Developing an analytical framework to assess the consistency of contents and terminology used by SEA reports for similar types of plans

Abstract

Environmental reports are important documents within strategic environmental assessment (SEA). They identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing a plan or programme, playing, therefore, a key role for communication during the consultation and public participation processes. For similar decision-making contexts, environmental reports for the same types of plans should be consistent in terminology to assure a clear understanding by stakeholders of the aims and problems dealt with by SEA. This paper assesses to what extent SEA reports prepared for a similar type of plan and under similar regulations are comparable and how their contents are consistent in terms of structure, methodological approaches, critical sustainability factors and terminology used. To pursue this task an analytical framework is developed to compare a set of SEA reports. The SEA reports used as case study are the nine river basin management plans (RBMPs) prepared in Portugal for the first planning cycle of the Water Framework Directive. These plans must be subject to SEA, following the Portuguese regulations implementing the SEA Directive. The results show a significant similarity in the reports inside the same hydrographic region but relevant diversities among regions. The major differences are related to the methodological approaches and to the SEA terminology used. These differences resulted not from the features of the regions or of the plans, but from the different consulting teams involved in the assessment process. For an exercise undertaken by similar state agencies, under similar planning decision-making contexts and with broadly similar objectives, the disparities in SEA reports may threaten the consistency of the inherent communication process, disturb the credibility of the technical exercise and hinder the overall understanding of SEA by the stakeholders.