmental assessmentpolicyoptimizationprospectsforsolidwaste managementinMalaysia.In:PresentedattheInternational SolidWasteAssociationWorldCongressItaly2012, Florence,Italy.
Dennis,V.,Agamuthu,P.,2012b.Strategicenvironmental assessmentpolicyinterventionscenarioforsolidwaste managementinMalaysia.In:PresentedattheThe7th Asian-PacificLandfillSymposium2012, Bali,Indonesia.
Dennis,V.,Agamuthu,P.,2013.Strategicenvironmental assessmentpolicyintegrationmodelforsolidwaste managementinMalaysia.Environ.Sci.Policy33,233–245, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.06.008.
Doberstein,B.,2004.EIAmodelsandcapacitybuildinginViet Nam:ananalysisofdevelopmentaidprograms.Environ.
ImpactAssess.Rev.24,283–318.
Dorner,D.G.,Gorman,G.E.,2011.Contextualfactorsaffecting learninginlaosandtheimplicationsforinformationliteracy education.Inform.Res.Int.Electron.J.16,n2.
Dusik,J.,Kappiantari,M.,2010.CustomizingStrategic EnvironmentalAssessmentforIndonesianDecisionmaking Context:InitialLessonsLearnt.InternalReportonLessons Learnt. (Unpublished).
Dusik,J.,Setiawan,B.,Kappiantari,M.,Argo,T.,Nawangsidi,H., Wibowo,S.A.,Rustiadi,E.,Djoekardi,A.,2010.MakingSEA FitforPoliticalCultureofStrategicDecision-Makingin Indonesia:RecommendationsforMOEGeneralGuidanceon SEA..
Dusik,J.,Xie,J.,2009.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentin EastandSoutheastAsia.AProgressReviewandComparison ofCountrySystemsandCases.WorldBank,Washington, DC.
Euamonlachat,I.,2010.EIA,SEAandTBEIAApplicationin Thailand,in:ClimateSymposium2010.95.
Gao,J.,Kørnøv,L.,Christensen,P.,2013.Thepoliticsofstrategic environmentalassessmentindicators:weakrecognition foundinChineseguidelines.ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.
31(3) 232–237.
Garcia,K.,deBrigard,J.C.G.,Holm,T.,leMaitre,D.,Mathur,V., Muhamad,S.,Olivier,E.,Rajvanshi,A.,Schemmel,J.P., Slater,M.,2011.SEAasaToolfortheConservationand SustainableUseofBiodiversityinDevelopingCountries1.
HandbookofStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment.274.
GilbuenaJr.,R.,Kawamura,A.,Medina,R.,Amaguchi,H., Nakagawa,N.,Bui,D.D.,2013.Environmentalimpact assessmentofstructuralfloodmitigationmeasuresbya rapidimpactassessmentmatrix(RIAM)technique:acase studyinMetroManila,Philippines.Sci.TotalEnviron.456–
457,137–147,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2013.03.063.
Goodland,R.,2005.Strategicenvironmentalassessmentandthe WorldBankGroup.Int.J.Sustain.Dev.WorldEcol.12,245–
255.
GovernmentofMalaysia,2012.MalaysianGovernmentCircular onOnlinePublicParticipationforNeworRevised
Legislation..
Groot,J.I.M.,Schuitema,G.,2012.Howtomaketheunpopular popular?Policycharacteristics,socialnormsandthe
acceptabilityofenvironmentalpolicies. Environ.Sci.Policy 19–20,100–107,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2012.03.004.
Halimaton,S.H.,2007.AMalaysianexperienceinstrategic environmentalassessment(SEA),presentationata workshop.In:UnderstandingStrategicEnvironmental Assessment, Putrajaya,August2007.
Harashina,S.,1998.EIAinJapan:creatingamoretransparent society? Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.18,309–311.
Hayashi,K.,2007.Comparativestudyonstrategic
environmentalassessmentsysteminselectedCountries.In:
InternationalSymposiumonEcoTopiaScience(ISETS2007), Nagoya,Japan, pp.23–25.
Hayashi,K.,Song,Y.,Au,E.,Dusik,J.,2011.In:Sadler,B., Aschemann,R.,Dusik,J.(Eds.),SEAintheAsiaregion.
pp.89–107.
Hezri,A.,2004.Sustainabilityindicatorsystemandpolicy processesinMalaysia:aframeworkforutilisationand learning.J.Environ.Manage.73,357–371,http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.010.
Hezri,A.,NordinHasan,M.,2006.Towardssustainable development?Theevolutionofenvironmentalpolicyin Malaysia. Nat.Resour.Forum30,37–50.
Hirji,R.,Davis,R.,2009.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment:
ImprovingWaterResourcesGovernanceandDecision Making..
Hofstede,G.,2010.CulturesandOrganizations:Softwareofthe Mind;InterculturalCooperationandItsImportancefor Survival.McGraw-Hill,NewYork,NYUSA.
Hofstede,G.,2014.Hofstede’sPowerDistanceIndex[WWW Document]. http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html (accessed16.03.14).
Imura,H.,Schreurs,M.A.,2005.EnvironmentalPolicyinJapan.
EdwardElgarPublishing.
Janssen,R.,2001.Ontheuseofmulti-criteriaanalysisin environmentalimpactassessmentinTheNetherlands.J.
Multi-Crit.Decis.Anal.10,101–109.
Juntti,M.,Russel,D.,Turnpenny,J.,2009.Evidence,politicsand powerinpublicpolicyfortheenvironment.Environ.Sci.
Policy12,207–215,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2008.12.007.
Jusi,S.,2011.Challengesindevelopingsustainablehydropower inLaoPDR.Int.J.Dev.Issues10,251–267.
Keskinen,M.,Kummu,M.,Ka¨ko¨nen,M.,Varis,O.,2012.Mekong atthecrossroads:nextstepsforimpactassessmentoflarge dams.AMBIO:J.Hum.Environ.1–6.
Khan,N.A.,Belal,A.R.,1999.ThePoliticsoftheBangladesh EnvironmentalProtectionAct..
Kuo,N.-W.,Chiu,Y.-T.,2006.Theassessmentofagritourism policybasedonSEAcombinationwithHIA.LandUsePolicy 23,560–570.
Kuo,N.-W.,Hsiao,T.-Y.,Yu,Y.-H.,2005.ADelphi–matrix approachtoSEAanditsapplicationwithinthetourism sectorinTaiwan.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.25,259–280.
Lafferty,W.,Hovden,E.,2003.Environmentalpolicyintegration:
towardsananalyticalframework.Environ.Polit.12,1–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010412331308254.
Lawrence,S.,2009.TheNamTheun2ControversyandIts LessonsforLaos.ContestedWaterscapesintheMekong region:Hydropower,LivelihoodsandGovernance.81–114.
Lim,G.-C.,1985.TheoryandpracticeofEIAimplementation:a comparativestudyofthreedevelopingcountries.Environ.
ImpactAssess.Rev.5,133–153.
Lindberg,T.,2001.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmenton shrimpfarmsinthesoutheastofThailand.Swedish UniversityofAgriculturalSciences,InternationalOffice.
Liou,M.,Kuo,N.-W.,Yu,Y.-H.,2003.Sustainableindicatorsfor strategicenvironmentalassessmentinTaiwan.Ecosyst.
Sustain.Dev.I,623–634.
Liou,M.,Yeh,S.-C.,Yu,Y.-H.,2006.Reconstructionand systemizationofthemethodologiesforstrategic environmentalassessmentinTaiwan.Environ.Impact Assess.Rev.26,170–184,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.eiar.2005.08.003.
Liou,M.,Yu,Y.-H.,2004.Developmentandimplementationof strategicenvironmentalassessmentinTaiwan.Environ.
ImpactAssess.Rev.24,337–350,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.eiar.2003.10.018.
Mackee,J.,Obbard,J.P.,Briffett,C.,2001.Environmental assessmentinSriLanka:itsstatusandthepotentialforthe introductionofstrategicenvironmentalassessment.J.
Environ.Assess.PolicyManage.3,209–240.
Marzuki,A.,2009.Areviewonpublicparticipationin
environmentalimpactassessmentinMalaysia.Theor.Emp.
Res.UrbanManage.4,126–136.
Memon,P.A.,2000.Devolutionofenvironmentalregulation:
environmentalimpactassessmentinMalaysia.Impact Assess.Proj.Apprais.18,283–293,http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/
147154600781767295.
Mercado,E.,2007September.ADiscussionPaperforaStrategic EnvironmentalAssessment(SEA)PolicyinthePhilippines.
CIDA,Manila.
MinistryofEnvironmentIndonesia,2007.Abriefoverviewon environmentalimpactassessmentandstrategic
environmentalassessmentinIndonesia.In:Presentationby theStateMinistryofEnvironmentoftheRepublicOf Indonesia,ASEAN-ChinaWorkshoponEIA.SEA,Beijing, pp.
15–20.
Moi,T.K.,2007.AnOverviewofSEAinMalaysia.In:‘ASEAN- ChinaWorkshoponEIA,SEA, Beijing,October2007.
Momtaz,S.,2002.Environmentalimpactassessmentin Bangladesh:acriticalreview.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.
22,163–179.
Nadeem,O.,Fischer,T.B.,2011.Anevaluationframeworkfor effectivepublicparticipationinEIAinPakistan.Environ.
ImpactAssess.Rev.31,36–47.
Nadeem,O.,Hameed,R.,2008.Evaluationofenvironmental impactassessmentsysteminPakistan.Environ.Impact Assess.Rev.28,562–571.
Naureen,M.,2009.Developmentofenvironmentalinstitutions andlawsinPakistan.Pak.J.Hist.Cult.30(1).
Ng,K.L.,Obbard,J.P.,2005.Strategicenvironmentalassessment inHongKong.Environ.Int.31,483–492,http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2004.09.023.
Ng,M.K.,1993.StrategicplanninginHongKong:lessonsfrom TDS(TerritorialDevelopmentStrategy)andPADS(Portand DevelopmentStrategy).TownPlann.Rev.64,287.
Nishiuraa,S.,Matsuyukia,M.,Kishitaa,K.M.M.,Satoha,E.,2008.
Strategicenvironmentalassessmentforsustainableurban developmentinThailand.AsianEnviron.Res.(1) 172008.
Obbard,J.P.,Lai,Y.C.,Briffett,C.,2002.Environmental assessmentinVietnam:theoryandpractice.J.Environ.
Assess.PolicyManage.4,267–295.
OECD,2006.ApplyingStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment.. Paliwal,R.,2006.EIApracticeinIndiaanditsevaluationusing
SWOTanalysis.Environ.ImpactAssess.Rev.26,492–510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.01.004.
Partida´rio,M.,1996.Strategicenvironmentalassessment:key issuesemergingfromrecentpractice.Environ.Impact Assess.Rev.16,31–55.
Partida´rio,M.,Paddon,M.,Eggenberger,M.,Chau,D.M.,Van Duyen,N.,2008.Linkingstrategicenvironmental
assessment(SEA)andcitydevelopmentstrategyinVietnam.
ImpactAssess.Proj.Apprais.26,219–227.
Prasetio,E.A.,Arifianti,Y.,Hardjakaprabon,B.,Agustin,F.,2012.
TripleHelixindisastermanagement:casestudyofstrategic environmentalassessment(SEA)forGovernmentOffice RelocationPlanningofPadangCity,Indonesia.Proc.Soc.
