Chapter 6 SEA EXPERIENCE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Increasingly, developing countries are experimenting with SEA and some have SEA-type approaches and elements in place. There is also considerable experience of using a variety of strategic planning processes which display many of the characteristics of SEA (para SEA). We focus first on SEA in southern Africa where a dedicated regional workshop on SEA was organised to feed into this review (SAIEA 2003a), followed by sections covering francophone Africa, the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Asia and elsewhere. Selected examples of SEA and para SEA illustrate some of the indigenous approaches that have been adopted. These are less common than SEAs promoted and funded by development assistance agencies (which are reviewed in Chapter 4). In most cases where formal SEA has been undertaken in developing countries, the basic aim and approach has mirrored that in the north – namely to identify the environmental consequences (and associated social and economic effects) of existing, new or revised policies, plans and programmes. 6.1 SEA in Southern Africa1 EIA is now used extensively in most countries in southern Africa. However, many of the governments tend to be ad hoc in their planning and, as a result, EIA is often regarded as an ‘add on’ process “that gets done ‘later on’, after the government, board of directors or other body has decided that the intended initiative is viable and thus worthy of detailed planning” (Tarr, 2003). In recent years, there has been rapid progress in the formulation of policies, legislation and guidelines for EIA (SAIEA 2003b). SEA is formally required in only one country (Swaziland), but legislation in some countries does provide an entry point (Box 6.1). Discussions are underway at the SADC (Southern Box 6.1: Examples of legal entry points for SEA in southern Africa No countries in southern Africa explicitly require the use of SEA, though South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (No.107 of 1998) makes provision for the development of assessment procedures that aim to ensure that the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programmes are considered (DEAT 2000). Similarly, clause 1 of the appendix of Mozambique’s EIA Regulations (No.76 of 1998) stipulates a number of programme-level activities that require an “environmental impact study”, and Malawi’s Environmental Management Act (No. 23 of 1996) includes “major policy reforms” as an activity requiring an EIA. Perhaps the most exciting new laws regarding the use of SEA in the region are the draft Environmental Management Bills for Swaziland and Namibia. Both countries have drafted framework Acts that explicitly require SEAs for new legislation, regulations, policies, programmes or plans. Whilst the Swazi Bill was given royal assent in November 2002, the Namibian government has still not finalised its law, which has been under discussion since 1995. Other countries currently working on new EA legislation are Botswana, Seychelles, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. In the case of Mauritius, the government is currently in the process of revising its 1991 Environmental Protection Act, which will include clauses that require the use of SEA. Source: Tarr (2003) 1 This section draws heavily from Tarr (2003) 127 Africa development Community) level aimed at harmonising such policies and laws. A major constraint remains the lack of institutional resources to adequately guide, administer or control EA processes, or to establish and maintain systems to monitor the implementation of EAs at any level. Many countries in the region have committed themselves to sustainable development and have adopted national constitutions that oblige the State to balance economic development with the long-term needs of the people and the sensitivities of the natural environment. However these constitutional foundations still require to be translated into action on-the-ground. It is often argued that Africans have a long tradition of considering the environment in decision- making. Because the economies of southern African countries and peoples’ livelihoods (as elsewhere in Africa) rely disproportionately on natural resources, and because nature features so strongly in cultural beliefs and customs, it is furthermore assumed that Africans value their environment as much, if not more than people in the West value theirs. Whilst these assumptions may be true, a number of factors severely distort reality (Box 6.2). Box 6.2: Socio-economic and political context for planning and SEA in southern Africa Various factors have shaped the difficult socio-economic and political circumstances that, to a large extent, dictate the way planning is executed in southern Africa: decades of oppression, resource mining, aculturalization and poor post-colonial governance. “Decision-making is theoretically a rational process that strives for the good of the community in the long term (Nilsson and Dalkmann 2001). However, the pressures (be they external or personal greed) on high level decision makers in southern Africa are such that planning is often driven by forces and desires that result in extremely short-term time horizons. Similarly, entrepreneurs operating in developing countries with inadequate laws and inefficient bureaucracies are, all too often, driven by quick profits rather than longer-term returns. This is exacerbated by the perception that developing countries tend to be unstable and that their investments are “unsafe”. Thus, many professional planners regard the decisions of politicians and private sector developers as environmentally and socially unsound and thus unsustainable. Indeed, it could be argued that the fast-growing economies of southern Africa are being built on a platform of unsustainable projects, many of which have been initiated in the absence of policies, plans and programmes. The situation in southern Africa is perhaps not significantly different from that found elsewhere, as research has shown that rationality in real decision-making processes is usually very limited (Nida- Rümelin, 1997) and decisions are usually driven by values and political considerations (Weston 2000). Partidario (2000) and other authors suggest that SEA works best where well-structured, rational planning processes exist. Moreover, Nilsson and Dalkmann (2001) report that there are very few examples of SEA influencing policy level decisions. The latter are typically characterised by non- rational processes. This is the challenging setting within which to promote concepts such as SEA in southern Africa”. Source: Tarr (2003) At the regional level, SADC’s Strategy for Environment and Sustainable Development (SADC ELMS, 1994), approved in 1996, takes a broad approach which focuses on “keeping the poor majority of people at the front and centre of the new development agenda for economic growth, poverty alleviation and environmental protection”. To meet this challenge, it identifies the need to undertake environmental, economic and equity impact assessments (EIA3) - in all key development policies, plans and decisions as a crucial step in meeting this 128 challenge (Box 6.3). This approach has much in common with the idea of sustainability analysis (see Chapter 8) and has yet to be tested. ` Box 6.3: EIA3 in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The SADC Strategy for Environment and Sustainable Development (SADC ELMS, 1994) states (p iii): “Throughout the SADC region, the largely separate policies and programmes for economic reform, social progress and environmental improvement must be increasingly integrated in a single agenda and strategy for sustainable development. The new agenda needs to be anchored and reinforced by incorporating impact assessments as an integral part of decision-making in at least three key respects. • assessing the likely environmental impacts of economic policies and activities; • assessing the likely economic impacts of environmental policies and measures; and • assessing the likely equity impacts of both economic and environmental policies. Although there are few absolutes in public policy, at least one should prevail in the SADC region. If EIA3 review of a proposed policy or programme indicates that it will not lead to at least some improvement in the living conditions and prospects of the poor majority, then a sustainable alternative must be found that does”. The Secretariat for Eastern African Coastal Area Management (SEACAM), based in Mozambique, is expanding its Environmental Assessment (EA) programme and is trying to tie it more closely to a broader framework of integrated coastal zone management. SEACAM’s SEA programme will build on the ongoing EA programme and address the cumulative effects of a large number of smaller developments that cannot be captured by the “traditional” project EA. For example, the large number of small tourism developments springing up along the Mozambican coast do not have major environmental and social impacts on their own. However, collectively, they degrade important natural areas and can disrupt local communities. The SEA programme will aim to help regional planners, NGOs and EA managers to better understand and proactively manage the environmental impacts of policies, programmes, sector developments and regional plans. SEACAM has organized one regional SEA workshop for training coastal managers, government EA managers, NGOs and private sector EA consultants. The programme included the preparation and publishing of a regional SEA manual. CSIR Environmentek (South